Christie shows off game changing OLED-like projector at CEDIA 2022. Only costs $400,000!

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think a big issue is that the projector field has a lot of audiophile vibes to it

It has the same issue, the problem is that the products and functions they do are fundamentally basic so the brands in the market have to find ways to market themselves and try and stand out. This leads to strong marketing with very engineered and dubious claims or benefits devoid of logical reality and common sense. It's not that the claims aren't specifically true in the exacting way they say it to the specific wording, it's that the "thing" probably isn't a problem or has a better cheaper solution already.

 

If ambient light is a problem and you really just want to watch a movie every so often then wait until night time, that's as cheap of a solution as you can get haha. It's not like a cheap LCD/OLED screen is that much of a problem to have as well as and combined can be cheaper than going deep down the path of trying to get a projector to do something it's just not good at doing.

 

What I like about my screen and why I choose it is that it's native 2.35:1 and it has adjustable shutters on the side you can pull in so you never have "black bars" no matter the content aspect ratio. The image always fits the screen, this quite subtle thing actually make a big difference and is much more pleasing to look at a screen without any unnecessary white/grey etc portions of the screen not filled with the image.

 

Part of the reason why a projector can be so good compared to TVs is you can address the "black bar" problem and variable aspect ratio problem (which is the same problem). You do however need a projector that has 2.35:1 mode and multiple presets with an optical zoom/adjustment. I turn the auto aspect ratio detection off though since the screen shutters are not motorized.

 

Also if you pay attention in cinemas you'll see that those screens have adjustable side shutters also, because that's the "proper" way to do it.

[IPD]

If you have to modify aspect ratio, sure.  I'd rather just never have to adapt to content shot in sub-optimal aspect ratios.

 

Also, I use a tab-tensioned, fixed-frame screen.  I don't have issues with surface uniformity or ripples.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, IPD said:

If you have to modify aspect ratio, sure.  I'd rather just never have to adapt to content shot in sub-optimal aspect ratios.

 

What? Movies are mostly in 2.35:1, 16:9 is TV aspect ratio used for TV shows, games and online videos. You do actually know what I'm talking about?

 

100% unless you have movable shutters you have portions of your screen not filled with the image if the screen is 16:9 and the content is 2.35:1 and vice versa.

 

Sub optimal for movies is anything not 2.35-2.40:1 

 

Although that said a lot of animated movies make sense in 16:9 since you have more flexibility and creative freedom regarding proportions of things.

[IPD]

I'm aware of movies being shot in 21:9.  It's also a fairly recent trend and one that I've never agreed with being a thing in the first place (read: it's a conspiracy to force sales of more bullshit displays that aren't truly useful).

 

Additionally, I don't want to live with shrunken vertical size screen just so that I can occasionally watch some 21:9 movie (which I do fewer and fewer of, as newer movies increasingly suck).  You'd have to have a 150" 21:9 to have the same vertical as a 120" 16:9.  And you'd need 11.5' of wall to do it, vs. 8.75'.

 

It gets even worse if you wanted a 150" 16:9 (more common for home use than you'd think).  You'd need 11' for that 150" 16:9.  But you'd need a whopping 14.5' to fit a 21:9, 188" monstrosity--just so you can match the vertical on that 150" 16:9.

 

I can live with 9" of black above and below my screen (on a 150" 16:9)--if It means I don't have to knock out a bloody wall to fit a screen that I would use at "full size" less than 20% of the time.

 

So the real question is, wtf did you put shutters on the sides, rather than above/below?

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, IPD said:

It's also a fairly recent trend

It's not recent, it dates back to the 90's. Hell I've got old DVDs that are 2.35:1. Look at your collection carefully, while you see the 16:9 logo on them there is also an actual aspect ratio written too.

 

2.35:1 content is letter boxed in a 16:9 source image container.

 

16 minutes ago, IPD said:

So the real question is, wtf did you put shutters on the sides, rather than above/below?

Because 99% of movies are 2.35:1 and shutters on the top and bottom mean you effectively lose image size when watching 2.35:1 content on a 16:9 screen.

 

You choose either a native 2.35:1 or 16:9 screen based on your most common source material. Both shutter option exist.

 

I don't think you actually know as much as you think you do. But clearly the issue here is you do not primarily watch movies and you did not buy your projector for movie watching so your needs are different to mine.

 

P.S. All your arguments you can make in the opposite for width, when width matters for movie framing which is better wider not taller.

[dilpickle]

17 minutes ago, IPD said:

I'm aware of movies being shot in 21:9.  It's also a fairly recent trend

 

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not recent, it dates back to the 90's.

lolwut. Cinemascope debuted in 1953 kids.

[leadeater]

Also 2.35:1 date back even further than I said if you really want to get exact about it, longer than likely everyone here have been alive. VHS they just cropped the 2.35:1 image to 4:3 so when you watched movies at home on VHS you didn't even get to see the whole image.

 

The worst offender of this was Ghost Busters where in the final scene one of the actors was entirely cut out, ask Ernie Hudson all about it.

 

 

Quote

Ghostbusters 1 & 2 were filmed in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio (approximately), which is Anamorphic Widescreen.

 

Cinema:

 

VHS:

 

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

lolwut. Cinemascope debuted in 1953 kids.

I know, I was talking about at home content like DVDs, VHS simply didn't support anything else or rather they just cropped it to 4:3. See above.

 

Last I checked you can half my age and stlll not a kid, great now you made me feel old. Thanks .

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

If ambient light is a problem and you really just want to watch a movie every so often then wait until night time, that's as cheap of a solution as you can get haha

haha, yea my room had a light issue originally and I use to only watch at night for that reason for a few weeks...solved with $50 in cheap blackout blinds (knocked down almost all the ambient light in the room)

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

What I like about my screen and why I choose it is that it's native 2.35:1 and it has adjustable shutters on the side you can pull in so you never have "black bars" no matter the content aspect ratio. The image always fits the screen, this quite subtle thing actually make a big difference and is much more pleasing to look at a screen without any unnecessary white/grey etc portions of the screen not filled with the image.

Yea, I can get that sort of reasoning.  I don't really care too much about the band above and below...but that's also because I'm too lazy to adjust things.  I can totally get how it can annoy people, and why some might pay for that kind of feature that lets them adjust it.

 

I'm against the advertising and insistence on like super expensive screens that have a lot less practicality when just painting a wall can achieve a more noticeable difference...especially when some of them affect picture fidelity.  (The $10,000 screen is actually similar to that, it's great for high light areas and still being able to make things out, but has a weird property that makes it less desirable in the dark than a cheap projector screen) [I swear, it has mini retroreflectors on it]

[Shzzit]

400k?  HOLY CRAP lol.  Id love to see the inside of that thing and see how it works. 

 

For that money you could line an  ENTIRE room with micro oled panels and created like a holodeck LOL.