4K upgrade yes or no?

Very interesting read. Thanks Peake. Theres a real suggestion there not to put resolution above contrast ratio and colour saturation. Also, that 1080 OLED would better 4k LED/LCD. On the last point, I think the caveat is that the OLED must not have all the problems seen at LG forum. So that statement alone seems more in theory than current availability.

My current PJ is a Panasonic PTAE1000 with Darbee Darblet attached! Always liked the image very much and have no other comparison. How would any of todays PJs compare for my viewing experience against the old PTAE1000? Also, should i buy a 65 inch TV and a PJ or would you just by a 75 inch tv and no PJ?
 
UpgradingAgain (and others) do yourself a favour and demo all 3 (Sony/Epson/JVC) to see if you do actually need native 4k.

And as for gaming input lag, avoid the JVC range if you care about online/competitive gaming. For single player campaigns and the like JVC are fine imho.

Also, remember to factor in the laser cost saving versus lamps if you are a heavy user.

My room is not totally light controlled but am heavily leaning towards the JVC range due to their improved brightness this year and the flexibility to open/close the iris to suit a variety of room styles/treatments.

I think the colour issue is more important to me than native 4k resolution and I project 120" wide.

As to whether to upgrade or wait, well plenty of people have been waiting and waiting for a few years now. I'm very tempted to upgrade soon but don't feel the need to. I think the new brighter JVC will help me enjoy the pj more across the lighter months though.

I also think JVC might move to a regular two year upgrade cycle so the current range may be current for two years not one. And I expect next upgrade all 3 in the range to have the new (this year) wire grid but only the top two (if that) to be native 4k.
 
Until now (digitally speaking), most upgrades were pretty much higher res pjs and increasing on/off contrast, with just tech improvements here and there. Now we have 4k, higher spec standards, and HDR for example, but no source material just yet (UHD BD coming soon soon...), or pjs that can do it all, plus it's yet to be completely finalised and understood - just look at the threads here where people are telling us what we're going to get, and how it works, only for their understanding of it to change on almost a daily basis. It's all just so much noise right now.

Until now it was relatively easy to jump in at any time due to the incremental changes we used to get, but now its not so easy - 4k displays with some of the current UHD BD spec and capability, fau 4k with different spec but no true 4k (if you sit close enough, there is a visible difference), so it seems a bit premature to buy right now unless you just need an upgrade, and it's going to be better than what you have right now. This time next year you may well be wishing you had waited, and your half capable pj is worth a lot less if you want to sell to upgrade for full capability because people will want a full spec machine, and those that don't, probably won't want to pay the earth for used half spec. But that's just speculation on my part.

Now is the only time I would wait - usually we say don't wait because you'll never buy anything, but now we have very good reasons to wait, unless you just want an upgrade like any other time you've upgraded in the past, in which case demo and buy the best you can get for your budget, just like you've always done.

As for outgoing models, I think something like a used JVC X500 at around £2k (or less) next year will be a good deal and will last you for a while until everything has settled down both spc and price wise, and we can get fully what UHD BD has to offer, rather than a compromised version of it.

Just my take on it.

Gary
 
Until now (digitally speaking), most upgrades were pretty much higher res pjs and increasing on/off contrast, with just tech improvements here and there. Now we have 4k, higher spec standards, and HDR for example, but no source material just yet (UHD BD coming soon soon...), or pjs that can do it all, plus it's yet to be completely finalised and understood - just look at the threads here where people are telling us what we're going to get, and how it works, only for their understanding of it to change on almost a daily basis. It's all just so much noise right now.

Until now it was relatively easy to jump in at any time due to the incremental changes we used to get, but now its not so easy - 4k displays with some of the current UHD BD spec and capability, fau 4k with different spec but no true 4k (if you sit close enough, there is a visible difference), so it seems a bit premature to buy right now unless you just need an upgrade, and it's going to be better than what you have right now. This time next year you may well be wishing you had waited, and your half capable pj is worth a lot less if you want to sell to upgrade for full capability because people will want a full spec machine, and those that don't, probably won't want to pay the earth for used half spec. But that's just speculation on my part.

Now is the only time I would wait - usually we say don't wait because you'll never buy anything, but now we have very good reasons to wait, unless you just want an upgrade like any other time you've upgraded in the past, in which case demo and buy the best you can get for your budget, just like you've always done.

