But it is the same meathod early DLP rear projection TV’s used which is considered inferior
Projector vs large TV - Bang for buck
- Thread starter Yucca
- Start date
But it is the same meathod early DLP rear projection TV’s used which is considered inferior
Probably, if you're doing it right. If your just doing it on a budget, then it might not be. I'd probably be having 2 or 4 in the ceiling anyway, but that would be for Atmos. Then have the regular 5 speakers from the 5.1 in the walls, if that's the way you want to go. Not really sure how having them in the ceiling would be cheaper than in the walls though?
I do agree some of the triple price projectors have better blacks, colour and contrast. But when it comes to 4k and showing the full individual pixels there is nothing wrong with the UHD65.
As Rroff pointed out it’s not the same as interlaced video or half resolution. There is a massive difference between the UHD65 4k and the fake 4k projectors that do not display 8mp per frame. With how amazing the UHD65 handles 4k it’s not fair to lump it together with fake 4k projectors that look terrible. What I was trying to get across is the UHD65 is not like the other fake projectors which lose over 2million pixels per frame and look poor at 4k. The UHD65 doesn’t lose pixels per frame and looks great.
Not its not the same method. That's what we are trying to explain. If you run the Optima next to the fake projectors there is a massive difference as its not the same method.
Those early DLP rear projection televisions used exactly the same method that the UHD60 is using - they were not interlaced - the DLP chip had half the pixels of an HD chip and flashed them twice
Certainly true that it its making better use of the pixels than other "fauxk" projectors but its still not a native 4k projector and it still gives and inferior version of '4k' features like WGC and HDR
Its not exactly the same method and its not just flashing them twice its far more then that.
WGC and HDR are not 4k features and are unrelated to this discussion on native 4k. Yes the triple price projectors have better WGC and HDR although HDR is debatable as a lot people prefer the way the optima looks with HDR but that is personally preference. But that's not what we are talking about.
The other devices that flash twice do not display the same results as a native 4k projector. The Optima does produce the same results as a native 4k projector when talking about the 4k element. That alone should tell you its not the same method. When talking about the 4k part and if you balance native 4k projectors so they have the same brightness, colours, contrast or as close a you can get to the Optima. Then the Optima displays 4k as good as the native 4k.
There is nothing wrong with the 4k on the Optima and if displaying 4k is your goal then the Optima does a perfect job at it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I would never dream of replacing my main TV with a projector, too many compromises for day to day watching, hence why we have a dedicated cinema room for the projector.
A projector is an additional investment over and above a TV not a replacement imho.
A projector is an additional investment over and above a TV not a replacement imho.
This. I would seriously reconsider if it will be the only screen, they are so washed out in daylight that I wouldn't even consider it.
You've banged on for 4 paged of this thread, we get that you think your projector is good - its still not a true native 4k projector.
HDR and WGC are the best part of the current UHD spec and with UHD Blu Ray, Digital files, Amazon and Netflix all supporting them anyone looking for 4k performance will want to use those features and the optoma offers an inferior presentation.
Just would like to re-iterate this point. I'm pretty sure I said it at the start of the thread too. A projector isn't a good replacement for a TV. Almost everyone will agree with that (except some people of course
). It just isn't a good replacement, and watching strictly on such a screen, for example, will take some of the "magic" away from watching a movie on that screen. If it's for a dedicated cinema room though, then yeah, no TV required.
Well that is all we had till now and in past it was SD inc massive Cinema screens and was watchable, I could see the Blocks when I had my set up but I sat further back and real 4K is crazy priced for now.
I only went Projector as I hate LCD but got a hardly used Kuro LX5090 (peep died) so lucky me, unlucky him and OLED has launched and is maturing now.
I only went Projector as I hate LCD but got a hardly used Kuro LX5090 (peep died) so lucky me, unlucky him and OLED has launched and is maturing now.
Glad someone said it
Must be missing something then. I am very happy with my 1080p picture on a 120" screen size.
In fact, I rip most of my movies to 720p to save hdd space (It's amazing how quickly 12TB fills up), and I am more than happy with that too. Although I'd usually watch the BR first in 1080p before ripping it.
Surrounds can be in ceiling - though I'm not fan of it myself but yeah front left and right definitely should be around ear height and in the direction of the screen - IIRC there is a setup where you can ceiling mount the centre speaker and bounce it off the screen though which supposedly can work quite well but not something I know much about.
Suspended
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,604
The only speakers in the ceiling should be Atmos speakers, or if you have no interest in proper speaker setup and just want audio like in a lift or bedroom.
Depends a bit on the audio (format) system you are using - some are mastered to reproduce audio with a traditional setup like THX, etc. which expects speakers placed around the listener in a fairly conventional style and height while in other cases just having the surrounds slightly differently positioned to the fronts can help to give more distinction and heighten the perception of surround even if not as good as a proper setup.