Long term Crt Projector user upgrading to 4K Projector, advise needed..plz

8abel8

Active Member
Hi all,
Long term (20+ years) crt projector user, been thru many projectors over the years and finally settling some 7 years ago on a Barco 1209sg 9 inch projector which i've been happy with over the years(albeit only running 1080i). I feel it's time now having had an eye on things over the years, to upgrade to 4K projectors.

My set-up is a bat-cave in my converted attic(pretty much pitch black with lights turned off, black ceiling and front walls), relatively small 80 inch diagonal stewart screen, viewing distance approx 12 feet (Up against the back wall but hoping to reduce that to 10ft to make better use of rear surrounds and upgrade to ceiling speakers for Dolby Atmos).

I've narrowered my choices to 2 projectors, the Sony VPL-VW270es or JVC DLA-X7900 both within my budget of £5k (i can get both either used or new within £300-£400 of each other). I won't repeat here the pros and cons of each but leaning towards the JVC given its' black level performance (coming from a crt that's important) but wondering whether native 4k is the way to go but will it likely make a difference on a relatively small screen size and would the JVC be fairly future proof for some years to come? (Can't extend budget to newer JVC native 4k Projectors or more expensive Sony projectors). Currently only have 1080p material but will also buy 4k Blu-ray player and stream Netfilx 4k, etc.. so 4k content will be rising.

I would appreciate your thoughts and great forum!!

Thanks
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
I would also consider the laser Epson LS10500 but they're hard to see on demo these days.

Can you get any demo's of the models? It's hard to see the Epson unfortunately but the other two shouldn't be a problem. Coming from a CRT I would think the JVC would be the obvious choice but seeing them in action in split screen comparisons should tell you which one you prefer. I see you are in London but if you can get down to Caterham, RickyJ of Kalibrate does fully calibrated split screen comparisons so you can see the differences in real time.

Sitting closer to an 80" screen is a good idea - you could even comfortably sit as close as 8ft back provided the screen isn't too high - experiment and see what you think.
 

8abel8

Active Member
Thanks for your quick reply.

Yes, a demo would probably be the way to go but in London getting a demo is a tricky thing to do with most retailers, so will have to travel to arrange something. I did consider the Epson but from reading a few reviews i'm not sure it stacked favourably against the other 2 projectors.
 

kbfern

Distinguished Member
With such a small screen by projection standards have you considered a 75" or even 85" 4k tv as decent 75"/85" can be had for well within budget and you can do proper HDR with tv rather than pj.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Ricky in Caterham is a forum assured advertiser so I would recommend him for a demo. If you can't find his details here, I'll PM them to you. He calibrates all projectors which makes them all look pretty much the same for greyscale and gamut and that really does equalise a lot of the images - they often then look more the same than different.

With respect to the LS, I thought much the same as you until I saw them and was able to compare them directly to JVCs and Sony's, and that changed my mind.

One chap with a JVC N5 on order recently had a demo of the N5 and then saw an LS directly after and ended up cancelling his N5 and now has an LS instead. Getting some demos can quite often make a big difference in what we see compared to what we read, and with them being calibrated, it's more of a direct comparison, otherwise there are too many variables.
 

8abel8

Active Member
With such a small screen by projection standards have you considered a 75" or even 85" 4k tv as decent 75"/85" can be had for well within budget and you can do proper HDR with tv rather than pj.
That's actually not something I've ever considered. I guess (going back to the early days of lcd TV's i always thought push the size of TV's past 60" and image starts to suffer but i guess these days the technology allows for that. I might well have to consider that option, although there's the possibility of moving house in a couple of years time and would like to have something that may allow a larger setup in the future. I suppose could always sell on the tv and who knows what technology we will have then...

Many thanks for your suggestion.
 

Abacus

Banned
You must try before you buy as everybody’s priorities are different, plus it’s a fair amount of money to spend.

The chances of finding the Epson laser projector are small, as according to Epson UK it was discontinued some time ago. (I was hoping to see one a year to 18 months ago (Just out of curiosity as it seems to be highly rated, plus I had viewed the lamp versions and the missing detail was terrible on them even at normal viewing distance, but as everybody was raving about the laser version I would have loved to have seen it) but nowhere in the South West had one or it was special order only, which means you had to buy it before you could view it)

Bill
 

8abel8

Active Member
Ricky in Caterham is a forum assured advertiser so I would recommend him for a demo. If you can't find his details here, I'll PM them to you. He calibrates all projectors which makes them all look pretty much the same for greyscale and gamut and that really does equalise a lot of the images - they often then look more the same than different.

With respect to the LS, I thought much the same as you until I saw them and was able to compare them directly to JVCs and Sony's, and that changed my mind.

One chap with a JVC N5 on order recently had a demo of the N5 and then saw an LS directly after and ended up cancelling his N5 and now has an LS instead. Getting some demos can quite often make a big difference in what we see compared to what we read, and with them being calibrated, it's more of a direct comparison, otherwise there are too many variables.
Hi Peter, thanks i managed to find him on google. I agree that it's probably best to get a viewing (something i had done many times in the past). I indeed think i will have to so, but know thinking about kbfern's suggestion about a tv instead. Any downsides to that idea anyone can think of? Wondereing whether pixels will be visible or am i just being stupid??
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Unless the aesthetic difference of a projected image over a direct view one makes a difference to you and 16:9 is what you want, in many ways I think going the tv route does have its advantages - especially with respect to 4K and HDR - projectors don't have anywhere near the required nits for HDR so tone mapping for a pj and getting an acceptable image can be a bit of a minefield, whereas TVs should have less of an issue there, being much brighter. Pixel wise, with 4K I would think even with a tv they would be too small for the pixel gaps to be visible so there shouldn't be much of a difference in that respect.

The downsides could be things like if you wanted to have the speakers behind the screen or a 2.40:1 screen for example, or if you prefer the image to be of a similar brightness to the cinema rather than a TV, but if those aren't a factor in what you want, a TV may be a simpler option.
 

8abel8

Active Member
I've always enjoyed a projected image and have always felt a TV's domain is in the living room not a dedicated cinema room, so in that regard, yes, i do prefer a projected image whether the image is as bright as a TV or not(mostly not) but never felt the image wasn't bright enough( remember I'm referring to crt projectors having never owned anything else). You refer to having similar brightness to a cinema, is that even possible with projectors these days? Whenever seeing a movie in the cinema I've always thought brightness was supreme and always thought that TVs would never display that kind of brightness (taking size into account) but i guess cinema projectors are entirely different beasts!! I think what I'm really asking is how does today's 4k digital projectors compare to what I've been used to(crt). I understand I can arrange a demo somewhere but don't want to waste my time or more importantly someone else's time if what I see is not what I want(I'm sure everyone will be saying of course itll2be better) but I'm just not sure.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
I've seen a lot of CRTs including your model as well as various G90s and a mod'ed Marquee 9500 Ultra, and although I've only owned some cheaper 7" CRTs (Sony and Seleco) I've mostly used digitals, but have always aimed for cinema levels of image brightness. What you may be surprised to know is that with film the aim was around 12fL and with DCI it's 14fL (give or take tolerances) which is a lot less than the average direct view display which used to be around 35fL - and they're now getting a lot brighter, especially now that HDR needs it.

Most people don't have light meters, and until recently, it was found that most digital owners would be running at under 12fL, and not a great deal brighter than CRTs. Member here who bought light meters and thought they had bright images were always surprised how 'dim' they measured. It's only in recent years that digital projectors have been able to run higher than that on a decent sized screen. most people tend to run the lamp in eco rather than full power due to fan noise and making the lamp last as long as they could - they dim with age.

Although the large screen of commercial cinemas may look bright, they aren't really - they just take up more of our field of view and are in a darkened environment, and because of the way our eyes work, can look brighter than they are. There was a paper that investigated these perceptual differences between smaller (phones) and larger displays (tvs, cinema) and how perceptions of brightness can change with size. In 'the olden days' of film, it wasn't unusual for a commercial theatre to run at around 9fL (typical CRT would be between 7 and 9 going on forum members who measured them IIRC) and that was because they would run the lamp low to make it last longer - they aren't cheap. So in answer to your question, yes, we can achieve the same image brightness at home as we can in a commercial theatre, and more than likely exceed it now if we want to. Many people are aiming for 30fL or more for HDR for example.

One of the elements I liked about the Epson laser was the very analogue image - it's very clean and stable with no image noise, and as red and green light sources are supplied via a phosphor wheel, I wonder if that has something to do with it along with the panels still being driven analogue and not digitally like some other brands. Some other lamp based models can look noisy and digital in comparison. It doesn't have the same on/off CR as your CRT or the JVCs, but it does throw a very nice image IMHO and can do full fade to black when they laser shuts off, and then come out of black instantly without crushing shadow detail to do it. The JVCs have the most contrast capability so that would seem to be the best choice in that regard, and with current pricing the 7900 does seem to be the obvious choice.

I think you really need to get some demos or you'll never really know what the various digitals can look like or if they can give you what you want. You may be pleasantly surprised or completely horrified :)
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
Having very recent changed from a 65” LED TV to the same sized OLED there is no doubt the picture they are capable of far surpasses that of the best projectors but for the size you are using you will be considerably more than your £5k budget.

With the jump to 4K you really need to up the screen size to 100-120” to truly see the benefit of the increase in resolution and I think you will prefer the JVC over the basic Sony simply because of its superior contrast. The Epson LS10500 is an unknown quantity to me having never seen one but those that have do like them so might be worthwhile trying to source a demo.

What ever one you pick I reckon you need to budget in for upgrading your screen because without it you aren’t going to appreciate the 4K to its full potential.
 

8abel8

Active Member
Luminated67, i started thinking about a larger screen, problem is because of the bat cave being located in my attic and accounting for the slanted wall side, the largest screen i could accommodate enable speakers to be placed left and right was 6ft wide. Now i can probably look at getting a 2.35:1.screen (say 8ft wide maybe, very appealing as I've always wanted that ratio screen, will have to figure out blanking for 16:9 content) and place it lower on the wall due to the slanted walls but now will have to look at acoustically transparent screens(because the speakers will now be blocked)and that opens a another can of worms!! But an interesting can of worms...any experience anyone with such screens? Sitting around 12 feet back currently which will probably reduce by a foot if a new screen installed. I've attached a image of said room(messy i know!!l.

Peter, very informative!!!
20190402_213204.jpg
 

8abel8

Active Member
Sorry another question but generally speaking, how low from the ceiling do these projectors nees to be to project adequately? Do the top of the lens need to be level with the top of the screen? I can't seem to find definative info on this, only projector distance information.

Thanks
 

howieeb

Active Member
Have you considered an LG 77" OLED? Curry's have one for 5.5k atm and it'd look great mounted on that wall.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
Luminated67, i started thinking about a larger screen, problem is because of the bat cave being located in my attic and accounting for the slanted wall side, the largest screen i could accommodate enable speakers to be placed left and right was 6ft wide. Now i can probably look at getting a 2.35:1.screen (say 8ft wide maybe, very appealing as I've always wanted that ratio screen, will have to figure out blanking for 16:9 content) and place it lower on the wall due to the slanted walls but now will have to look at acoustically transparent screens(because the speakers will now be blocked)and that opens a another can of worms!! But an interesting can of worms...any experience anyone with such screens? Sitting around 12 feet back currently which will probably reduce by a foot if a new screen installed. I've attached a image of said room(messy i know!!l.

Peter, very informative!!!View attachment 1135922

Your setup is quite similar to my own

RU44tH.jpg


I’m sitting about 12ft away from a 100” (16:9) screen which is roughly the size you will end up with if you go for a 21:9 screen.

My screen sits about 40-45cm from the ground so I need to check for you what my Epson will go down to and that way you will get a rough idea as to what’s achievable.

I’m debating the whole 21:9 screen option too which like you would be acoustic, for me I’ll go the DIY route of building it myself as I hear there’s a UK outfit offering stuff similar to spandex but even better. Reckon I could build a 115” screen for little more than £120.
 

8abel8

Active Member
Your setup is quite similar to my own

RU44tH.jpg


I’m sitting about 12ft away from a 100” (16:9) screen which is roughly the size you will end up with if you go for a 21:9 screen.

My screen sits about 40-45cm from the ground so I need to check for you what my Epson will go down to and that way you will get a rough idea as to what’s achievable.