As for outgoing models, I think something like a used JVC X500 at around £2k (or less) next year will be a good deal and will last you for a while until everything has settled down both spc and price wise, and we can get fully what UHD BD has to offer, rather than a compromised version of it.

Just my take on it.

Gary

Gary, there's an awful lot of truth there.

The only thing we really know for certain is that, with current HC projector technology, the blacks can't be as dark as a flatscreen TV, and the brightness will be way short, so the application of higher contrast with HDR remains open to question, to say the least.

Steve W
 
Gary, there's an awful lot of truth there.

The only thing we really know for certain is that, with current HC projector technology, the blacks can't be as dark as a flatscreen TV, and the brightness will be way short, so the application of higher contrast with HDR remains open to question, to say the least.

Steve W

For once I agree with you (wow, did I really say that??).

I'm not concerned about the black levels so much, as direct view tv with ambient is always going to look different to projected in a darkened room, but is the limited amount of HDR capability we're going to see (pun intended) on a pj vs dvtv going to be worth it? Again, it's an unknown, with very few people having actually seen it. Even current pj reviewers have little or no HDR material to test new HDR capable pjs with.

Gary
 
Last edited:
For once I completely agree with you (wow, did I really say that??).

I'm not concerned about the black levels so much, as direct view tv with ambient is always going to look different to projected in a darkened room, but is the limited amount of HDR capability we're going to see (pun intended) on a pj vs dvtv going to be worth it? Again, it's an unknown, with very few people having actually seen it. Even current pj reviewers have little or no HDR material to test new HDR capable pjs with.

Gary

:D

To be honest, we agree about far, far more than we disagree on, it's just that we tend to notice the disagreements more (as they go on for post after post).

Yes, yes and yes. We obviously need to wait for HDR material to become available. And (as I often say) we need this to be real world material. I don't want to know what you can do with a specially-shot demo (well I do, but that's just a small part of it), I want to see someone comparing Blu-ray Discs of Spartacus, The Godfather and Jaws against UHD versions.

I feel a real threat to projectors is coming from OLED.

Prices are going to fall and fall, and sizes are going to get bigger and bigger.

And the 'wallpaper' OLEDs we've seen demonstrated could be manipulated into almost any room.

Okay, we're a very long way off them being genuinely cheap, but when you can get a 110" HDR, 4k job for maybe £5,000 or £6,000, then I'm not sure there's a projector will be able to touch that - not even one costing many tens of thousands of pounds. And 4k projectors are always going to need expensive chunks of glass (they're never going to get a lot cheaper), or have their quality limited at least a little by less expensive lenses.

Steve W
 
For me, there are currently two big differences between dvtv and a projected image. One is the shape of the screen - a 16:9 display is not the correct way to present scope movies, and the other is the aesthetic of the image. I want it to be cinematic, not like a tv or video, so for me, no matter how big the tv is, it has to be scope unless I have full control over how the images are presented within it, and it has to look cinematic, so luminance and room conditions play a part. I'm not sure a dvtv will ever manage that even with reduced luminance. If you're watching normal tv on it, you've lost the epic appeal of movies which won't be much bigger (if at all), but most people don't have dedicated rooms or care about presentation.

As for HDR, there's no point in conjecturing over that until we've actually seen it, but it looks like tvs are going to do that better than projectors (though viewing conditions of both may play a part in that), so if it is good, people may actually prefer to wait for the UHD BD over the cinema version. Who knows.

Gary
 
For me, there are currently two big differences between dvtv and a projected image. One is the shape of the screen - a 16:9 display is not the correct way to present scope movies, and the other is the aesthetic of the image. I want it to be cinematic, not like a tv or video, so for me, no matter how big the tv is, it has to be scope unless I have full control over how the images are presented within it, and it has to look cinematic, so luminance and room conditions play a part.

One of the great things I've found with my OLED is that there is absolutely no difference at all between the black bars on 'scope or 1.66:1 and the very thing TV border.

If they start making 4k 'wall-filling' wallpaper models I suspect you'll be able to scale to what ever size you like - maybe even down to watching 'normal TV' at a more 'normal TV' size and films on the larger screen size.

