Projector Or Plasma Or Both?

[c912039]

Erm...

Benq 8720 (has a VS mode built in) $3600

AussieMorphic Lens $600

CIH Screen $800 (or DIY for a whole lot less)

Enjoying truly cinematic movies in your own home with an icy beer on a comfy recliner as your neighbours turn green with envy.... PRICELESS

Sure CIH may not be for everybody but it's waaaaaay cool and can only be achieved with a projector at the moment

Game, set & match to the CIH projector boys :ph34r:

Regards

David

[CAVX]

That would be wrong. You do realise that 2.35:1 movies didn't even exist before 1953? Over half the movies ever made are in an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 (or 1.33:1 on DVD). Why does everyone assume cinema began with Star Wars? I have a rather large collection of films on DVD (over 3,500) and only 25% are in 2.35:1.

WARNING - The Following May Be Considered Offensive

CinemaScope was invented to get people AWAY from their TVs in the 1950's. 1.78:1 and HDTV whilst greatly improved over SD and 1.33, it is still just TV in the end of the day - it does not equal film, it never will and why the push for 4K technology (which is native 1.85:1 not 1.78:1 BTW). Studios are not going to take 10 steps back and ditch what is a very niche market in the home theatre market, but is an attraction (still to this day) at the cinema.

There are actually not that many films in 1.78:1 as most are actually 1.85:1 (which is just 4% wider) with the panning and scanning into the 1.78:1 frame that has been done on more than too many occasions for older transfers on to DVD. Just look at anything the PSP format. Out of 10 random titles I picked up the other day for a look at, all were (would be) between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 on DVD, but were all 1.78:1 for PSP - bascially Panned and Scanned to fit the 1.78:1 display.

I don't have the exact figure at hand, but cinema scope (and no it can not just be limited to 2.35:1, but any format that uses an Anamorphic Lens) films actually have a very high rate (over 50%) of all productions ever made for film. This is suprising given that it has been one of the lastest additions to the industry apart from D-Cinema - which also uses an Anamorphic Lens for CinemaScope...

RANT OVER

Mark

[Gino]

Are you sure on your numbers Mark? I remember reading something along these lines a few months ago on AVS.. the "younger" people arguing that there was much more available in cinemascope, but analysing movies from imdb found the ratio to be much stronger with titles 1.85 and less.

[CAVX]

Are you sure on your numbers Mark? I remember reading something along these lines a few months ago on AVS.. the "younger" people arguing that there was much more available in cinemascope, but analysing movies from imdb found the ratio to be much stronger with titles 1.85 and less.

This keeps coming up at AVS in the CIH threads. The propblem is that wehn people reply, they do post just 2.35:1 figures, or just numbers for 2.40, which is of course way less than the true total.

I say "anything" with an anamorphic lens because there are not that many cinemas that actually present to the true 2.39:1 ratio, but all the cinemas presenting CinemaScope wider than Flat 35 use an Anamorphic Lens.

I have not done it this year, but last 2 years prior, I made a point of going to the cinema at least once a month, more often if I could. I saw no less than 15 film last year and possible the same the year before.

In 2005 just one film (War Of The Worlds) out of at least 15 was NOT CinemaScope.

In 2006 about the same - Hood Winked was probably 1.78:1 being that it is CG - but everything else was Scope.

This year everything I have seen has been Scope so far...

Mark

[Gino]

Perhaps you just chose to watch the blockbusters? I seem to come across 1.85 more often, because when I watch a movie I get disappointed when I don't get to use all of my screen

[Julian L]

WARNING - The Following May Be Considered Offensive

CinemaScope was invented to get people AWAY from their TVs in the 1950's. 1.78:1 and HDTV whilst greatly improved over SD and 1.33, it is still just TV in the end of the day - it does not equal film, it never will and why the push for 4K technology (which is native 1.85:1 not 1.78:1 BTW). Studios are not going to take 10 steps back and ditch what is a very niche market in the home theatre market, but is an attraction (still to this day) at the cinema.

