Is a 4k projector really necessary

[Andrewjvt]

I had a very brief demo of the cheaper 4k projector and to me it never really looked any better than 1080p compared to the 4ktv.

I know the projector gives the true cinematic experience unlike the TV that can be fake or too clear on movies.

So if the true cinematic experience is not super hi Def then maybe a good 1080p projector that has brighter specs a better but unless spending thousands on a higher end one.

What do you guys think

 

[Forever Young]

I had a very brief demo of the cheaper 4k projector and to me it never really looked any better than 1080p compared to the 4ktv.

I know the projector gives the true cinematic experience unlike the TV that can be fake or too clear on movies.

So if the true cinematic experience is not super hi Def then maybe a good 1080p projector that has brighter specs a better but unless spending thousands on a higher end one.

What do you guys think

It is noticeable higher resolution,as HD is to SD. One thing I've noticed about all this HD video and stills is that the quality is getting really good, but it's not very natural looking. With 4k, the picture is so detailed that my brain expects to be able to see it in 3D. The fact its flat is beginning to stand out. But maybe I'm just a weirdo.

 

[duaplex]

In short, no it is not. I have one at home and I can just as easily live with 1080p. The difference in quality does not justify the price jump as there isnt a wow factor. Even when talking about HDR, I have found the projectors to be poor in this regard as they simply are not bright enough. I am talking about projectors costing 5k, 8k, 12, and even 35k

I would hold on a little longer for HDR to get there on the projectors.

Depending on budget I would go for one of the JVC projectors, they will impress you with 1080p.

 

[newlash09]

I have a 4k TV and no 4k player per se. Iam just streaming movies from Netflix most of the time. I still don't know if my Roku UHD or my TV is upscaling images. But everything just looks so great, that I've dumped the idea of buying a uhd player till they come cheap as chips.

I know your query was about a projector and Ian ranting in a different direction. But I fondly hope, you get the drift 🙂

 

[Alantiggger]

Nope, 8K is just around the corner.......

The Truth be told..... NO...... 4K is not necessary ...... NO!

 

[davidf]

To enjoy a film, and for a cinematic experience, a 1080p PJ is all you need. This will allow you a larger picture than many similarly priced TVs.

Where 4K comes in, is not only in the added benefits of Dolby Vision and HDR, and not only allowing you to have a screen four times the size of a 1080p screen with the same quality, but in textures. If you look at the weave of clothing, the pores on a face, the grain of wood etc etc, which make the picture you’re seeing look more natural and believable, and possibly even more 3D like.

As with the comparisons between DVD and Bluray, you only have to look at the individual leaves of a forest of trees, or the individual windows of a cityscape to see that there is more detail there. It won’t be as easily noticeable as the former comparison, as 1080p is already ‘high definition’, a bit like comparing CD to hi-res.

I haven’t yet seen it in 4K, but the opening IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight was always good for a demo, but I’m betting the same scenes in 4K, compared on something like a 10ft screen will show the benefits, particularly the opening cityscape scene before they blow out the window.

So no, 4K isn’t needed to enjoy a film on the big screen, but it should be noticeably better when using a screen of around 8-10ft or more.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

David

Hand on heart, reasonable money no object, would you go for 4K or faux-K right now?

I'm hoping to install a 150 inch screen in a 12'6 x 19' media room with no windows just a door in the not too distant future.

 

[davidf]

David

Hand on heart, reasonable money no object, would you go for 4K or faux-K right now?

I'm hoping to install a 150 inch screen in a 12'6 x 19' media room with no windows just a door in the not too distant future.

If I was to, I wouldn't want to spend too much on one, otherwise you're nudging close to the prices of genuine 4K projectors. That said, the quality of upscaling varies, and high quality upscaling costs, so I doubt I'd really want to go for the cheapest of the faux 4K PJs. For normal screen sizes of 7-9ft, I'd just go for a good quality 1080p PJ like the Sony ones, but as you're going for a screen that's nigh on 13ft, it'd be tempting to seriously consider faux 4K as it should look sharper at that sort of size.

Whatever tech any one projector uses - which is something you'll have to witness for yourself, I'd be tempted to look at the projectors that genuinely accept a full UHD signal. They'll downscale it of course, but other than how well it upscales it, the native resolution of the panel will have an overall effect of how sharp it will be. Some downscale all the way down to 1080, but the Optomas downscale to 1528, which as you can imagine, is preserving more of the original UHD resolution. Plus, less upscaling is needed to get it back up to a representative 4K image, which is why the Optomas are supposedly some of the sharpest looking faux 4K projectors around.