I’m debating the whole 21:9 screen option too which like you would be acoustic, for me I’ll go the DIY route of building it myself as I hear there’s a UK outfit offering stuff similar to spandex but even better. Reckon I could build a 115” screen for little more than £120.

That's impressive! Much smarter looking than my room and looks like you have a good length in that room. I appreciate you looking into that for me and please do let me know about what you find out about the AT screen. I actually, having just measured my room, might get away without a AT screen but i still may look at going that way, check out seymour av screens. Their centre stage xd material seems very good and they also have masking sides for 16:9 content, not cheap for pre made fixed screen (around $1400 i think including masking sides) but the best bit.. you can buy the material to diy at a very reasonable price.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Luminated67, i started thinking about a larger screen, problem is because of the bat cave being located in my attic and accounting for the slanted wall side, the largest screen i could accommodate enable speakers to be placed left and right was 6ft wide. Now i can probably look at getting a 2.35:1.screen (say 8ft wide maybe, very appealing as I've always wanted that ratio screen, will have to figure out blanking for 16:9 content) and place it lower on the wall due to the slanted walls but now will have to look at acoustically transparent screens(because the speakers will now be blocked)and that opens a another can of worms!! But an interesting can of worms...any experience anyone with such screens?

Me again :)

My last cinema room was a loft like yours - I went from a 7ft wide 47.25" tall 16:9 screen with seating 12 feet back, to a 40" tall 8ft wide 2.35 screen. So that the 16:9 image looked the same size as before, I just moved my seating forward by two feet. With the 7ft screen, the seating-to-height distance ratio was approx 3 x, so to keep that ratio, I just multiplied the 2.40 screens screen height by three and I was visually back to where I started, except now, scope movies were the same height and much wider and more immersive than they were before when on the 16:9 screen. As the screen was DIY it was a huge upgrade at very little cost. As the resolution increased, I found I could sit closer still.

But then you have to zoom the image larger and smaller for each change of aspect ratio, so ideally you will need motorised controls for that. Pixel density changes when you zoom like that, so another method is to add an anamorphic lens, which usually aren't cheap. Having said that, there's a Prismasonic 5000 on ebay for £750 or best offer.

If you don't mind some DIY, you can make a 2.40:1 screen and stretch and staple two layers of Spandex over it. Many do white over white, while others do white over black. It's very acoustically transparent and works well. Place the left and right speakers between the outside edges of the 16:9 image and inside of the 2.40 image.

Jagdeep of Epic Home Cinema does a Spandex like material that doesn't have any issues like some Spandex materials can which is called Filmex and gets good reviews, so that may be worth looking into if you go that route. Seymour's UF material is pricier still but also gets good reviews.

Sitting around 12 feet back currently which will probably reduce by a foot if a new screen installed. I've attached a image of said room(messy i know!!l.

Peter, very informative!!!View attachment 1135922

As you'll have to be closer for the smaller height image height, you're doing that with the screen rather than with the seats, though I do recommend sitting closer, at say 8 feet back for best effect, but experiment with that to see what works best for you.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Forgot to mention, in my last room, I used some Argos corded curtain track that I covered in black velvet and with some curtains that my other half made, I had a simple side masking set up that was relatively simple and easy to use. I did have to put some dowels down the leading edge to give them a crisp finish and some added weight though.
 

8abel8

Active Member
Me again :)

My last cinema room was a loft like yours - I went from a 7ft wide 47.25" tall 16:9 screen with seating 12 feet back, to a 40" tall 8ft wide 2.35 screen. So that the 16:9 image looked the same size as before, I just moved my seating forward by two feet. With the 7ft screen, the seating-to-height distance ratio was approx 3 x, so to keep that ratio, I just multiplied the 2.40 screens screen height by three and I was visually back to where I started, except now, scope movies were the same height and much wider and more immersive than they were before when on the 16:9 screen. As the screen was DIY it was a huge upgrade at very little cost. As the resolution increased, I found I could sit closer still.

But then you have to zoom the image larger and smaller for each change of aspect ratio, so ideally you will need motorised controls for that. Pixel density changes when you zoom like that, so another method is to add an anamorphic lens, which usually aren't cheap. Having said that, there's a Prismasonic 5000 on ebay for £750 or best offer.