There are actually not that many films in 1.78:1 as most are actually 1.85:1 (which is just 4% wider) with the panning and scanning into the 1.78:1 frame that has been done on more than too many occasions for older transfers on to DVD. Just look at anything the PSP format. Out of 10 random titles I picked up the other day for a look at, all were (would be) between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 on DVD, but were all 1.78:1 for PSP - bascially Panned and Scanned to fit the 1.78:1 display.

I don't have the exact figure at hand, but cinema scope (and no it can not just be limited to 2.35:1, but any format that uses an Anamorphic Lens) films actually have a very high rate (over 50%) of all productions ever made for film. This is suprising given that it has been one of the lastest additions to the industry apart from D-Cinema - which also uses an Anamorphic Lens for CinemaScope...

RANT OVER

Mark

I didnit find your comments offensive. Somewhat bizarre, perhaps, but not offensive. I'm not sure what a lecture on the origins of cinemascope, which is well known by anyone with a passing knowledge of film history, has to do with my original comments. Unless you're saying that films made prior to 1953 were filmed in 2.35:1, my point still stands (although, from your comments you seem to think all films made before the introduction of cinemascope were, in actuality, made for television?!). When you list the entire output of films made since the inception of cinema, I seriously doubt you'll find more than 50% are made in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, or even with anamorphic lens', but I am happy to be contradicted if you can provide independent verification. Basing your conclusions on what you've seen in the cinema over the last couple of years isn't exactly scientific.

The fact remains that for many of us, a CIH set up isn't the preferable viewing option. Given that you can buy anamorphic lenses quite cheaply as an add on to projectors, I don't see any reason why projector manufacturers will abandon 16:9 projectors in favour of 2.35:1 projectors and, given the size of the market, I can't see them doing so anytime in the forseeable future. I was merely responding to a comment from a member who said that 2.35:1 was the way of the future for all projectors resulting in the abandonment of 16:9 projectors, a statement I am still waiting to see confirmation of from one of the said projector manufacturers.

[Muzzer]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in CIH and I'm sure it's only a very small percentage of the market that is interested in it

If it is such a big deal why wouldn't the mainstream projector vendors like Panasonic, Epson, BenQ etc be putting in those lens's as standard in a $3k to $4k product instead of just 16:9 format?

I just want an all-in-one solution or solutions that do it all including 16:9 format Digital TV and I'm not concerned at all about black bands top and bottom.

It looks like this topic has turned into a rave about CIH whereas I started it to discuss the pro's and cons of large plasma versus projector or both.

[betty boop]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in CIH and I'm sure it's only a very small percentage of the market that is interested in it

If it is such a big deal why wouldn't the mainstream projector vendors like Panasonic, Epson, BenQ etc be putting in those lens's as standard in a $3k to $4k product instead of just 16:9 format?

I just want an all-in-one solution or solutions that do it all including 16:9 format Digital TV and I'm not concerned at all about black bands top and bottom.

It looks like this topic has turned into a rave about CIH whereas I started it to discuss the pro's and cons of large plasma versus projector or both.

has gone a bit that way hasnt it ?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about either. perhaps this is all something you start getting very picky about as you get more into pjs. the likes of cih I had never heard abotu till not that long ago on this forum. walk into any store sellign pjs and probably wont get a mention either. perhaps with time it will become a more standard thing that allows you to watch 16:9 for tv etc and then at a flick of a switch go to CIH if you want.

as a 42" plasma owner I think theyre great can give some very good detail, jsut fine for everyday tv includign at day time and dont require blackout, they are a cheap easy setup solution these days a quality one for $2500 and doesnt need anything else to get up and going, eg pj mounts, screens running long cables etc. ofcourse they doesnt have the picture size of a pj. as many have done you could always add a pj with a screen that drops down infront of em. would be good for movies and sport. ofcourse you'd need to blackout the room etc or jsut use at night times which is the only drawback. we mostly watch movies at night anyways so not sure thats such an issue.

[50mxe20]

as a 42" plasma owner I think theyre great can give some very good detail, jsut fine for everyday tv includign at day time and dont require blackout, they are a cheap easy setup solution these days a quality one for $2500 and doesnt need anything else to get up and going, eg pj mounts, screens running long cables etc. ofcourse they doesnt have the picture size of a pj. as many have done you could always add a pj with a screen that drops down infront of em. would be good for movies and sport. ofcourse you'd need to blackout the room etc or jsut use at night times which is the only drawback. we mostly watch movies at night anyways so not sure thats such an issue.