But that's all based on genuine 4K projectors dropping down to the £3.5/4K price point within a year or two - if they're not, and it's going to be more like 4/5 years, then a mid quality faux 4K would be quite attractive. But I'd get a look at some though, as the last thing you want on a 13ft screen is a soft or slightly fuzzy image, or one that's showing pixelled edges, if you know what I mean. I appreciate sharpness is as personal a preference as colour, but I'd want a nice solid, believable image in front of me. Grab a genuine 4K disc that you know pretty well, and see how it comes across for you.

My only gripe is that, if and when you come to sell it on, how are you going to describe it? Are you going to be honest and explain exactly what it does? This could lose you the sale a few times, but you might win round those who are willing to believe what their eyes are telling them - presuming you chose a good one in the first place!

 

[abacus]

The Optoma (And other pixel shift DLP) do not downscale they process the full 4K image then upscales it to split the pixels up, the algorithms choose what combination needs to be sent in the 2 images that are sent to the DLP chip to put 8.3 million pixels on-screen without aberrations.

PDF explaining it here http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf

Note the cheaper projectors use smaller chips that use 4 pixel shift images to put 8.3 million pixels on-screen

Bill

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

I am thinking of the Sony VPLVW285ES, which sells for $5000 plus 8.25% tax here at the moment. I think the UK equivalent is the 260. The next model up here, the 385, is $7000 plus tax. It has an adjustable iris (which a lot of people say is more of a nuisance than a benefit as it keeps adjusting itself constantly throughout the movie) and motorized zoom to cope with 16:9 / 2.35:1 switches. Seeing as most movies are made in 16:9 these days anyway, however, I figure I can put up with the black bars if my Lawrence of Arabia is nigh on 11 feet wide and 4'7" high anyway (beats the snot out of the 26 inch CRTs of old don't it?). I'd rather spend $5K once and be happy than spend $2K, throw that away and have to spend another $5K a few weeks or months later.

The issue I have is that the screen needs to be either be wider than 118 visible inches to fit over my in-walls or under 96 visible inches to fit between them. The in-walls can't be moved further apart because of joists, and I don't want to move them further in either.

A 118 inch visible width 16:9 screen would be a 135 incher, so a 150 incher would do just fine (at about 131 inches visible wide). At, say 137 inch over the frame edges that's small (ahem) enough to fit on my 12'6" wall.

A 96 inch wide 16:9 is "only" a 110 incher, so actually, only about 54% of the screen area (96 x 54 = 5184 sq in, 131 x 73 = 9563 sq in). Also, the 150 incher would cover my rather ugly in-walls and naturally I only want to buy a screen once, so I'd go for the bigger one from the get-go.

Now, assuming I am happy with the picture and sound quality of an acoustically transparent screen material, is my 19 foot room long enough to accomodate the Sony 285 or is the 150 inch screen actually too big for the PJ's zoom to handle? If push comes to shove I can always make an alcove for it in the back wall, as the space behind is an attic, but that's a major pain in the derriere I don't really need. I already have the ceiling power outlet and a conduit for the HDMI cable installed, BTW although I might want to move them further back if I have to. The space above is an attic too, so no big deal.

 

[abacus]

I am thinking of the Sony VPLVW285ES, which sells for $5000 plus 8.25% tax here at the moment. I think the UK equivalent is the 260. The next model up here, the 385, is $7000 plus tax. It has an adjustable iris (which a lot of people say is more of a nuisance than a benefit as it keeps adjusting itself constantly throughout the movie) and motorized zoom to cope with 16:9 / 2.35:1 switches. Seeing as most movies are made in 16:9 these days anyway, however, I figure I can put up with the black bars if my Lawrence of Arabia is nigh on 11 feet wide and 4'7" high anyway (beats the snot out of the 26 inch CRTs of old don't it?). I'd rather spend $5K once and be happy than spend $2K, throw that away and have to spend another $5K a few weeks or months later.

The dynamic Iris can be turned off on the larger model for easy comparison (It is also shown in this comparison here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeFUsR056SA) however if you going for auto zoom for different picture sizes then go for the larger model as you will soon get fed up keep changing it manually.

Bill

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

If I have a 16:9 screen what does the zoom do to a 2.35:1? Stretch it vertically so Ronnie Corbett looks like John Cleese? If that's the case I think I'd rather put up with the black bars.

 

[ellisdj]

actually forget that sorry