Big TV Vs Projector

[JohnnyJazz]

Now that I'm doing a full house renovation I'm wondering if I should go for a big TV or install a projector with an old school white screen ?

Here is what I found on the intenet but I would be interested to hear the opinion of people who have chosen the projector option

http://www.cnet.com/news/projectors-vs-tvs-giant-screen-pros-and-cons/

[IMHO]

Some initial questions?

1. Is to room always going to be pitch dark? if no, no projector.

2. Is the screen size you're planning < 90" diagonal? If yes, no projector.

3. If the screen size is > 90", are you prepared to pay upwards of 400K Baht for a quality PJ and imported screen?

[Benjie]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

[IMHO]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

Sure you can pick up a locally made Vertex screen for 15-20K Baht, but the difference between it and a 200K-400K Baht Stewart screen is everything you'd expect.

Same goes for PJ's - 70K Baht is only going to get you into a 1080P run-of-the-mill 1600-2000lm beamer - for something that's going to have a hope of keeping up with the PQ of a current gen 4K flat panel TV though, you're talking 300K up.

[JohnnyJazz]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

Sure you can pick up a locally made Vertex screen for 15-20K Baht, but the difference between it and a 200K-400K Baht Stewart screen is everything you'd expect.

Same goes for PJ's - 70K Baht is only going to get you into a 1080P run-of-the-mill 1600-2000lm beamer - for something that's going to have a hope of keeping up with the PQ of a current gen 4K flat panel TV though, you're talking 300K up.

If I understand you well, one should be ready to spend half a million bahts for a decent projector system ? The most expensive TV I saw last time I had a look at my local mall doesn't even cost half of that (a 70" or 80" if I remember correctly). A bit exaggerated don't you think ?

[2fishin2]

No projector will outperform a modern television period.

[JohnnyJazz]

Anyway, the more I read about it, the more I realize the real problem is the ambient light. If you can't have a room that can be really dark, the TV seems to be a better option. In short you need to have a windowless room dedicated to your home theater if you chose the projector option.

[JohnnyJazz]

No projector will outperform a modern television period.

I don't like the word "period". I have the same reaction that my old math teacher had when someone were using the word "obvious". You were then sent to the blackboard and asked to demonstrate thoroughly every single assertion that you had associated with that word. More than thirty years later I'm still careful with the use of "obvious" or "period" for that matter.

[2fishin2]

No projector will outperform a modern television period.

I don't like the word "period". I have the same reaction that my old math teacher had when someone were using the word "obvious". You were then sent to the blackboard and asked to demonstrate thoroughly every single assertion that you had associated with that word. More than thirty years later I'm still careful with the use of "obvious" or "period" for that matter.

Noted. Lets forget I wrote that.

[IMHO]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

Sure you can pick up a locally made Vertex screen for 15-20K Baht, but the difference between it and a 200K-400K Baht Stewart screen is everything you'd expect.

Same goes for PJ's - 70K Baht is only going to get you into a 1080P run-of-the-mill 1600-2000lm beamer - for something that's going to have a hope of keeping up with the PQ of a current gen 4K flat panel TV though, you're talking 300K up.

If I understand you well, one should be ready to spend half a million bahts for a decent projector system ? The most expensive TV I saw last time I had a look at my local mall doesn't even cost half of that (a 70" or 80" if I remember correctly). A bit exaggerated don't you think ?

The 105" LG 5K TV MSRP's at 1.3M, Samsung's flagship 85" 4K MSRP's at the same. Prices get nuts at the top end

However, the 84" LG 4K can be had for around 250K on a good day (MSRP=600K). If you want the same PQ at 100" or larger, yes, it's going to cost you. If you're willing to lower your expectations to 2010 PQ standards, 100K will get you in the ballpark.

[IMHO]

Anyway, the more I read about it, the more I realize the real problem is the ambient light. If you can't have a room that can be really dark, the TV seems to be a better option. In short you need to have a windowless room dedicated to your home theater if you chose the projector option.

Correct 100%. Beamers only look good in otherwise 0 lux. Anything above that, and the white screen just can't look black anymore.

Period 555

[2fishin2]

And make sure to throw in the cost of a home theatre system while you are at it

[JohnnyJazz]

Period 555

[Anthony5]

No projector will outperform a modern television period.

I don't like the word "period". I have the same reaction that my old math teacher had when someone were using the word "obvious". You were then sent to the blackboard and asked to demonstrate thoroughly every single assertion that you had associated with that word. More than thirty years later I'm still careful with the use of "obvious" or "period" for that matter.

That's quite obvious.

[2fishin2]

Lol

[Benjie]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

Sure you can pick up a locally made Vertex screen for 15-20K Baht, but the difference between it and a 200K-400K Baht Stewart screen is everything you'd expect.

Same goes for PJ's - 70K Baht is only going to get you into a 1080P run-of-the-mill 1600-2000lm beamer - for something that's going to have a hope of keeping up with the PQ of a current gen 4K flat panel TV though, you're talking 300K up.

Having had both (and others) I don't agree, was the Stewart screen better, yes but you certainly aren't getting a screen that 10 times better.

I could setup a "Run of the mill" 1080p projector and blow the socks of 95% of the population in terms of image quality, most people haven't seen a well designed and commissioned projector setup.

No point having 4k until that's the standard for HD releases. Thats the beauty of a projector, instead of being stuck with a 400k TV when the next best thing comes around, you just buy a new projector when the new standard comes into being, the rest of the setup stays the same.

I disagree when people say a projector can't match a TV picture quality, I much prefer a projected image.

[IMHO]

Why would you need to pay 400k?

You can get a nice quality screen here for around 20k, and decent projectors start at around 70k, then you've got your surround sound on top. Projectors have come a long way even in the last few years, if you have a room you can make dark and like big screens I would definitely go with a projector system.

For me (as an AV/Home Cinema professional) there is nothing like the feel of watching a projected movie on a large screen, it's just a totally different experience than watching a tv.

Sure you can pick up a locally made Vertex screen for 15-20K Baht, but the difference between it and a 200K-400K Baht Stewart screen is everything you'd expect.

Same goes for PJ's - 70K Baht is only going to get you into a 1080P run-of-the-mill 1600-2000lm beamer - for something that's going to have a hope of keeping up with the PQ of a current gen 4K flat panel TV though, you're talking 300K up.

Having had both (and others) I don't agree, was the Stewart screen better, yes but you certainly aren't getting a screen that 10 times better.

I could setup a "Run of the mill" 1080p projector and blow the socks of 95% of the population in terms of image quality, most people haven't seen a well designed and commissioned projector setup.

No point having 4k until that's the standard for HD releases. Thats the beauty of a projector, instead of being stuck with a 400k TV when the next best thing comes around, you just buy a new projector when the new standard comes into being, the rest of the setup stays the same.

I disagree when people say a projector can't match a TV picture quality, I much prefer a projected image.

A professionally calibrated picture will blow away anything people are accustomed to viewing. Most PJ setups are being installed and calibrated by someone who actually has in idea of what a natural color balance looks like, and what natural light output should be. I assume you're in this class

However, a professionally calibrated flat panel achieves the same quality goals too, and has two extra abilities a PJ doesn't:

1) it can go brighter. Not just a little brighter, a LOT. Yes, you do Not want on overly bright screen - that is, until ambient light gets to high levels.

2) It can still make blacks in ambient light.

Generally speaking, most people setup their flat panels to be way too bright - lead by the over-saturated and over-backlit displays they see in stores no doubt - if correctly calibrated though, there's simply no way you could say the same size projected image looks better.

My original advice still stands - if you're looking to do < 90", just buy a much more versatile flat panel. If you don't want to spend the money on an 80"+ 4K TV so you're ready for UHD Bluray's in a few months time, by all means find a runout 1080P model.

[raphoedon]

4k large screen TVs, too expensive too early.(no content) Lg's new amoled tv is the best picture quality I have ever seen.

I witnessed one projector with a tv quality image in a club in Huahin called "coconut rocks" but nothing matches the Samsung ue55h6400 for picture quality functionality and value for money.

[IMHO]

4k large screen TVs, too expensive too early.(no content) Lg's new amoled tv is the best picture quality I have ever seen.

I witnessed one projector with a tv quality image in a club in Huahin called "coconut rocks" but nothing matches the Samsung ue55h6400 for picture quality functionality and value for money.

We're talking about Big TV's though. 55" need not apply

[AJBangkok]

I have just hung my 84 inch LG UHD TV on the wall and am waiting for my audio system to be installed. Very exciting. In the past I've had projector TV's andi found them to be a hassle, with the biggest issue being watching tv in the daytime. I did buy a glass bead screen to deal with that but it still wasn't as good as TV. Also the motor in the screen burned out, connecting other devices was a hassle and the lamp woukd always have to warm up and cool down. Technology has probably improved since I owned one but I still feel for all around ease of use a big TV is a better option.

[astral]

If you go the projector route do check out bulb life

and the cost of replacement

[JohnnyJazz]

Anyway, the more I read about it, the more I realize the real problem is the ambient light. If you can't have a room that can be really dark, the TV seems to be a better option. In short you need to have a windowless room dedicated to your home theater if you chose the projector option.

Actually I'd like to come back on that statement. I saw some projectors on display in a computer mall today. The showroom was brightly illuminated, only the area around the white scree was protected from direct light. Of course it was not the ultimate movie experience but the image was big and clear. And for an affordable price, less than 50K.

I remember about 20 years ago, it was near my first flat in Bangkok, at the junction between Rama IV and Sukhumvit. One night I came back to see a small group of children seated in front of bed sheet hanged between two poles and someone was playing a Chinese KungFu movie right in the middle of the soi. It was a very enjoyable experience. I believe if you're looking to entertain a small group of friends without looking for the ultimate IMAX experience, a projector is a good alternative to an expensive (and fragile) big TV.

[IMHO]

Anyway, the more I read about it, the more I realize the real problem is the ambient light. If you can't have a room that can be really dark, the TV seems to be a better option. In short you need to have a windowless room dedicated to your home theater if you chose the projector option.

Actually I'd like to come back on that statement. I saw some projectors on display in a computer mall today. The showroom was brightly illuminated, only the area around the white scree was protected from direct light. Of course it was not the ultimate movie experience but the image was big and clear. And for an affordable price, less than 50K.

I remember about 20 years ago, it was near my first flat in Bangkok, at the junction between Rama IV and Sukhumvit. One night I came back to see a small group of children seated in front of bed sheet hanged between two poles and someone was playing a Chinese KungFu movie right in the middle of the soi. It was a very enjoyable experience. I believe if you're looking to entertain a small group of friends without looking for the ultimate IMAX experience, a projector is a good alternative to an expensive (and fragile) big TV.

If that suits you're current expectations, go for it.

Beware that it's a lot like audio systems though - after a while, no matter how big & loud they are, there's not much satisfaction in the sound quality anymore...

I've now lost count of how many times my wallet has emptied as my expectations for audio and video quality changed

A smaller, better quality image will almost certainly keep you satisfied for longer than a bigger, lower quality image. But, the bigger, lower quality image will give you a higher amount of satisfaction, for that shorter period of time though..

[JohnnyJazz]

Actually I'd like to come back on that statement. I saw some projectors on display in a computer mall today. The showroom was brightly illuminated, only the area around the white scree was protected from direct light. Of course it was not the ultimate movie experience but the image was big and clear. And for an affordable price, less than 50K.

I remember about 20 years ago, it was near my first flat in Bangkok, at the junction between Rama IV and Sukhumvit. One night I came back to see a small group of children seated in front of bed sheet hanged between two poles and someone was playing a Chinese KungFu movie right in the middle of the soi. It was a very enjoyable experience. I believe if you're looking to entertain a small group of friends without looking for the ultimate IMAX experience, a projector is a good alternative to an expensive (and fragile) big TV.

If that suits you're current expectations, go for it.

Beware that it's a lot like audio systems though - after a while, no matter how big & loud they are, there's not much satisfaction in the sound quality anymore...

I've now lost count of how many times my wallet has emptied as my expectations for audio and video quality changed

A smaller, better quality image will almost certainly keep you satisfied for longer than a bigger, lower quality image. But, the bigger, lower quality image will give you a higher amount of satisfaction, for that shorter period of time though..

The point is I can't afford to invest in a movie theatre, I mean the real big stuff some movie stars install in the basement of their 20 bedrooms mansion. So if I want a quality movie experience the best I can afford is a top of the range 50" TV in a room with a nice sofa and a couple of armchairs. But I believe it can also coexist with a not-so-expensive projector in a bigger room when I want to entertain a larger audience like during a big family reunion for example. Would you agree with that ?

[AJBangkok]

Central Chidlom has an LG 65 inch 4k UHD TV on sale now for 87k. It's probably decent enough to fulfill both functions. And by the time you buy the projector, the cables, the screen and the 50 inch TV you're probably looking at a marginal total price difference. How often do you really think you'll use the projector? I probably used mine less than 20 times before it was regarded to a box in the closet.

[2fishin2]

Just purchase a large 60" or larger smart TV.

[IMHO]

Maybe we should back this up a bit and get some higher-level info from the OP?

What size is the room this is for?

What is the minimum seating distance from the screen?

As an example, in a 4M wide room you can go up to about a 160" diagonal screen, taking up pretty much all of the wall (with just a little breathing space). But at 4M seating distance, 160" is simply too overwhelming, and gives viewers the "tennis effect".

The basic rule of thumb is: seating distance >= 1.5x screen width.

Using this, at 4M min. seating distance the max. screen width should be 2.66M, which translates to around 120" diagonal at 16:9.

If the min. seating distance is 3M, the max. recommended screen size is now around 90" for comfortable (yet still engulfing) viewing.

To make a 160" screen comfortable to view, the min. seating distance would need to be 5.3M...

[JohnnyJazz]

Central Chidlom has an LG 65 inch 4k UHD TV on sale now for 87k. It's probably decent enough to fulfill both functions. And by the time you buy the projector, the cables, the screen and the 50 inch TV you're probably looking at a marginal total price difference. How often do you really think you'll use the projector? I probably used mine less than 20 times before it was regarded to a box in the closet.

You have a point.

But an other thing to consider is I may have to buy two sets anyway. As I said I have a "TV room" for when I'm with my wife or just a couple of friends. And a much bigger room for parties with friends and family where I may install the projector.

[JohnnyJazz]

Maybe we should back this up a bit and get some higher-level info from the OP?

What size is the room this is for?

What is the minimum seating distance from the screen?

As an example, in a 4M wide room you can go up to about a 160" diagonal screen, taking up pretty much all of the wall (with just a little breathing space). But at 4M seating distance, 160" is simply too overwhelming, and gives viewers the "tennis effect".

The basic rule of thumb is: seating distance >= 1.5x screen width.

Using this, at 4M min. seating distance the max. screen width should be 2.66M, which translates to around 120" diagonal at 16:9.

If the min. seating distance is 3M, the max. recommended screen size is now around 90" for comfortable (yet still engulfing) viewing.

To make a 160" screen comfortable to view, the min. seating distance would need to be 5.3M...

Asking the right question ... we recognize the professional

[IMHO]

Actually I'd like to come back on that statement. I saw some projectors on display in a computer mall today. The showroom was brightly illuminated, only the area around the white scree was protected from direct light. Of course it was not the ultimate movie experience but the image was big and clear. And for an affordable price, less than 50K.

I remember about 20 years ago, it was near my first flat in Bangkok, at the junction between Rama IV and Sukhumvit. One night I came back to see a small group of children seated in front of bed sheet hanged between two poles and someone was playing a Chinese KungFu movie right in the middle of the soi. It was a very enjoyable experience. I believe if you're looking to entertain a small group of friends without looking for the ultimate IMAX experience, a projector is a good alternative to an expensive (and fragile) big TV.

If that suits you're current expectations, go for it.

Beware that it's a lot like audio systems though - after a while, no matter how big & loud they are, there's not much satisfaction in the sound quality anymore...

I've now lost count of how many times my wallet has emptied as my expectations for audio and video quality changed

A smaller, better quality image will almost certainly keep you satisfied for longer than a bigger, lower quality image. But, the bigger, lower quality image will give you a higher amount of satisfaction, for that shorter period of time though..

The point is I can't afford to invest in a movie theatre, I mean the real big stuff some movie stars install in the basement of their 20 bedrooms mansion. So if I want a quality movie experience the best I can afford is a top of the range 50" TV in a room with a nice sofa and a couple of armchairs. But I believe it can also coexist with a not-so-expensive projector in a bigger room when I want to entertain a larger audience like during a big family reunion for example. Would you agree with that ?

I would absolutely agree that if you have a room where you want both something viewable in ambient light, but also something that can overwhelm your senses/wow your visitors at night, a combination of flat panel and PJ covers all bases.