As for HDR, there's no point in conjecturing over that until we've actually seen it, but it looks like tvs are going to do that better than projectors (though viewing conditions of both may play a part in that), so if it is good, people may actually prefer to wait for the UHD BD over the cinema version. Who knows.

Gary

Whilst you are, of course, correct (we'll not know for sure until we see it), there's always a place for conjecture, blind guessing, and educated guessing.

We are a forum!

:smashin:

Steve W
 
One of the great things I've found with my OLED is that there is absolutely no difference at all between the black bars on 'scope or 1.66:1 and the very thing TV border.

It wasn't that long ago you were telling us we didn't need high contrast displays and good black levels because we don't get those in commercial cinemas, but now you can see there are many advantages to be had with it. Masking helps with projected displays and can also add to the presentation.

If they start making 4k 'wall-filling' wallpaper models I suspect you'll be able to scale to what ever size you like - maybe even down to watching 'normal TV' at a more 'normal TV' size and films on the larger screen size.

We can do that now using scalers or HTPC, so when tvs get to the kind of sizes we're talking about, I wonder how many people will actually do that? It would certainly be a different solution to having a tv and a projector in the lounge. Having a dedicated room would still be a better solution I would think to make movies more of an event, but maybe going from a small scaled tv image to large full size 'movie image' on the same tv will have the same effect. I would think most people will always have the biggest image they can get for everything though.

Whilst you are, of course, correct (we'll not know for sure until we see it), there's always a place for conjecture, blind guessing, and educated guessing.

We are a forum!

:smashin:

Steve W

And sometimes a few actual facts will get thrown in, which is always useful. :)

Gary
 
It wasn't that long ago you were telling us we didn't need high contrast displays and good black levels because we don't get those in commercial cinemas...

Nope, never said that.

What I did say was that, once we get to the level of presentation you get in a good cinema, then better than that isn't needed to see what a director intended you to see (that much is self-evident). Also, that chasing ever-decreasing black levels is a costly business with which some were becoming obsessed, and there are other areas of picture quality to consider, as well as other demands on one's bank balance.

...but now you can see there are many advantages to be had with it....

Nope, I'm not saying that, either.

Whilst completely agreeing with what you've said about waiting and seeing, and just basing my current thinking on what I know and what some very knowledgeable people have said, I doubt very much that HDR is going to offer too much benefit with films from the pre-digital cinema age.

Where flatscreens will be more of a benefit is being able to maintain solid blacks in non-batcave rooms, and getting (and maintaining) comfortable brightness in the same. The ability to achieve HDR standards will doubtless help.

Going back to the black level debate, the projectors best at this are the JVCs. But because the JVCs are so good at blacks, you need a very well-controlled room (light-wise) to get the very best out of them. I'm talking about the exact opposite to that. I'm talking about getting rock solid blacks in a room with magnolia walls and maybe even a table light on.

What I'm saying is, if you have a JVC in the best batcave you can imagine, the blacks will not be as good as an OLED in a fairly average living room, albeit at night rather than on a summer's day.

Masking helps with projected displays and can also add to the presentation.

Right. Okay, yes. I'm not disagreeing with you. But Gary, since getting my OLED, I can tell you it's not an issue. With my older plasma and LCD TVs, I'd have liked to have masked them (for non-16:9 presentations) in the same way I mask my projector screen. But the OLED? Trust me, it's simply not an issue. At all. Not even a tiny one.

In my lounge, I stick a film on that's not 16:9, turn the lights off, and believe me, masking would make absolutely no difference.

I think we share the view that we'd like to wait and see what a 110"+ OLED display looks like, but based on what I can see now, I don't think masking will be an issue. And trust me, if you'd said that to me right up to the first time I watched a film on the OLED, I'd have been extremely dubious indeed.

We can do that now using scalers or HTPC, so when tvs get to the kind of sizes we're talking about, I wonder how many people will actually do that? It would certainly be a different solution to having a tv and a projector in the lounge. Having a dedicated room would still be a better solution I would think to make movies more of an event, but maybe going from a small scaled tv image to large full size 'movie image' on the same tv will have the same effect. I would think most people will always have the biggest image they can get for everything though.

I suspect you're right. And, I suppose, if someone wants to watch Ken Barlow on a 110" screen, then it's not for me to legislate how they get their jollies.

