new to projectors...

[parkerbender]

i'm looking at a motorized screen, and a cheapish projector... a couple of questions: first, is there a benefit in getting a 16:9 screen instead of a 4:3 screen, if either way i am going to get the widest one that will fit in my installation space: about 113" ? cant' i just use less of the screen for widescreen formatted media? second. does anyone have input about an inexpensive projector? it doesn't have to be the best, just the best bang for the buck... honestly, i shouldn't even be doing this, but theoretically i could probably spare $400ish. i'm not above going to ebay by any means. is it possible? ideas?

Thanks for everything!

 

[parkerbender]

does anyone know about the optoma EP716? just found an inexpenisive one, was wondering...

 

[Johnd]

does anyone know about the optoma EP716? just found an inexpenisive one, was wondering...

No. But I'm sure you can get a great 720p if you up your ceiling a little bit (to about $600-$700). A lot of great models are less undesirable now due to the 1080 being so reasonable.

 

[parkerbender]

okay...

so, any ideas then on a decent 720 projector for 599? (or less) is the resolution going to look so-so? i am going with probably about a 110" screen...

Thanks for any suggestions!

-Parker

 

[orAgon]

so, any ideas then on a decent 720 projector for 599? (or less) is the resolution going to look so-so? i am going with probably about a 110" screen...

Thanks for any suggestions!

-Parker

The closest you can get to a "good" 720P projector with your budget is the Optoma HD-70 and the Acer PH530. These units have shown consistently above average reviews compared to the rest in the same class. You should be able to find one for around $700. I would not recommend anything lower than 720P ($599 or less) unless you don't care about the picture quality. Cheers.

 

[KevInCinci]

As for screen dimensions, don't waste your time on a 4:3 size, unless the only thing you're going to watch is regular (non-HD) TV. That's the only thing that comes in that format these days and even some regular broadcasts appear letterboxed. it's also my experience that regular TV (broadcast or cable) looks like crap on a projection system. All your DVDs and HD channels go out in 16:9, except for some movies that are in the original theater format 2.35:1, I think it is, which means it'll be letterboxed on your 16:9 screen, but at least it will appear bigger than if it was on a 4:3 screen. So yes, you can use less of the screen, but then what's the point of having a big screen? So figure out what you're going to watch the most, and then go with that size. I personally would rather have the 4:3 TV broadcasts use less of the screen from side-to-side on my 16:9 screen than the other way around.

Cheers,

Kevin

 

[parkerbender]

i'm confused... i'm saying the limiting factor is my width, so. if i get a 16:9 screen the measurements will be 112"x63" and a 4x3 screen will be 112"x84" i guess i worded my question wrong... is there any reason a peron could not show 16:9 format media on the 4:3 screen, just ignoring the extra screen on the bottom and top, or set the screen to only come down 63" when showing widescreen programming? or will the extra screen have funny black levels around the picture, since the screen has the same material above the picture viewing area for 16:9 format programming, when shown on a 4:3 screen.

 

[orAgon]

i'm confused... i'm saying the limiting factor is my width, so. if i get a 16:9 screen the measurements will be 112"x63" and a 4x3 screen will be 112"x84" i guess i worded my question wrong... is there any reason a peron could not show 16:9 format media on the 4:3 screen, just ignoring the extra screen on the bottom and top, or set the screen to only come down 63" when showing widescreen programming? or will the extra screen have funny black levels around the picture, since the screen has the same material above the picture viewing area for 16:9 format programming, when shown on a 4:3 screen.

The problem with this is if you were watching 4:3 material (if this is your default set up to fill your screen) and suddenly switch to 16:9 material the projected 16:9 image will be way too wide and you will need to zoom back to correct it. Whereas if you were watching 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen, although your image will be smaller (with black bars on the sides), you wouldn't need to do anything to the projector's hardware/zoom settings to compensate. I find the latter to be much more acceptable.

 

[KevInCinci]

The problem with this is if you were watching 4:3 material (if this is your default set up to fill your screen) and suddenly switch to 16:9 material the projected 16:9 image will be way too wide and you will need to zoom back to correct it. Whereas if you were watching 4:3 material on a 16:9 screen, although your image will be smaller (with black bars on the sides), you wouldn't need to do anything to the projector's hardware/zoom settings to compensate. I find the latter to be much more acceptable.

I'm not sure this is correct. The projected image won't get any wider regardless of the image format without physically zooming in/out. You tell your projector (usually in an on-screen menu) in its initial setup what your screen ratio is, then it adjusts the output accordingly. Like our 16:9s add black bars to the sides for 4:3, a 4:3 output will just add the bars to top/bottom for the 16:9, with the width staying the same.

So to get back to your re-worded question, no, there's no reason you can't watch 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen. You just have to deal with the black bars. I think if you only partially lowered your screen to fit the 16:9 dimensions, then you'd have to physically adjust the aim point of your projector (lens offset) because it would no longer have the same center.

So yeah, I guess going with a 4:3 screen would give you the maximum image for all aspects, but you should consider the room setup. At the dimensions you give for a 4:3 screen, that's a 140" diagonal, which means you'd have to be sitting pretty far back to get somewhere around the THX-recommended distance (see the other recent posts on this). And your projector might have to be pretty far away to have an image this large, which means it may not be as bright. And again consider your viewing habits. We hardly watch any TV on ours, so I love having the DVD images fill the whole screen, while it doesn't bother me to have the TV images a bit smaller for the rare times it's on. It's an aesthetic thing (and keeps my wife from asking why we always have those bars with this big screen!). Just some other things to consider.

Cheers,

Kevin

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm not sure this is correct. The projected image won't get any wider regardless of the image format without physically zooming in/out. You tell your projector (usually in an on-screen menu) in its initial setup what your screen ratio is, then it adjusts the output accordingly. Like our 16:9s add black bars to the sides for 4:3, a 4:3 output will just add the bars to top/bottom for the 16:9, with the width staying the same.

So to get back to your re-worded question, no, there's no reason you can't watch 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen. You just have to deal with the black bars. I think if you only partially lowered your screen to fit the 16:9 dimensions, then you'd have to physically adjust the aim point of your projector (lens offset) because it would no longer have the same center.

So yeah, I guess going with a 4:3 screen would give you the maximum image for all aspects, but you should consider the room setup. At the dimensions you give for a 4:3 screen, that's a 140" diagonal, which means you'd have to be sitting pretty far back to get somewhere around the THX-recommended distance (see the other recent posts on this). And your projector might have to be pretty far away to have an image this large, which means it may not be as bright. And again consider your viewing habits. We hardly watch any TV on ours, so I love having the DVD images fill the whole screen, while it doesn't bother me to have the TV images a bit smaller for the rare times it's on. It's an aesthetic thing (and keeps my wife from asking why we always have those bars with this big screen!). Just some other things to consider.

Cheers,

Kevin

Interestingly, I think you would be correct if that movie is a non-anamorphic type. At least that is what I am experiencing on a 1.85 screen. Non anamorphic dvd is just a small rectangle on the screen, probably the width that a 4:3 would be, not sure as I don't watch them on purpose.
Yet, anamorphic is all the way out to the sides of the screen, a bunch wider.

On the old CRT, anamorphic and non-anamorphic was the full width of the screen though and 4:3 the full height.

 

[parkerbender]

okay, off the screen subject... does anyone know about the Digital Projection i-Vision HD-7? http://www.projectorcentral.com/Digital_Projection-iVision_HD-7.htm

i'm considering it for a starter projector... just wondering about opinions/experiences.

Thanks for everything!

-Parker

 

[orAgon]

I'm not sure this is correct. The projected image won't get any wider regardless of the image format without physically zooming in/out. You tell your projector (usually in an on-screen menu) in its initial setup what your screen ratio is, then it adjusts the output accordingly. Like our 16:9s add black bars to the sides for 4:3, a 4:3 output will just add the bars to top/bottom for the 16:9, with the width staying the same.

So to get back to your re-worded question, no, there's no reason you can't watch 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen. You just have to deal with the black bars. I think if you only partially lowered your screen to fit the 16:9 dimensions, then you'd have to physically adjust the aim point of your projector (lens offset) because it would no longer have the same center.

So yeah, I guess going with a 4:3 screen would give you the maximum image for all aspects, but you should consider the room setup. At the dimensions you give for a 4:3 screen, that's a 140" diagonal, which means you'd have to be sitting pretty far back to get somewhere around the THX-recommended distance (see the other recent posts on this). And your projector might have to be pretty far away to have an image this large, which means it may not be as bright. And again consider your viewing habits. We hardly watch any TV on ours, so I love having the DVD images fill the whole screen, while it doesn't bother me to have the TV images a bit smaller for the rare times it's on. It's an aesthetic thing (and keeps my wife from asking why we always have those bars with this big screen!). Just some other things to consider.

Cheers,

Kevin

I should have been more specific. Speaking strictly of fixed 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios (sans letterbox or anamorphic sizes), at a fixed zoom setting, a 4:3 native projector will throw an image that is of constant width while a 16:9 projector will throw an image of constant height. At least this is how the projectors I’ve owned behaved. The 4:3 projector “fills” a 16:9 screen with 16:9 material but with 4:3 material, the image, while of the correct width, is too high and overflows the top and bottom borders. The opposite is true with the 16:9 native projector. In any case the image size that comes within the borders is limited by the screen width that can be attained.

This may or may not be the case with high end projectors. I do not know.