Quantcast

Best Buy Projectors of 2016 & Comments

geogan

Well-known Member
"the TW7300 finds itself competing with projectors man times more expensive"

Slight typo there... even though I like the sound of "man times more" in a Tim the Toolman Taylor way... ;)
 

Barcoing Mad

Active Member
No, shifting a pixel half a unit diagonally doesn't create '3840 x 2160 resolution'. It creates two overlapping 1920x1080 images. Not the same thing. The overlapping areas don't constitute additional pixels.
 

TorTorden

Member
Also, something to be aware off.

Projectors can't do HDR.

They just don't have the brightness, and they might never have it. Just adding a more powerful light source will destroy black levels, and thus any point of HDR.

That said, I have a panasonic 65dx900, and I find HDR woefully underwhelming.
Apart from Pacific Rim I have yet to see UHD-HDR movie I didn't find the image from the blueray more appealing, so hardly much of a loss.
And granted I haven't tested OLED, but I doubt even they would truly suit a dark room, film viewing environment.

Also there is the 'x' factor with light casters.
I just haven't been able to pin it down, but a projected image is something special.
Might be because the image is reflected and not emitted directly, but I'm just guessing.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
Also, something to be aware off.

Projectors can't do HDR.

They just don't have the brightness, and they might never have it. Just adding a more powerful light source will destroy black levels, and thus any point of HDR.
They can, you just need to spend hundreds of thousands to get it. Go see a Dolby Cinema (dual stack Christie 4K laser), it blows all TV's & projectors out of the water by today's standards. If you are ever in Holland the one in Hilversum is spectacular. Or if you ever fancy a weekend away tie it in with a trip to Amsterdam.
 

TorTorden

Member
They can, you just need to spend hundreds of thousands to get it. Go see a Dolby Cinema (dual stack Christie 4K laser), it blows all TV's & projectors out of the water by today's standards. If you are ever in Holland the one in Hilversum is spectacular. Or if you ever fancy a weekend away tie it in with a trip to Amsterdam.
Right I did somewhat mean, "Home Cinema" projectors.
And sure, it is probably just a matter of time before they can, but we need major, fundamental changes, at in light source, and shielding of unwanted light, before it becomes practical, so quite a few years away yet.
Hopefully this will change in the coming year. But Sony are still the only ones to have a native 4k Home Cinema projectors.

Going out to see a movie these days is so far from my mind, I almost forget cinema's are a thing. :(:(:(

But's that's mostly due to my local one has gone to the dogs.
it went from being one of the prides of my local city, to being staffed by teenagers who couldn't care less, bathrooms you can smell at 20 meters, with two doors closed. :nono::nono::nono:

And that's before the movie.
Which last I saw, granted, was quite a while ago, Guardians of the galaxy.
The picture could be leniently described as grey, and would have been outperformed by the Optoma reviewed here (well granted not quite at the scale)
As for sound, it was undefined, and shrill to the point I observed several people actually cupping or putting thumbs in their ears during big events.

And I can buy the blueray and prepare a homemade meal for four for half the price of a ticked and popcorn for the same.

A trip to Amsterdam isn't precisely in the cards, but if I do however find myself there I will definetely make a visit a priority ;):)
 
Last edited:

raymondo77

Member
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but it's never stopped me before so...

I have a neutral colour lounge (off white, slightly darker), so does that mean it's pointless looking for a projector with decent blacks? The Tw7300 looks really promising, but I can stretch to something more expensive (say with a better contrast ratio/shadow detail) but would it actually be beneficial or does the lack of a "bat cave" nullify the difference?
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
No, shifting a pixel half a unit diagonally doesn't create '3840 x 2160 resolution'. It creates two overlapping 1920x1080 images. Not the same thing. The overlapping areas don't constitute additional pixels.
No but it does a clever trick in producing a very convincing full resolution image that from normal viewing distances is hard to distinguish from the native 4K Sony which I tested together for the reviews. So while what you suggest in term of new additional pixels is technically correct, the end result with the Epson and JVC is very good indeed.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
Projectors can't do HDR.
...but I'm just guessing.
Oh the Epson, JVC and Sony in this round-up can produce wider dynamic range images. But in terms 1000nits on say a Samsung TV compared to the projectors is quite a different beast altogether.
Projectors will struggle to hit the same numbers as the TVs out there as they are completely different technologies which produce their images in completely different ways. But the projectors here do manage to correctly map the PQ EOTF and also produce wider dynamic range images with excellent shadow detail and depth at the low end and still quite convincing highlights given the type of image and the environment they are used in. They will just never compete with TV technology and even Dolby Cinema is less than 500nits Peak. But there are benefits to image quality with HDR on projectors, just not the same as TVs.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but it's never stopped me before so...

I have a neutral colour lounge (off white, slightly darker), so does that mean it's pointless looking for a projector with decent blacks? The Tw7300 looks really promising, but I can stretch to something more expensive (say with a better contrast ratio/shadow detail) but would it actually be beneficial or does the lack of a "bat cave" nullify the difference?
Try and find a dealer who will give you a home demo is the best bit of advice. However, the Epson would perform well in your room as you describe it as the black floor is obviously raised compared to a bat cave room. The others will also work but as you suggest you will be missing the absolute best in terms of contrast when not used in the optimum environment. Which is why I despair when I see some journalists reviewing these machines in bright white rooms, or rooms with just black around the screen. They deserve to be tested and viewed as intended. A good dealer is hard to find, but home demos would be the best way to actually test.
 

Barcoing Mad

Active Member
No but it does a clever trick in producing a very convincing full resolution image that from normal viewing distances is hard to distinguish from the native 4K Sony which I tested together for the reviews. So while what you suggest in term of new additional pixels is technically correct, the end result with the Epson and JVC is very good indeed.
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.
 

jakimp

Well-known Member
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.
yes but if you cant tell it isn't wood from 10' away what is the difference? in this case about 4 7300's for the price of a Sony 550es it seems.
 

iamsludge

Active Member
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.
Being a pedant I would say the two 1080p images don't actually overlap. One image is shown at a time - there is only ever one 1080p image coming out of the lens. The offset images alternate.

It's POV with multiple images and I don't hear anyone complaining that the moving image isn't really a moving image (a series of images giving the convincing illusion of movement same as eshift is a series of images giving the convincing illusion of a higher res image).

That's my take on it anyway.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Our old TV system was two fields of 312.5. We called it 625 line because the field lines were not overlapping, they scanned in between to give a complete frame.

If the pixels from each 1080 are positioned between each other, and not overlapping, then aren't we are creating the perception of 4k? They don't have to be on at the same time to do that.
 

Trending threads

Top Bottom