Personally, I'd love to have both. I think people like Foxtail have got the right idea. (42 inch with a dropdown screen).

Of course my ideal world would be a 50 inch plasma and a nice quality PJ but I'd be happy with a 42 inch plasma and a PJ.

But in my household that is unlikely to ever happen due to WAF.

As a PJ is a little too bit restrictive for "general" viewing I'm forced to go the plasma route.

And because the eventuality of a PJ is remote I'll push for the largest plasma I can get (because once it's bought the WAF for a new replacement one will be zero).

[Julian L]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in CIH and I'm sure it's only a very small percentage of the market that is interested in it

If it is such a big deal why wouldn't the mainstream projector vendors like Panasonic, Epson, BenQ etc be putting in those lens's as standard in a $3k to $4k product instead of just 16:9 format?

I just want an all-in-one solution or solutions that do it all including 16:9 format Digital TV and I'm not concerned at all about black bands top and bottom.

It looks like this topic has turned into a rave about CIH whereas I started it to discuss the pro's and cons of large plasma versus projector or both.

Agreed; the discussion has become nonsensical. As for myself, I have a Mitsubish HC5000 1080p projector and a Panasonic 50" Plasma. I find myself watching a film the first time on my projector in my HT room and then I watch the extras, or my second viewing of the film, on my Plasma in the living room. I find this an excellent combination.

[Curious]

Personally, I'd love to have both. I think people like Foxtail have got the right idea. (42 inch with a dropdown screen).

Of course my ideal world would be a 50 inch plasma and a nice quality PJ but I'd be happy with a 42 inch plasma and a PJ.

You got my vote on that, I run with 50 inch Pana for TV and 'some' movies, followed by drop down screen and PJ for the big stuff!

Cheers,

Curious

[Muzzer]

You got my vote on that, I run with 50 inch Pana for TV and 'some' movies, followed by drop down screen and PJ for the big stuff!

Cheers,

Curious

It's great to have the thread back on track, thanks guys.

So at what point if any would you guys back off from having or wanting to buy a projector and just use a larger (Eg 60" or above) plasma?

I was at a HN store yesterday looking at what's the latest and one of the sales guys said, "why would you even consider a projector and screen when you can have a 60" HD plasma that has no consumables etc?

By the way, the 65" Panasonic was sitting right next to the 60" LG on their floor and I know the Panasonic is true 1080P and the LG isn't but at an RRP of $18,000 for the Pana versus $5,000 for the LG it was an interesting comparison!!!

The managing director at home is leaning heavily towards the big plasma !

[50mxe20]

You got my vote on that, I run with 50 inch Pana for TV and 'some' movies, followed by drop down screen and PJ for the big stuff!

Cheers,

Curious

Colour me green!

[CAVX]

Interesting responses - if your talking "bang for buck", then IMO a projector wins hands down everytime with in a selected budget...

Mark

[50mxe20]

So at what point if any would you guys back off from having or wanting to buy a projector and just use a larger (Eg 60" or above) plasma?

I was at a HN store yesterday looking at what's the latest and one of the sales guys said, "why would you even consider a projector and screen when you can have a 60" HD plasma that has no consumables etc?

The managing director at home is leaning heavily towards the big plasma !

That's easy. You do what the 'managing director' says (or allows). No question. End of argument.

But for me, I won't even get the luxury of considering a 65 inch plasma! 50 is a battle.

The argument for PJ etc with an unsympathetic partner is a very difficult road.

But as others have said, they provide a 'real' HT environment and a great movie experience ambience that is very hard to beat.

And I reckon they can be a lot of fun.

My daughter has friends (and I know there are plenty here) that ONLY have a PJ and screen and they love it.

Some people (like benthx) never watch t.v., don't own a t.v. but have a HT set-up to die for.

I know which ones I envy. The latter or those that can have both. For me it's not a money issue, it's acceptance factor.

Not to say I won't get there one day anyway. Just not this year.

[Mining Man]

Another factor to consider, is the wall / room space you have available.

I tend to move every 3 years (and will continue to do so, for at least another 10), and so I am reluctant to go the projector route, as it may literally be redundant before the technology is. I find a 42-50" flat panel is a good compromise (almost every home can accommodate a living room oriented around a 42" screen). Especially if you think you are likely to move any time in the next 5 years. Beyond that, it doesn't matter as much, as you will probably be close to upgrading again.

Something else to keep in mind.

[norpus]

Another factor to consider, is the wall / room space you have available.

I tend to move every 3 years (and will continue to do so, for at least another 10), and so I am reluctant to go the projector route, as it may literally be redundant before the technology is. I find a 42-50" flat panel is a good compromise (almost every home can accommodate a living room oriented around a 42" screen). Especially if you think you are likely to move any time in the next 5 years. Beyond that, it doesn't matter as much, as you will probably be close to upgrading again.

Something else to keep in mind.

Ummm MM, I'll give you a race to get your plasma in the car (trailer) and move to the next suburb.

I wonder who would be happiest and least redfaced at the end of said 'move'

Whilst I haven't shifted house in a long while, and don't intend to, I know my 108" display will be very portable. (The fact that I have carried pjs around for business for the last 10 years probably has removed any fears of their portability). I frequently used to take my spare 720p lcd and 100" screen down to the tennis club/friends places and set it up for sporting events for example.

A pulldown/electric screen takes up no wall space (even across windows as I have to do) - nor floor space. Neither does the pj, effectively

Maybe a revisit of the practicalities of pj ownership may be worthwhile, if you like a great image and don't mind the larger size?

[norpus]

That's easy. You do what the 'managing director' says (or allows). No question. End of argument.

But for me, I won't even get the luxury of considering a 65 inch plasma! 50 is a battle.

The argument for PJ etc with an unsympathetic partner is a very difficult road.

But as others have said, they provide a 'real' HT environment and a great movie experience ambience that is very hard to beat.

And I reckon they can be a lot of fun.

My daughter has friends (and I know there are plenty here) that ONLY have a PJ and screen and they love it.

Some people (like benthx) never watch t.v., don't own a t.v. but have a HT set-up to die for.

I know which ones I envy. The latter or those that can have both. For me it's not a money issue, it's acceptance factor.

Not to say I won't get there one day anyway. Just not this year.

Well Lyle, there can be often a different way of looking at things (for the future)

If PQ is most important, a high quality out of favour 32 or 36" crt can be had for under $2K (Sony KVHR - better than any 720p plasma I've ever seen) - thats for daytime/tv for the next 10+ years

Then a small 720p pj and say 92" pulldown screen for around $2K ex Pricejapan or second hand - for movies/cricket world cup etc

For the price of the desired 65" plasma, you can have 2 (better IMO) displays and astound the WAF with your frugal 2 for 1 behaviour

Or if she only wants a flat panel, go a 42" plasma instead of the crt if you want

There is little WAF resistance to a well setup (stealth) pj install that I have been involved with

[The_Preacher1973]

There is little WAF resistance to a well setup (stealth) pj install that I have been involved with

My wife demands that I have a dedicated theatre room. I reluctantly go along with those demands.

"Oh no dear, don't force me to use a dedicated room!"

[yamapro]

It's great to have the thread back on track, thanks guys.

So at what point if any would you guys back off from having or wanting to buy a projector and just use a larger (Eg 60" or above) plasma?

I was at a HN store yesterday looking at what's the latest and one of the sales guys said, "why would you even consider a projector and screen when you can have a 60" HD plasma that has no consumables etc?

By the way, the 65" Panasonic was sitting right next to the 60" LG on their floor and I know the Panasonic is true 1080P and the LG isn't but at an RRP of $18,000 for the Pana versus $5,000 for the LG it was an interesting comparison!!!

The managing director at home is leaning heavily towards the big plasma !

Fair call to you Muzzer.

Personally my priorities are 1) PJ for 'authentic cinematic' viewing followed by 2) A biggish TV to watch day to day.

Now i will readily admit that my priorities are probably inverse to the norm but - this is an enthusiasts forum

I would only buy a Plasma of any size to do my day to day viewing and then only if i had a dedicated room for a PJ. I plan to build hopefully within the next 12 months and when i do i intend to have a dedicated HT room and a plasma in the 'open plan type'lounge for casual viewing That is my ideal compromise.

I still don't personally think i will ever 'back off from buying a pj' for the sake of owning a plasma. Especially when you remember a 50" plasma is only a quarter of the size of a 100" PJ screen (and a 60 is 1/4 size of a 120" screen) my vote is PJ for a dedicated room (even if you could get a 100"+ plasma) for ambiance, immersion and flexibility (for CIH etc..) and a secondary display (plasma. lcd, crt whatever) for a lounge room

[Guest]

The managing director at home is leaning heavily towards the big plasma !

The 65"? Well arent you the lucky bastard? At least it would be too heavy to steal in the event of a break-in.

[50mxe20]

I was at a HN store yesterday looking at what's the latest and one of the sales guys said, "why would you even consider a projector and screen when you can have a 60" HD plasma that has no consumables etc?

What consumables?

You can buy a lot of globes for $14K.

And a PJ mounted to the ceiling has probably got more security than a plasma that could be carried off.

[50mxe20]

Well Lyle, there can be often a different way of looking at things (for the future)

The WAF resistance is to ALL HT related gear.

But you've got a good argument. ie, Move the big CRT out of the HT room and into the family room; Give the family room T.V. to the daughter; set-up the current main T.V. room with a PJ.

But every time I mention the "PJ" word I get a cold stare and the "Why" question.

It has been resolved that I have more chance of a (50) plasma so that is probably the way to go for now. Can always do something else later.

BUT benthx has reminded me to leave my cheque book at home when I go over to his place to look at his PJ!

My wife demands that I have a dedicated theatre room. I reluctantly go along with those demands.

"Oh no dear, don't force me to use a dedicated room!"

LOL

[JoshH]

My wife demands that I have a dedicated theatre room. I reluctantly go along with those demands.

"Oh no dear, don't force me to use a dedicated room!"

LOL!

[oztheatre]

I didnit find your comments offensive. Somewhat bizarre, perhaps, but not offensive. I'm not sure what a lecture on the origins of cinemascope, which is well known by anyone with a passing knowledge of film history, has to do with my original comments. Unless you're saying that films made prior to 1953 were filmed in 2.35:1, my point still stands (although, from your comments you seem to think all films made before the introduction of cinemascope were, in actuality, made for television?!). When you list the entire output of films made since the inception of cinema, I seriously doubt you'll find more than 50% are made in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, or even with anamorphic lens', but I am happy to be contradicted if you can provide independent verification. Basing your conclusions on what you've seen in the cinema over the last couple of years isn't exactly scientific.

The fact remains that for many of us, a CIH set up isn't the preferable viewing option. Given that you can buy anamorphic lenses quite cheaply as an add on to projectors, I don't see any reason why projector manufacturers will abandon 16:9 projectors in favour of 2.35:1 projectors and, given the size of the market, I can't see them doing so anytime in the forseeable future. I was merely responding to a comment from a member who said that 2.35:1 was the way of the future for all projectors resulting in the abandonment of 16:9 projectors, a statement I am still waiting to see confirmation of from one of the said projector manufacturers.

You won't see 235 projectors on the market ever imo. Plasma and LCD are 16:9 native panels.

So why would they make 2 types of dvd?, one with 'black bars' for lcd and plasma panels and

one without for 235 projectors, it's not going to happen.

2.35 is certainly the way blockbuster movies are heading, like Mark, I think I have seen one

1.78 film this year (and that was a chick flick!) and possibly 2 last year. If you venture

out and see everything at the cinemas like I do, you will come to the same conclusion:

cinemascope is the most popular format today for films that end up at the cinema

(and to most people, these are the films usually worthy of seeing)

Not saying the art house style movies aren't worth watching, they're just not

very popular and end up on the weekly shelf upon their arrival at blockbuster.....

The idea of removing the black bars can only be understood by projector users.

The black bars are only as black as the contrast ratio of the projector itself.

When you have jet black velour masking the left and right sides of the screen,

it makes those black bars look dark grey, and therefore, very annoying to some.

So when we get contrast ratios of 100,000:1 we will stop complaining about those

dreaded 'black bars'

Rich