Is this normal for a modern projector?

ifor

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2002
114
12
18,595
I've just replaced an old BenQ projector with an Optoma HD23. I've had to mount the Optoma about four feet closer to the screen to fill it. The Optoma has very limited zoom compared to the BenQ. Also with the BenQ 16:9 images and 4:3 images would both fill the screen widthways. With the Optoma it seems to be the depth rather than the width that stays constant. This means that a 4:3 image sits small in the centre of he screen and I can't even zoom to fill it. Is this normal or have I got some setup wrong?
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Different projectors will have different throw ratios. You tend to get a 2x zoom lens with PJ's around the £2k mark, and 1.2x zoom under that price point (a very general rule of thumb).

Also, moving a PJ four feet closer to the screen can have quite an effect on how big a picture you will get.

Another thing I just thought of - the BenQ might have been a native 4:3 panel, whereas the HD23 will be a widescreen panel. This may affect things, but it is too late for my brain to process what effect this will have - it switched off hours ago :)
 

ifor

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2002
114
12
18,595
David@FrankHarvey said:
Different projectors will have different throw ratios. You tend to get a 2x zoom lens with PJ's around the £2k mark, and 1.2x zoom under that price point (a very general rule of thumb).

Also, moving a PJ four feet closer to the screen can have quite an effect on how big a picture you will get.

Another thing I just thought of - the BenQ might have been a native 4:3 panel, whereas the HD23 will be a widescreen panel. This may affect things, but it is too late for my brain to process what effect this will have - it switched off hours ago :)
Thanks David. It's the lack of zoom which really disappoints. With the BenQ it was massive making projector placement very flexible. With the Optoma there is only a very short positioning window to ensure filling and not overfilling the screen when in 16:9, but then it doesn't fill when in 4:3. I imagine the BenQ is natively a 4:3 machine. Watching widescreen with it would be equivalent to an old 4:3 TV where the top and bottom were blacked out.
 

ifor

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2002
114
12
18,595
abacus said:
Make sure the projector is set to convert all 4:3 pictures to 16:9.

Hope this helps

Bill
Bill, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that I stretch a 4:3 image to 16:9? If so, why would I want to do that?
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
ifor said:
abacus said:
Make sure the projector is set to convert all 4:3 pictures to 16:9.

Hope this helps

Bill
Bill, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that I stretch a 4:3 image to 16:9? If so, why would I want to do that?

Because that will stop you complaining that it isn't filling the screen.

As you say, the old projector wasn't using the top and bottom of the screen when watching 16:9, the new one doesn't use the left and right of the screen when watching 4:3. Given there isn't much 4:3 around any more I know which I'd prefer. The projector is working exactly as it's supposed to, you either fudge it to fill the screen with 4:3 by stretching it or you get used to it only being a 4:3 image, I don't really see what the problem is. Presumably you're now getting a bigger picture with 16:9 because you no longer have any black bars at the top and bottom, that has to be better right?
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
As The_Lhc states, as a rule, it's advisable to preserve the content's original aspect ratio. (So 16:9 content is displayed using a 16:9 ratio; 4:3 is displayed as 4:3; and so on.)

Since there is no standard aspect ratio for all content, you will inevitably get horizontal or vertical borders with some material. This should be preferable to watching a stretched image in "fattyvision" (or potentially "skinnyvision," depending on how you set the projector up).

It sounds like your projector is reproducing the original aspect ratio, which is generally upheld as the ideal.
 

Son_of_SJ

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2009
325
0
18,890
strapped for cash said:
As The_Lhc states, as a rule, it's advisable to preserve the content's original aspect ratio

I would entirely agree with that; I have no problem with black bars top and bottom, or at the sides, if the original content was not in 16:9 aspect ratio.
 

ifor

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2002
114
12
18,595
Thanks all. I certainly don't want to stretch the image, which I why I was questioning what abacus said in case I was missing something.

No I don't get a bigger 16:9 image, but I do get a smaller 4:3 image. I would have to get a wider screen to get bigger 16:9, which I suppose I could do at some stage.. It would mean moving the projector backward too.

it's a shame the zoom isn't bigger because that would sort it.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
ifor said:
No I don't get a bigger 16:9 image, but I do get a smaller 4:3 image.

With respect, that doesn't make any sense, you said previously that when watching 16:9 movies you'd get black bars top and bottom. One would assume that you no longer get that? In which case it must be filling the screen top to bottom which it (apparently) wasn't doing before.

I would have to get a wider screen to get bigger 16:9, which I suppose I could do at some stage..

Oh, right, what aspect ratio is your current screen 16:9 or 4:3?

It would mean moving the projector backward too.

But you wanted to do that didn't you?

it's a shame the zoom isn't bigger because that would sort it.

I really don't understand, you first stated that you had to mount the new projector 4 feet closer to the screen, moving it back would make the image BIGGER, which is what you want isn't it?
 

ifor

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2002
114
12
18,595
It's a 4:3 screen. I had to move the projector forward to accommodate 16:9. I hadn't realised that the 4:3 image would be smaller than I was used to. Clear?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts