Thinking about replacing my projector with a (very) large widescreen TV.

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
For some years now my home setup has centred on a JVC DLA X7 700 projector with a 96" wide 2.35:1 constant height screen (diagonal size approximately 104") and I'm very happy with the performance. But for various reasons, and given the rise of ever-larger models, I've begun to wonder about the possibility of replacing the projector/screen combo with a TV.

I wouldn't want to go for a smaller image, but (admittedly after only a preliminary search around) I haven't so far found a set which meets the spec I'm after. And if I had, I rather suspect that the price would have been heart-attack inducing. But I'd appreciate any pointers in a likely direction, and also any thoughts on the general idea of an ultra-large TV instead of a projector. Many thanks.
 

Nayfne

Distinguished Member
I've thought about this a few times, especially with the ever increasing TV screen size, but if there's no 3D, then i simply wouldn't purchase one. I do love 3D on the projector.
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
Thanks for that. 3D isn't an issue for me; I've never liked the effect. But the idea of a TV rather than a projector does appeal.
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
I had to look that up. Thanks for the idea: it would certainly answer one problem I'm foreseeing, which is the question of access: at present, changing the bulb or doing any other maintenance to my JVC requires a death-defying, breath-holding, crawling expedition into my loft.
 

Joe Fernand

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
The TV has the edge on brightness (esp, with HDR) the projector still wins on 'the look' though if you have full control of room lighting.

Think you may end up with both!

Joe
 

AmericanAudio

Well-known Member
AVForums Sponsor
Ust projector?
Combine a UST projector and a good ALR screen and the quality in even a light room is very good over traditional screens.

(So you don't have to look it up ALR - Ambient Light Rejecting)

At a trade show last month we saw a pair of brilliant demos. We did a youtube video of the show and had a video light shining full beans on to a screen and the projector image still cut through to be visible.

Not a direct replacement for a TV but at 100" for sub £4k including a fixed screen its a very good price.

The one in the video is £5k inc projector, screen and cabinet! That will be with us soon!!
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
Think you may end up with both!
At the moment, I actually have both: the projector and a 22" TV for daylight and casual viewing. I suspect that if I did ever get a monster telly my usage would stay the same: the cinema experience remaining separate and distinct from the small screen. But it's true that quite apart from the access problems the JVC pj does need a total or near total blackout to give of its best, which I can't achieve at the moment if it's light outside.

Joe, do you know if anyone does currently make a 2.35:1 TV with a diagonal screen size of 100" or so?
 
Last edited:

AmericanAudio

Well-known Member
AVForums Sponsor
About 1.30 in is the pop up screen version, VAVA projector and cabinet.

The second one, out on the show floor is the Hisense 100" screen and UST.

 

Ataripower

Well-known Member
I've done this a couple of times and regretted it. The size of the TV is not relevant,it's more the projector experience that I missed so I now have both a 77" TV for everyday viewing and a projector for movie nights. Works for me
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
The size of the TV is not relevant,it's more the projector experience that I missed...
Thanks for that. How would you define the projector experience? For you, is it to do with picture quality, the need for a completely darkened room (ideally), or something else?
 
Last edited:

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
Thanks. I actually found it just before I saw your post. It is an interesting approach: I remember seeing an early version (maybe at one of the HomeBuilder-type shows) a few years back, though I can't now recall the make. I also have a very vague recollection of being told that the technology (or perhaps simply this particular model) was fine for 2.35:1 and 16:9 but for some reason couldn't project at 4:3. I wonder if I'm correct about that, and, if so, if it's still a problem.
 

Ataripower

Well-known Member
Thanks for that. How would you define the projector experience? For you, is it to do with picture quality, the need for a completely darkened room (ideally), or something else?

It's the act of dropping down a ridiculously large screen in front of the TV, powering up the ceiling mounted projector, readying the snacks and drinks and watching a movie.

Watching TV is just watching TV, watching the new Bond movie (when it's released) is an event when using a projector. Might just be me though
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
it depends how big of a projection ur going. at 96''.. yes ur very close to TV size. but as u get further away, especially on scope film content, the PJ comes into its own.

Say you are very rich and can afford a 95'' TV,

compared with my 155'' IMAX aspect ratio projection

compared with my 165'' 2:35:1 screen and for letter box films:


as u can see, they're in different stratospheres.

with the right room and size, projection wins IMO,.
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
Thanks for that, and I do take the point and in fact I'm pleased with the projected picture I have at present, especially when it's at its best; I can't deny though that even in a completely blacked-out environment a decent TV image (even one that size) would be brighter, crisper and cleaner. But the costs are a factor of course, and the screen spec I would ideally want, 100" or more diagonal and 2.35:1, doesn't seem to be available anyway, so I'll happily carry on for now with what I've got.