If you don't mind some DIY, you can make a 2.40:1 screen and stretch and staple two layers of Spandex over it. Many do white over white, while others do white over black. It's very acoustically transparent and works well. Place the left and right speakers between the outside edges of the 16:9 image and inside of the 2.40 image.

Jagdeep of Epic Home Cinema does a Spandex like material that doesn't have any issues like some Spandex materials can which is called Filmex and gets good reviews, so that may be worth looking into if you go that route. Seymour's UF material is pricier still but also gets good reviews.



As you'll have to be closer for the smaller height image height, you're doing that with the screen rather than with the seats, though I do recommend sitting closer, at say 8 feet back for best effect, but experiment with that to see what works best for you.

Hi Peter, my only concern with increasing screen size is projector distance, I guess it depends on the projector as to the throw distance but only have around at best 13ft to the back wall of the room (so have account for the projector's depth), looking at say JVC's throw distance chart I won't be able to accomodate a 235:1 screen larger than 7ft wide(min distance), any idea how this will affect the zoom functions for displaying a 16:9 image with the 2.35:1 screen?

Yes, I think figuring out the masking shouldn't be too hard, already have a similar set up but masking horizontally for scope films (boards covered in speaker grill fabric held in place top and bottom on brackets).
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
I can't speak for JVC as I don't have one but my Epson TW9400 sits directly above my head and I will measure for you when home but I think it's about 12ft from the screen and could throw a 106" 16:9 image (my screen is 100" 16:9) so I'm almost at maximum zoom. The benefit of this is first rate HDR image.

Maybe you should include one of these in your demo as it might fit the bill. ;)
 

8abel8

Active Member
I can't speak for JVC as I don't have one but my Epson TW9400 sits directly above my head and I will measure for you when home but I think it's about 12ft from the screen and could throw a 106" 16:9 image (my screen is 100" 16:9) so I'm almost at maximum zoom. The benefit of this is first rate HDR image.

Maybe you should include one of these in your demo as it might fit the bill. ;)
Hi, It actually was on my shortlist, so maybe I should consider this also. The only issue I have (with all these projectors) is that to go for a large screen, i will also have to lower the screen further down the wall to accomodate, what generally speaking is the recommended height of a projector in relation to the top of the screen? Is it all dependant on the lens shift ability of each projector?
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Hi Peter, my only concern with increasing screen size is projector distance, I guess it depends on the projector as to the throw distance but only have around at best 13ft to the back wall of the room (so have account for the projector's depth), looking at say JVC's throw distance chart I won't be able to accomodate a 235:1 screen larger than 7ft wide(min distance), any idea how this will affect the zoom functions for displaying a 16:9 image with the 2.35:1 screen?

just looking at ProjectorCentrals throw calculator, it looks like from 11.5 feet back the pj lens, you can get something like a 99" (8.25ft) wide 2.35 screen, and then zoom down for a 74.15" (6.125ft) wide 16:9 image:

JVC DLA-X7900BE Projection Calculator - Throw Distance and Screen Size

The zoom range from that throw distance can accommodate both screen sizes and any in between (2.0:1, 2.20:1 etc).

With that screen size, try sitting around 8.25 feet back and see how it looks. With the screen lower it's usually a more comfortable viewing experience than higher.

Depending on your visual acuity, the Seymour XDs weave may be visible, so the lower gain but cheaper UF may be a better choice. Spandex is very cheap (though somewhat prone to interference patterns with two layers of white, but white over black should be fine), so you could experiment with that to see how everything works before going for something more expensive

The likes of JVC, Sony and Epson allow the pj to be outside of the screen area with the lens shift so pj placement can be pretty flexible. Best to check with owners or the manufacturers specs to see what works for your particular setup though.
 

8abel8

Active Member
Hi Peter, Ok that seems possibly doable but I'm planning of arranging a demo with Ricky some point next week (still have to contact him). Incidently, i will have to lower the screen to somewhere around 40cm from the ceiling, do you envisage an issue with projecting a image that low if the projector is ceiling mounted? I want to avoid having to have a huge drop on the projector on a bracket and avoid hitting my head on it?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AV Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
REL Acoustics announces new Serie HT subwoofer trio
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Marantz set to launch new Cinema Series of AV receivers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
iFi Audio launches NEO Stream music streamer with DAC
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom