OT - Plasma TV question

Jay Honeck wrote:

Yes, and many projectors don't do well with normal ambient light levels
during the daytime. And the projectors that do handle this well, tend
to eat those $200 light bulbs are a high rate. Unless this will be in
an area that Jay can keep a little dark, I'd shy away from a projector.
They simply generate the light levels required for daytime use in a
room with unshaded windows.


Well, this is inside a windowless meeting room -- so keeping light out
is a simple matter.

Sounds ideal.


Do the projection TVs need a special screen, or can you just project
the picture on a painted white wall?

They don't need a special screen, but everyone I know will strongly
suggest one. The screen really makes the display work well and they
aren't cheap either and come in a variety of colors, gain values, etc.

There are three options with a projector:

1. Use a plain white wall. This is a very poor option.

2. Use a special paint made for projectors. This is a mediocre option.

3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
close to a grand.

However, many reviews I've seen say if you are going to scrimp, scrimp
on the projector and not the screen. A good screen will last 20 years.
The projector will be obsolete in 3. And each dollar spent on the
screen will return much more viewing quality than an additional dollar
spent on the projector.


Matt

I picked up an InFocus 4805 at Costco (a bit more than 1 AMU)
and it came with a 6 ft. screen "window shade" type. Mounted it on
the ceiling, works fine.

My friends went with the screen material (there are a number
of suppliers, check google) and created frame to mount the material,
then mounted that on a wall. This definitely eliminated any
ripple or waves. On the other hand, I haven't noticed any on
my window shade version, either.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
[...]
3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
close to a grand.

Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
spend a grand just to get a quality picture.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

[...]
3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
close to a grand.


Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
spend a grand just to get a quality picture.

View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent.
There is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in
scenery, instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

[...]
3. Use a special screen made for projectors. This is by far the best
option, but also by far the most costly. A decent screen will start at
close to a grand.


Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "decent", but there are
plenty of usable screens out there for a few hundred bucks. No need to
spend a grand just to get a quality picture.

View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.

Yes, you will. But a light shade of gray is best.

In the old days of sub 1000 ANSI lumen projectors, screens with various
coatings that increased gain while sacrificing viewing angle were popular.
Also, special highly reflective paints were used to increase gain but
contrast suffered. It's simply no longer an issue. A painted surface is
just fine.

moo

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.

I'm not talking about a white painted wall. I'm talking about a nice,
budget-priced screen. In any case, if the best you can come up with for a
definition of "decent" is "the difference between a $1000 screen and a $300
screen", then you haven't proven anything. You've simply chosen to define
"decent" in a way that tautologically "proves" your point.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

View them side by side and then you'll see my definition of decent. There
is simply no comparison. If you want to see fine detail in scenery,
instruments, etc., you won't be happy on a white painted wall.


I'm not talking about a white painted wall. I'm talking about a nice,
budget-priced screen. In any case, if the best you can come up with for a
definition of "decent" is "the difference between a $1000 screen and a $300
screen", then you haven't proven anything. You've simply chosen to define
"decent" in a way that tautologically "proves" your point.

I didn't even try to define it. I suggested how you could know it when
you see it. If you are happy with a cheap projector on a cheap screen,
then what is your problem with me not being happy with it? My standards
are simply higher than yours. Not a problem for me, and I'm not sure
why it bothers you so much.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
I didn't even try to define it.

Sure you did. From your post: "...then you'll see my DEFINITION of decent"
(emphasis added, since you seem to be having trouble seeing it).

I suggested how you could know it when you see it.

Hmmm...so we're going with the ever-popular definition also used for
pornography. Glad to see the subject treated so rigorously.

If you are happy with a cheap projector on a cheap screen, then what is
your problem with me not being happy with it?

We're not talking about what makes you happy. We're talking about your
incredibly vague and non-useful definition of "decent", and your willingness
to use such a vague definition as a basis for your claim of the minimum
price point for a DLP projector.

My standards are simply higher than yours.

Again, how do you know? Answer: you don't. You have no idea what my
standards are, or how they relate to yours.

Not a problem for me, and I'm not sure why it bothers you so much.

What bothers me are your proclamations of certainty, without anything close
to a justification for making them.

Pete