What's it like living with a projector?

Gary Lightfoot wrote:
wrote:
I was all set to buy a 30" LCD screen, but just to check things out
I've borrowed a PJ from work (Sanyo PRO-X multiverse) and it was
pretty damn good considering that it is a cheapy and not especially
well set up.
The point of my question is, what is it like to have a PJ as the only
way of watching TV? Doeas the fan noise annoy? Does the warm up time
annoy? Does it show too many transmission artefacts too well?

Please can you folks out there with PJs let me in on the reality of
living with one.

I agree with Nick, and think you should have a tv or similar as well.

The two main reasonswhy I say this is that if you watch the pj as much
as you now watch tv, you'll need new lamps every 6months to a year. At
between £300 and £400 per lamp, it works out very expensive.

That implies between 60 and 120 hours of TV per week. If you're watching
that much you need a psychiatrist, not a second TV.

I watch maybe 24 hours a week, including a DVD or two at weekends. A 4000
hour bulb (even assuming the last 1000 will be pretty unusable) will
therefore last me two and a half years.

My other reason is that I think movies should be larger than tv, or
they lose their impact. Can you imagine seeing Coronation Street twice
the size of a blockbuster like Gladeator or Independance Day?

That's just a silly argument.

If you want to take advantage of the contrast ratio a pj has (less
than a CRT), then you need very good light control. The black of the
image will only ever be as dark as the room allows, and contrast will
suffer too. If you watch with a lot of light, a grey screen can help
reduce the effects. Always being in a dark room to watch tv can get a
bit tiresome after a while as well, so you may need a much brighter pj
to combat the light, as well as a grey screen to make it more
watchable.

It doesn't have to be dark - you can have recessed or low-level lighting
that doesn't shine on the screen and makes little difference to the
contrast.

G

"Geoff Winkless" ] wrote in message
news:41382e5f$0
snip

It doesn't have to be dark - you can have recessed or low-level lighting
that doesn't shine on the screen and makes little difference to the
contrast.

G


I'm sure that depends on the pj and the technology - a typical entry-range
LCD home cinema pj needs all the darkness you can give it IMHO.

James

"Geoff Winkless" ] wrote in message
news:41382e5f$0
snip

It doesn't have to be dark - you can have recessed or low-level lighting
that doesn't shine on the screen and makes little difference to the
contrast.

G


I'm sure that depends on the pj and the technology - a typical entry-range
LCD home cinema pj needs all the darkness you can give it IMHO.

James

A lot easier than living with a woman!!!! ;~)

Nige

A lot easier than living with a woman!!!! ;~)

Nige

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:32:38 +0100, "Nige"
wrote:

A lot easier than living with a woman!!!! ;~)

Try living with a trained signger - both a woman *and* a projector!!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:32:38 +0100, "Nige"
wrote:

A lot easier than living with a woman!!!! ;~)

Try living with a trained signger - both a woman *and* a projector!!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Geoff Winkless wrote:

That implies between 60 and 120 hours of TV per week. If you're
watching that much you need a psychiatrist, not a second TV.

I have no idea of the opriginal posters viewing habits, but thought it
prudent to mention the lamp cost as a consideration, especialy as the
lamp life varies from pj to pj.

My other reason is that I think movies should be larger than tv, or
they lose their impact. Can you imagine seeing Coronation Street
twice the size of a blockbuster like Gladeator or Independance Day?

That's just a silly argument.

Why is it? I think it's a valid point. Having Corry dwarf a
blockbuster movie seems silly to me, and that's not just my opinion,
but we're all different. If you're happy watching everythin that way
then that's all that matters.

Initialy it may look great, as the 'wow' factor of a big screen is
present, but after a while, seeing a blockbuster movie at half the
size of News at 10 can be somewhat of a let down. YMMV.

It doesn't have to be dark - you can have recessed or low-level
lighting that doesn't shine on the screen and makes little
difference to the contrast.

You'll be surprised. Why buy a projector with a limited CR and then
reduce it further? If you get a high lumen pj to combat the ambient
light (and/or a grey screen with gain), that will help of course, but
newer pjs with home cinema in mind are generaly producing lower lumens
which will suffer with the lights on. A 3 chip DLP would be quite
bright though.

Ever measured contrast with and without lights on? It makes a lot of
difference and is more than perceivable. The screen will only ever be
as black as the ambient light in the room will allow, and makes a
measurable difference to contrast (peak white remains the same). Of
course, it's down to the
individual how picky they are on issues like that (and black level),
but again, just thought I'd mention it in as it doesn't hurt to have
as many opinions available for the OP make a decision on what they
consider to be important.

Gary.

Geoff Winkless wrote:

That implies between 60 and 120 hours of TV per week. If you're
watching that much you need a psychiatrist, not a second TV.

I have no idea of the opriginal posters viewing habits, but thought it
prudent to mention the lamp cost as a consideration, especialy as the
lamp life varies from pj to pj.

My other reason is that I think movies should be larger than tv, or
they lose their impact. Can you imagine seeing Coronation Street
twice the size of a blockbuster like Gladeator or Independance Day?

That's just a silly argument.

Why is it? I think it's a valid point. Having Corry dwarf a
blockbuster movie seems silly to me, and that's not just my opinion,
but we're all different. If you're happy watching everythin that way
then that's all that matters.

Initialy it may look great, as the 'wow' factor of a big screen is
present, but after a while, seeing a blockbuster movie at half the
size of News at 10 can be somewhat of a let down. YMMV.

It doesn't have to be dark - you can have recessed or low-level
lighting that doesn't shine on the screen and makes little
difference to the contrast.

You'll be surprised. Why buy a projector with a limited CR and then
reduce it further? If you get a high lumen pj to combat the ambient
light (and/or a grey screen with gain), that will help of course, but
newer pjs with home cinema in mind are generaly producing lower lumens
which will suffer with the lights on. A 3 chip DLP would be quite
bright though.

Ever measured contrast with and without lights on? It makes a lot of
difference and is more than perceivable. The screen will only ever be
as black as the ambient light in the room will allow, and makes a
measurable difference to contrast (peak white remains the same). Of
course, it's down to the
individual how picky they are on issues like that (and black level),
but again, just thought I'd mention it in as it doesn't hurt to have
as many opinions available for the OP make a decision on what they
consider to be important.

Gary.

Graham wrote:

On the flip side, I setup a video conferencing room for a company I
once worked for. We used a Sony VPL-PX20 and a Stewart Greyhawk 72"
screen. This gave an outstanding picture even when there was
considerable natural light in the room (brighter in fact that the tv
next door). I think the contrast was definitely helped by the
screen
material which was reflecting so much of that light back into the
room, even though it was expensive.

Considering the Greyhawk is less than unity gain (was 0.85 but is now
0.95IIRC), it was doing a great job. Stewart screens are very
expensive unfortunately, but they are considered the best in the
world. They've even won two Oscars! Another thing is that the dealer
price here is more expensive than if you bought one at retail direct
from the US. Strange but true.

I was fortunate enough to see a Firehawk demo with a split screen
(half FH, half white - possibly Studiotek), there was plenty of light
coming in through the windows, and they put on all the room lights on,
but the difference between the two screens was literaly like night and
day - lots more detail in the FH side, whilst the white side was very
washed out and hardly watchable. I think the Firehawk is a fantastic
screen, which probably explains why a lot of people in the US still
buy them, even with full light control.

Of course, this was setup for a business use and the projector
wasn't
one of the "home cinema" types, however it does show that having
blackout conditions isn't always completely necessary.

Data projectors are generaly brighter for that very reason, but who
needs good contrast for looking at PowerPoint presentations?

Data projectors often don't have good on board video processing, so
unless you have an external processor between the pj and the source,
an HT optimised pj is your best bet.

Gary.