AllTaken
Distinguished Member
@Steve Withers Is the above true of any inbound hdmi connection, or is the improvement in signal lock only realised in fellow 2.1 devices?
@Steve Withers Is the above true of any inbound hdmi connection, or is the improvement in signal lock only realised in fellow 2.1 devices?
That, and the lack of ‘clunk!’, whir whir whir.The N series lock on for HDMI devices is already quite fast IMO. I only had issues with X series. If they've improved it, they've improved something whcih was already fairly fast. ur NX9 is gonna be great.
Given that I’m pretty sure Steve has a Trinnov which doesn’t yet have HDMI 2.1 I’m guessing you don’t need HDMI 2.1 for the improved switching but let’s see what Steve says to get confirmation.Steve, one thing you said in the review:
"The addition of HDMI 2.1 has an unexpected but welcome benefit when it comes to the projector locking on to a signal. While the N7 frequently left me looking at a black screen for four or five seconds, the NZ8 locks on to a signal almost immediately."
In order to experience this presumably you would also need a suitable HDMI cable? Also would you need an HDMI 2.1 receiver? - I have the (unmodified) Lyngdorf MP-50.
I recently changed from scope to a 2:1 screen as well, and find I prefer the resultant image sizes with non scope formats as I found 16:9 image A bit small before.
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.I don't want to start pages long aspect ratio debate but is your room width limited ie. you can't get as high scope image as 16:9? It seems to me that in every aspect ratio the height of the picture is where the limit comes which leads to situation where you can have as high 2.35:1 image as 16:9 (or 4:3) image.
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.
Nolan bothers me so much with this. I often wonder if auto masking solutions can adapt quickly enough with films like his.Whichever format it is, it therefore has a tangible positive over the other for experience (except formats which change the ratio constantly which we all hate).
The thing is, 16:9 content (so that's not IMAX) isn't supposed to be as immersive as Scope.
Having IMAX content on a Scope screen, with black bars on the sides, would of course have completely the opposite effect of it's intent. And exactly the same is true if showing Scope content on a 16:9 screen (when that screen is usually used full sized for 16:9 content).
When a director films something to be shown on a large IMAX screen, they're probably not doing much fast paced hand-held camera work, because it would all be a bit much. And when antiques roadshow is filing in 16:9, they're not expecting us to watch it in an IMAX cinema (or on a similarly immersive screen). An IMAX image should be bigger than a Scope image, which should in turn be bigger 16:9 content.
Indeed, but just about all of us have limits preventing us from having an absolutely perfect setup.
Mine is very similar to yours, 113” 16:9 screen from about 9 feet away. It feels huge most of the time!As previously said each to their own. I find 110" 16:9 plenty from my viewing distance of 3.2m. I can't imagine 145" that would be extremely uncomfortable. Surely you would be constantly looking up and down due to the height of the image. No thanks.
As previously said each to their own. I find 110" 16:9 plenty from my viewing distance of 3.2m. I can't imagine 145" that would be extremely uncomfortable. Surely you would be constantly looking up and down due to the height of the image. No thanks.
Yeah it's definitely a personal thing. I tried 120" 16:9 and didn't like it. Sure you get that wow it's big sensation. But for me bigger isn't better, it has to be comfortable for my eyes. I hate having to move my eyes too much to watch. It gets very tiring.
I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.Yeah it's definitely a personal thing. I tried 120" 16:9 and didn't like it. Sure you get that wow it's big sensation. But for me bigger isn't better, it has to be comfortable for my eyes. I hate having to move my eyes too much to watch. It gets very tiring.
You watch 3D?I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.
3d I agree. Just makes everything feel smaller.I’m only at 106” diag 16.9 from 10 feet ish but I feel it’s about right, however with 3D it’s much better if I go 2 to 3 feet closer but I can’t alter my seats.
My room width is 3.8m, and I could have (just about) fitted a 3.3m wide 16:9 format screen in, however at my seating distance of 11ft a 16:9 picture is too big an image at 3.3 wide, and is too eye boggling to watch, I find viewing a constant image area (same area @ 235 & 16:9) preferable as its big enough in scope and ALSO big enough in 16:9 to be cinematic, whereas I previously found 16:9 small on a 3.3m scope screen, so yes I think the maximum desired image height and its bottom border location relative to eye level and to seating distance is the primary factor determining screen size. PS Of course You can’t just increasing the width of 235 screen to make 16:9 the same height as a 2:1 screen as you run out of PJ throw and/or lumens.
I sit 8ft from 133" 16:9 screen and I love it. If room would allow for it I would go bigger.
There is good few forum member who recently either increased their screen sizes or moved closer to existing ones or both at the same time, all in range of viewing angles and perceived screen size as my is and all find it amazing. I mean why would we not? After all there was a reason why we moved from 65" TVs to projection so why limit ourselves now when there is no real reason for it.
As one other forum member said. I have never read or heard anybody complaining that their screen is too big. We only read about those who wished they have gone bigger or about those planning to do so . And there is certainly something to it.
For me personality 16:9 > fixed scope screen. By going fixed scope you loose something without anything in return, but I of course understand the appeal of those jet black bars (which of course can be achieved with masking anyway).
I sit 8ft from 133" 16:9 screen and I love it. If room would allow for it I would go bigger.
There is good few forum member who recently either increased their screen sizes or moved closer to existing ones or both at the same time, all in range of viewing angles and perceived screen size as my is and all find it amazing. I mean why would we not? After all there was a reason why we moved from 65" TVs to projection so why limit ourselves now when there is no real reason for it.
As one other forum member said. I have never read or heard anybody complaining that their screen is too big. We only read about those who wished they have gone bigger or about those planning to do so . And there is certainly something to it.
For me personality 16:9 > fixed scope screen. By going fixed scope you loose something without anything in return, but I of course understand the appeal of those jet black bars (which of course can be achieved with masking anyway).
I've moved the seats forward 5cm, I was actually closer than I thought previously, so the difference isn't huge from when you came.You've moved closer than when I visited, and you also have masking on 3/4 sides, so you don't need to watch 1.85 films on a small screen.
Depends what you are wanting, if you lack light output yes it makes sense, also if your N5 is a very bad performing sample, maybe if you get a good NZ7.Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum and I'd like to ask you a question.
What do you think about replacing a JVC N5 + envy pro with a new JVC NZ7 + envy pro?
Could it make sense or isn't it worth it?
Thank you.