The factor that I'd really like to eliminate is one of access: my JVC DLA X7 700 projector is on a motorised lift so isn't at all visually intrusive when not in use, but it's so large that I can't remove it from the cradle when it's down: the only access is in the loft which is cramped, somewhat dangerous, and (increasingly) difficult for me to manage. But the throw length is such that setting it up in the room would mean placing it halfway between the screen and the rear wall and at a height which would clear my central viewing chair, which isn't particularly practical.

There might be way, I suppose: some sort of floor-to-ceiling open frame unit with the projector on a high shelf, maybe. But it would be a pity to compromise the present open-plan feel of the area, which was the reason for getting the pj lift in the first place.

So those ultra-short-throw models are appealling but I'd want to satisfy myself that the results are at least as good and as versatile as I'm getting now before I abandoned my JVC.
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Thanks for that, and I do take the point, and in fact, I'm pleased with the projected picture I have at present, especially when it's at its best. Though I can't deny that even in a completely blacked-out environment a decent TV image would be brighter, crisper and cleaner. But the costs are a factor of course, and the screen spec I would ideally want, 100" or more diagonal and 2.35:1, doesn't seem to be available anyway, so I'll happily carry on for now with what I've got.

The factor that I'd really like to eliminate is one of access: my JVC DLA X7 700 projector is on a motorised lift so isn't at all visually intrusive when not in use, but it's so large that I can't remove it from the cradle when it's down: the only access is in the loft which is cramped, somewhat dangerous, and (increasingly) difficult for me to manage. But the throw length is such that setting it up in the room would mean placing it halfway between the screen and the rear wall which isn't at all practical.

Those ultra-short-throw models are appealling but I'd want to satisfy myself that the results are at least as good as I'm getting now before I abandoned my JVC.


85'' vs 100'' projector

its pretty close
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
This is my viewing setup: the screen is out of sight off to the right in an enclosed area with black walls and ceiling. Any free-standing structure supporting the projector would have to be situated close behind the chair, and the pj would have to be not much lower down than the lift places it. It strikes me that this would be tricky to achieve in a visually pleasing manner without intruding too much on the general open-plan feel, but easy access to the projector is now an important factor.

If there are any interior designers out there, I'd be grateful for any thoughts. Thanks.

Viewing area.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
85'' vs 100'' projector

its pretty close
Ah, but if a 2.35:1 projected picture with a 100" diagonal had to be displayed on a 16:9 TV, the TV screen would have to be even larger, surely? And ideally I'd like proper masking at the top and bottom of the image, rather than TV-generated blackness (though I realise I'd have to put up with that at the sides for other aspect ratios). And since I prefer a constant-height setup , there would be something galling about paying for all that expanse of screen which I'd never use, except I suppose for those intensely annoying films that sometimes break into IMAX mode.

LATER:

Actually, the 16:9 screen would have to be 106": not quite as large as I'd thought. There's still a lot of unused pixels, though, and no proper masking; and could I even adjust the 16:9 image to be the height of the Cinemascope one?
1635422873105.jpeg
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Ah, but if a 2.35:1 projected picture with a 100" diagonal had to be displayed on a 16:9 TV, the TV screen would have to be even larger, surely? And ideally I'd like proper masking at the top and bottom of the image, rather than TV-generated blackness (though I realise I'd have to put up with that at the sides for other aspect ratios). And since I prefer a constant-height setup , there would be something galling about paying for all those pixels which I'd never use, except I suppose for those intensely annoying films that sometimes break into IMAX mode.


I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Are you getting a 2:35:1 screen or a 16:9 screen? Or are you projecting onto a wall/screen surface that you can change the aspect ratio at will to fill the entire wall?

The picture I showed compared a 16:9 image to a 16:9 image. Yes, a 2:35:1 sized screen for 2:35:1 content will have more available content visible than a 16:9.
 

Bert Coules

Well-known Member
Sorry if I wasn't clear. At present I'm projecting onto a 2.35:1 screen, which means that TV pictures are (as I prefer them to be) smaller in impact than widescreen cinematic ones. That constant-height approach is one I'd like to retain, which is why I originally enquired about TV sets with 2.35:1 screens - which seem to be extremely rare.

If I did go for a 16:9 TV I would want to adjust the 16:9 (or 4:3) images down to the same height as the Cinemascope ones and on reflection I'm not sure that I could do that.

Does that explain it better?
 
Last edited:

Joe Fernand

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
16:9 is very definitely the norm for fixed pixel displays and anything with decent HDR at the size you indicate is going to be at the top of the budget range for large format displays.

Unless you were willing to Zoom and loose some image you are stuck with black bars top and bottom (2.35:1) or side and side (4:3).

Joe
 

The latest video from AVForums

Sony Bravia XR A80J OLED TV Review
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

M&K Sound launches V+ Series subwoofers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Denon launches DHT-S517 Dolby Atmos soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Perlisten Audio launches loudspeaker ranges in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for February 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
NAD launches M23 hybrid stereo power amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom