Sold my projector and screen.

[yromj]

Yeah, eyes at 1/3 the height of the screen. It does make other factors more difficult such as back row viewing, placement of center (there's the softball pitch to Jeff for his acoustically transparent screen), etc. though. Tee's screen is at the correct height, and mine is for the back row and it does feel a little more natural. (BTW, this is the primary reason I HATE/LOATHE/DESPISE putting TVs above fireplaces).

John

 

[yromj]

Bats, your point is a good one though about how much more screen you do get when the size increases. At first thought it seems that a 120" screen should equal 2 60"ers. But when you think about the screen being measured diagonally, that would actually be two 60" screens corner to corner, such as top right of one to the bottom left of the other. So, in reality it's the same as 4 60" screens.

This is the same reason that 4k will have the most impact on the projector market. If a 60" screen and 120" screen have the same resolution, ie number of pixels, the pixels on the 120" have to be 4x as big as the ones on the 60". When the pixels get too big, we start to see them individually, which we geeks refer to as "screen door effect". While we may not be able to see the pixels per se in a 120" 1080p image at say 11', the image may very well appear to be sharper for a 4k image on the same size screen at the same distance.

And yes, Jomari, I agree this is a great discussion.

John

 

[jomari]

Yeah, eyes at 1/3 the height of the screen. It does make other factors more difficult such as back row viewing, placement of center (there's the softball pitch to Jeff for his acoustically transparent screen), etc. though. Tee's screen is at the correct height, and mine is for the back row and it does feel a little more natural. (BTW, this is the primary reason I HATE/LOATHE/DESPISE putting TVs above fireplaces).

John

crap. my wife wants to do this, i told her its not a good idea, nor good for the neck.

This is the same reason that 4k will have the most impact on the projector market. If a 60" screen and 120" screen have the same resolution, ie number of pixels, the pixels on the 120" have to be 4x as big as the ones on the 60". When the pixels get too big, we start to see them individually, which we geeks refer to as "screen door effect". While we may not be able to see the pixels per se in a 120" 1080p image at say 11', the image may very well appear to be sharper for a 4k image on the same size screen at the same distance.

with my HD70 pj, i did have a bit of a screendoor effect, but does it still apply to nowadays? i think its because i projected my HD70 up to about 110 back then, which wasnt necessarily the best er... screen size? made the pixels look too big?

on a sidenote, i remember a good couple of colleagues here have the beloved....

keep it up folks! i love great discussions like this!

 

[Deleted member 133]

I realize that it's not possible for most folks, but you can have both a flat screen-based HT, and a screen/projector-based HT. You can always mount a flat screen behind a movable screen. Or, less practically, you can set up two systems in two different rooms. Since there are advantages with either set-up, that way you can choose the set-up depending on mood, source, size of audience, etc. Of my HT viewing, I do 80% of it in my family room HT (flat screen) and only 20% in the main (basement) HT (screen/projector.)

(Coincidentally, my wife's asking about the possibility of setting up a third system, likely only 2.1, in the living room, for background music and very casual TV viewing. Since I've already got all the components sitting in storage, including a 32" flat screen, I'll probably set something temporary up in the next few weeks to see if she likes it, and then go out and buy a slightly bigger inexpensive screen if she does.)

Thanks for the lob ball John, but I think that the fact that I'm the only Annex member that I know of who is using an acoustically transparent screen set-up, which, as I've said too many times to count, is an essential element to getting the sound "right" IMO, means that it's simply either impractical, or impossible, for everyone else. Otherwise more of you would be doing so!

(Ironically, the larger the screen size, the more the room cries out for a behind-the-screen centre, and in some cases L/R, speaker placement, while if you were to shrink the screen size to something extremely small, the "need" completely disappears since the centre channel and picture can become effectively co-located. In other words, to my ears, a very big screen set-up with a centre speaker placed either above or below the screen sounds almost as "off" as if it were placed to either side of the screen. Once you're used to it being behind the screen, in acoustic alignment with the F L/R speakers where it should be, you really notice it when it's not.)

Jeff

 

[Zing]

(Coincidentally, my wife's asking about the possibility of setting up a third system,

I love her.

BTW, is this the same woman you had the hide the SVS Ultra from? :eusa-whistle:

 

[Deleted member 133]

(Coincidentally, my wife's asking about the possibility of setting up a third system,

I love her.

BTW, is this the same woman you had the hide the SVS Ultra from? :eusa-whistle:

I'm thinking alien abduction without me noticing.

 

[jomari]

I wish I could do acoustic transparent screens,but I can't even find decent space especially here in California. You guys saw the prices!

It is logical to go that route aside from aesthetics, gives you a greater screen size. Hiding everything behind it would be awesome. (Does the subwoofer cause any effect to the screen?)

I do have another question related to the screen door effect or pixelation....

Do you get bigger pixels when you ( a 100 inch screen as a constant)...
1. Put the pj as far as possible, with the throw at it closest (like a camera at 18mm) or...
2. Put the PJ closer and zoom out (like a camera at 55mm)...

You still get the 100, but which would give you a better picture, if not reducing see?

Sorry using phone...

 

[Batman]

^^ You would be more likely to see the pixels when zooming, so you'd want to go with option 1 (of the two listed) for an install. Still though the more I think about it as I'm typing, I don't think it matters. Since you're not changing aspect ratios (going from 16:9 to 2.35:1 for example) you're not zooming to crop black bars, and therefore, not losing pixels so you're effectively using two different methods to fill the same amount of space. If you put the projector out in front of its specified throw window for the screen size you most likely won't fill the screen even if you max out the zoom of the lens....

 

[Deleted member 133]

It is logical to go that route aside from aesthetics, gives you a greater screen size. Hiding everything behind it would be awesome. (Does the subwoofer cause any effect to the screen?)

Ummm... there's not enough acoustically transparent material on the planet to cover all of my subwoofers.

I suppose the serious answer is that it depends on the screen. I have a Draper Salara system that is suspended from the ceiling. When it's fully down, the bottom edge sits just above my two front subs. It's heavily weighted, but not fixed at the bottom, and there is absolutely no movement, and certainly none due to its proximity to the subs.

My centre speaker "stack" sits directly behind the screen, with at most an inch of clearance. Again, there's absolutely no physical effect on the screen, even with the two woofers and four ports so close.

My front L/R speaker stacks sit just outside of the screen, not behind it. That's just because of screen size (92") / geometry for the size of room. It would make no difference on the screen if they were behind it. (With my layout, the viewing angles are equivalent to sitting halfway up and dead centre in a large movie theatre, in terms of the screen image presented to you. That's how I planned it.)

And of course, as I've said before, you cannot notice any difference between having the screen up, or down, with respect to the centre speaker stack's sound. That's what acoustically transparent means - at least in the case of the Draper AT1200 material that I'm using.

The system / material was not cheap. Something like $3200CDN when I bought it several years ago. However it should last me for life; at least in the room it's in.

If someone is starting from scratch, has the space, and can afford it, I can't imagine them going any other route if they're planning on using a screen / projector combo.

Jeff

 

[jomari]

i hope you dont mind me asking, can you show me your rig? id love to study your setup, seems like an awesome build.

i guess my problem ever since the beginning, is that i have never had the opportunity to have a dedicated home theater room, let alone a living space that could accomodate it.

i wish i can say that now, but our house buying has moved from a stand alone house good for a good 5-8 years, into a starter home. the starter homes here are pretty much condo's, townhomes and single detached homes. as much as we can afford single detached homes, it didnt sound good to buy a 3 bedroom house with 1000 sq ft.

i digress.

i guess i was wondering if it would 'move' when the subwoofers are hitting certain lower frequencies. did you have the screen 'weighted' i guess?

i wish i could do fixed too.

my only solution is going akimbo, with the tv in the media center, and the pj just mounted on the lip of the unit.

it sort of looks like this,

but with the three unit one accomodating a 60 inside.

the pj screen will 'hang' on the top of the unit or will make an ugly valance to cover it up.

 

[yromj]

I wish I could do acoustic transparent screens,but I can't even find decent space especially here in California. You guys saw the prices!

It is logical to go that route aside from aesthetics, gives you a greater screen size. Hiding everything behind it would be awesome. (Does the subwoofer cause any effect to the screen?)

I do have another question related to the screen door effect or pixelation....

Do you get bigger pixels when you ( a 100 inch screen as a constant)...
1. Put the pj as far as possible, with the throw at it closest (like a camera at 18mm) or...
2. Put the PJ closer and zoom out (like a camera at 55mm)...

You still get the 100, but which would give you a better picture, if not reducing see?

Sorry using phone...

As T7 typed himself into, it doesn't matter. It boils down to pixels per square inch. I just looked at my screen and I could see the pixels about 6' away from a 1080p picture on a 102" screen.

John

 

[Towen7]

That setup screams for a drop down, acoustically transparent screen.

 

[jomari]

I wish I could do acoustic transparent screens,but I can't even find decent space especially here in California. You guys saw the prices!

It is logical to go that route aside from aesthetics, gives you a greater screen size. Hiding everything behind it would be awesome. (Does the subwoofer cause any effect to the screen?)

I do have another question related to the screen door effect or pixelation....

Do you get bigger pixels when you ( a 100 inch screen as a constant)...
1. Put the pj as far as possible, with the throw at it closest (like a camera at 18mm) or...
2. Put the PJ closer and zoom out (like a camera at 55mm)...

You still get the 100, but which would give you a better picture, if not reducing see?

Sorry using phone...

As T7 typed himself into, it doesn't matter. It boils down to pixels per square inch. I just looked at my screen and I could see the pixels about 6' away from a 1080p picture on a 102" screen.

John

very interesting, very interesting indeed.

i guess im looking at it from a photographers perspective.

removing certain variables (more specifically, the f stop), i thought that if you take a picture from a 18-55mm wait...

hmm.

it doesnt matter. eureka!

so, if i am to take a picture of a specific area at 35mm,

and i take the picture with the same controlled variables, only this time farther, maxing it at 55mm but using my feet to 'zoom' in to get the same shot...

it wont matter because... er.... the picture still stays the same right?

semi eureka then...

hmm.

 

[jomari]

That setup screams for a drop down, acoustically transparent screen.

if i go acoustically transparent the wallet will go transparent as well. :happy-smileygiantred:

i think i might have to reconsider my options, fudge, might even have to do the beloved LCR setup me and Yesfan was laughing about in another thread.

 

[Towen7]

I bet it can be done for a lot less than you think. Search for prices on Elite screens. I'm pretty sure they have an AT version.

 

[Towen7]

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Elite_S ... o_1080.htm

 

[Batman]

^^ Damn, even cheaper than I expected, even for Elite Screens. :shock:

 

[jomari]

thanks t7, bats, i saw that on amazon... hmm...

time to think think think.

so what yall think of my understanding of my previous question, the light house thingy? did it make sense, or am i overanalyzing it?

 

[Batman]

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't think it applies. You're using the same amount of pixels either way.

 

[jomari]

yeah, i kinda got that smirk on my face after thinking about it.

much a fussin over nuthin i guess. at least i know my brains gone thru a workout this week. :happy-smileygiantred:

so, another thing i always wondered, anyone considered doing rear projector method?

i know it takes a lot of space, but i wonder if people really would consider it with the right pj (ie short throw)...

anyone done it before? experiences?