And sometimes a few actual facts will get thrown in, which is always useful. :)

Oh, go on then, you old traditionalist.

Wild speculation is still good fun, though.

;)

Steve W
 
Nope, never said that.

You kinda did say that here:

Optoma HD91 LED projector

You don't need to spend thousands of pounds these days on good blacks or better contrast than a commercial cinema will give you (haven't for a long time) - you proved that yourself by going from a DLP to a sony 40 and praised the improvement in black levels and contrast within a few weeks of making the above statement. Now you're doing the same with OLED.

I would think if a director could have JVC/Epson LS1000 or OLED like black levels for dark scenes I'm sure he would prefer that to what we get in current commercial cinema. I don't think we can say that he intends us to see grey blacks with emergency exit signs further spoiling the image, but that's what he has to contend with so composes/compromises for that. I think if a director specifies an image with no light, that's what he would like to have, not a dull glowing grey which is how a cinema will deliver it.

Fortunately, at home we can have deep blacks without compromising what the director intended, and we can do that with other aspects of presentation that multiplexes take away from us as well.


Where flatscreens will be more of a benefit is being able to maintain solid blacks in non-batcave rooms, and getting (and maintaining) comfortable brightness in the same. The ability to achieve HDR standards will doubtless help.

Flatscreens have been doing that for a while now, and IIRC plasmas can produce the same ANSI CR as they can on/off. OLED has just further improved the black levels in that respect.

Going back to the black level debate, the projectors best at this are the JVCs. But because the JVCs are so good at blacks, you need a very well-controlled room (light-wise) to get the very best out of them. I'm talking about the exact opposite to that. I'm talking about getting rock solid blacks in a room with magnolia walls and maybe even a table light on.

On/off CR isn't really affected by the room though the black floor may be - the room reflectivity will increase the black and white levels equally so the on/off remains the same, but with no light to reflect, a black out will still be a black out. ANSI CR is affected by the room, and both are affected by ambient and that affects all projectors. The ones with the higher native ANSI will fair better though. If you're going to have ambient light, you probably shouldn't really have a projector.

What I'm saying is, if you have a JVC in the best batcave you can imagine, the blacks will not be as good as an OLED in a fairly average living room, albeit at night rather than on a summer's day.

Ah I see, so, are you now saying that because you have an OLED display, that is the best kind of display, and we should all be moving to OLED in lounges with lamps on, and away from dark rooms and projectors? But weren't you saying we didn't need deep blacks etc because that's not what we get in a commercial cinema? So why now are deep blacks on your OLED a good thing?

It's an interesting idea that huge flat screens could replace projectors, but I wonder if that is too big a change from what cinema is to many of us. Maybe it will be a gradual change even in commercial theatres, but sharing a movie in a darkened room with other people may still have it's attractions. Ignoring the reality of people talking, eating and using their mobiles of course...

Right. Okay, yes. I'm not disagreeing with you. But Gary, since getting my OLED, I can tell you it's not an issue. With my older plasma and LCD TVs, I'd have liked to have masked them (for non-16:9 presentations) in the same way I mask my projector screen. But the OLED? Trust me, it's simply not an issue. At all. Not even a tiny one.


Seems you're really enjoying high contrast and good black levels to me. Welcome aboard. :)

In my lounge, I stick a film on that's not 16:9, turn the lights off, and believe me, masking would make absolutely no difference.

It still loses the presentation factor where the lights would dim, the curtains would open, and the main feature lights up the screen. There are still elements that would be lost if we watch movies like they do them in multiplexes IMHO. I think for me, movies have to be traditionally presented on a pj, and a large screen tv just wouldn't feel right, but I guess that's just a personal thing. Technology moves on so who knows what will be the norm in 100 years from now.

But we digress. 4k yes or no? :)

Gary
 
Well it may be that HDR and 4K on PJs has a way to go. Moreover, the price to size difference in TVs has really dropped such that the old days, we bought PJs for a big screen at reasonable cost but now that divide is not so evident. £5kish will get you to 75 inches of reasonable tv real estate. Now of course, a PJ can do bigger but as you say, a TV is better at HDR and in non blackout conditions. Moreover, you don't need the additional screen, wiring, housing, lamp replacements. And still the need for a tv for daytime viewing. To many users, these factors would rate higher that screen size.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom