133 inch fixed screen

[Home theatre rookie]

Hey guys,

Is this screen from selby a good buy?

 

http://www.selby.com.au/133inch-16-9-projector-screen-fixed-frame-psf169133p.html

 

Is there another screen of the same size but better quality for the price?

Also, are these easy enough to put together?

Thanks guys.

 

[wooferocau]

9 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Hey guys,

Is this screen from selby a good buy?

 

http://www.selby.com.au/133inch-16-9-projector-screen-fixed-frame-psf169133p.html

 

Is there another screen of the same size but better quality for the price?

Also, are these easy enough to put together?

Thanks guys.

 

If your after a truly excellent screen try one of Richards screens @oztheatre   ... http://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=1

 

More expensive than what your looking at BUT they are awesome screens..

[betty boop]

10 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Hey guys,

Is this screen from selby a good buy?

 

http://www.selby.com.au/133inch-16-9-projector-screen-fixed-frame-psf169133p.html

 

Is there another screen of the same size but better quality for the price?

Also, are these easy enough to put together?

Thanks guys.

 

 

yes oztheatre screens or alternatively two other local made brands as well in screen technics and lpmorgan

 

given the excellent local brands and at not significantly more in price well worth considering. especially when screens are so important its literally where image to to form i.e. the canvas. projectors might come and go but good screens will last test of time so small investment when consider time over which will own them. if can afford new. then also look second hand. often good quality screens come up at a HUGE bargain and there appear to be some in the classifieds..

 

133 inch 16:9 is also a VERY large screen and I hope you have the projector to light up appropriately. 

[Guest EZYHD]

1 hour ago, wooferocau said:

If your after a truly excellent screen try one of Richards screens @oztheatre   ... http://www.projectorscreens.com.au/index.php?dispatch=categories.view&category_id=1

 

More expensive than what your looking at BUT they are awesome screens..

No doubt about it Richard at OZtheatre is the go to guy for screens.

[Home theatre rookie]

If what im speaking with Joz about comes through, ill be running an epson 9300 (2500 lumen) on the screen from 6.7 metres back.

 

Do you think that will light up the screen optimally?

[betty boop]

while epson might claim 2500 lumen or what ever keep in mind thats a high output setting likely and would be awful in calibration. I've owned a 9000 series epson myself and wouldn't want to use in anything bar eco setting as colours etc go right off.

 

i dont know what you are working on wiht joz.

 

you would need the calculator understand how lights up screens. 6.7m is a long way back ? . keep in mind i dont know what setting on the epson the calculator uses. you dont want to be using anything bar eco setting on the epsons. you want to achieve something akin to 12-16 FL for blu-ray and atleast 30FL with UHD HDR material

 

133" 16:9 jut sounds way too big a screen. even a 120" viewed from 4m or so in a 6.7m long room would make much more sense. 

 

lighting up such a large screen would likely need a very short throw round 4m or so i suspect particularly for UHD.

[Home theatre rookie]

Oh dear, you have me worried now.

My ht room is 7.1 metres long on the ground floor of a 2 story house.

 

Viewing distsnce is from ~ 6 metres and ~ 4 metres.

 

I guess i could mount the projector a little closer, say, 6 metres from the lens to the wall, would that be sufficient to run in eco?

The room has 100% light control.

 

Really want the biggest screen possible but dont want to sacrifice contrast.

 

 

[joz]

2 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

If what im speaking with Joz about comes through, ill be running an epson 9300 (2500 lumen) on the screen from 6.7 metres back.

 

Do you think that will light up the screen optimally?

When you ring Mimo, ask him. He knows a bit about this stuff.

[betty boop]

for a 7.1m long room. I would have first row at 4.7m and 2nd row corresponding to what ever it ends up being (non essential). you want to optimise for the first row. this is using the rule of thirds and will help you audio wise

 

id consider a couple of screen sizes using rule of thumb of viewing distance of 2.5-3x screen heights that corresponds to 120 - 140" screen so you are in right screen size ball park

 

though screens like that you want to have you projector i would suggest as close to the screen as zoom will allow to maximise brightness.

 

1 minute ago, joz said:

When you ring Mimo, ask him. He knows a bit about this stuff.

 

if mimo ex TCC then he knows his stuff re epsons and all this stuff. what is mimo doing these days

 

 

 

[joz]

54 minutes ago, al said:

 

if mimo ex TCC then he knows his stuff re epsons and all this stuff. what is mimo doing these days

 

 

 

Yep the one and the same.

He's at a wholesale company dealing with a few brands. But no retail.

[Owen]

On 9/22/2017 at 10:04 AM, Home theatre rookie said:

ill be running an epson 9300 (2500 lumen)

That's the useless manufacturers spec, the real world tested maximum output with reasonably well calibrated and quite accurate Rec.709 colour, in high lamp mode with iris full open, is about 1400 lumens best case. Eoc lamp mode provided about 950 lumens

For "wide gamut" colour (DCI) output drops to about 730 in high lamp and only 500 or so lumens in Eco mode, both with very inaccurate colour. Attempting to get better colour accuracy will result in even lower output

As you can see the real world numbers are VERY different to the manufactures spec.

 

If you want a "4K" projector that actually can deliver around 2500 real  lumens with decent colour accuracy you had better have deep pockets, it will cost you $40K plus.

 

http://www.projectorjunkies.com/epson-tw9300-full-review-2/

[Home theatre rookie]

So are you saying the epson 9300 wont produce a clear/bright/accurate image to a 133 inch diagonal screen from 6.7 metres from lens to screen?

 

That review (obviously translated) was glowing. Thanks.

Im not really concerned if it is a true 2500 lumen or not, i just want a high contrast, clear, accurate image from 6.7 metres onto a 133 inch screen.

 

I would love a 40k projector, unfortunately thats out of my price range.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Home theatre rookie

[Owen]

14 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Im not really concerned if it is a true 2500 lumen or not, i just want a high contrast, clear, accurate image from 6.7 metres onto a 133 inch screen.

The Epson has poor fill factor, which is why the pixel grid is so obvious. It should not be.

Contrast is only good compared to lesser LCD and DLP projectors, its about half that of a Sony, about one third that of a base model JVC and about one fifth that of a mid range JVC. There are significant measures errors in the review because the contrast ratio cannot change when switching lamp mode and should not be different in "natural" V "cinema" mode. The average is about 6000:1 with iris full open, which is what you will always be using on a 130" screen.

All good projectors are very "clear", how sharp the image looks will depend on the original image source, how it was mastered and the image sharpening system used at the replay end more than the projector its self. External processing can be make a huge difference there.

Its easy to get more sharpness then is desirable, more is not better.

 

Image accuracy on the Epson is good after calibration with Rec.709 source but very poor with HDR wide gamut source. So much so that you would be better off not attempting to use wide gamut if "accuracy" is desired.

 

The projector will be bright enough for Rec.709 content, so would models from other manufactures that dont quote as many lumens because they loose less when calibrated. HDR content will be an issue because the Epson delivers only about 30% of its rated lumens in HDR mode.

We dont need a "bright" image with a big screen viewed in the dark, but its up to the individual to work out how bright is bright enough. You are going to need a screen with at least 1.3 gain and its important to mount the projector as close to the screen as possible because as you move the projector back brightness drops significantly.

The projectorcentreal.com calculator predicts a screen brightness of 32fL on a 130" screen with a gain of 1.3 at a 4m projection distance. Since the calculator uses the manufacturers quoted 2500 lumens in its calculations, and we know the real world output is about half that, you should get  about about 18fL on screen with a new lamp on high, which is plenty. Move the projector back to 6m and brightness drops to about 13fL with a new lamp on high, which is enough but doesnt leave a lot up your sleeve for lamp aging.

The problems comes when you want to used 4K HDR, in this mode you only get about 30% of the rated output, which means you can only expect about 9fL on screen with the projector mounted 4m back, which most people will find marginal, and thats before lamp aging is taken into account. A smaller of higher gain screen would help, but if your intent is the view 4k HDR in wide gamut mode you need a projector with a lot more output in that mode.

 

The cheap option is to disable wide gumut and convert colour to Rec.709, if thats easily doable via the projector or the disk player. Or do as I do and ignore 4K content entirely, which is very easy to do given the dreadful range of titles available.

 

[Home theatre rookie]

Hmmm. The screen im buying has 1.1 gain.

 

Thanks for all the info, its much appreciated, i might have to look into a ceiling mount, to mount the projector closer. I was hoping to sit it on a shelf at the back of the room (ikea table/microwave bracket). Ill see what its like from that distance, if its too "dull", i will have to ceiling mount the 11kg lump.

 

Imo the distances (4 and 6 metres) the projector will be viewed from would make '4K' kind of pointless anyway as it wouldnt be much of a difference to hd at 6 metres viewing distance.

 

When you say "have the contrast of the sony, which sony model are you refering to?

I viewed avatar on both the sony 45 and the epson 9300 and they looked reasonably simular in contrast but the epson seemed smoother to my eyes.

 

[betty boop]

4 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Thanks for all the info, its much appreciated, i might have to look into a ceiling mount, to mount the projector closer. I was hoping to sit it on a shelf at the back of the room (ikea table/microwave bracket). Ill see what its like from that distance, if its too "dull", i will have to ceiling mount the 11kg lump.

as i suggested way back, the projector should be mounted as close up as possible. I wouldn't trust the calculator outputs, theyre good as a guide, but anyones guess what settings they are outputting at. if you have mimo as contact id suggest knows a bit about epsons and can advice output wise what to go on.

 

the epsons DO NOT have an adjustable iris. it has dynamic iris but not one like the jvcs you can set for output.  what they have is power settings. however as mentioned you want to run it on lowest lamp setting as higher ones really go out in colour balance etc. 

 

4 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Imo the distances (4 and 6 metres) the projector will be viewed from would make '4K' kind of pointless anyway as it wouldnt be much of a difference to hd at 6 metres viewing distance.

as i mentioned earlier I would suggest moving the front row back a tad, to 4.7m. it will help audio wise. just remember you will fully resolve 1080p as far back as 5.7m however no 4k is unlikely be anything you are going to be resolving.  

 

4 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

When you say "have the contrast of the sony, which sony model are you refering to?

I viewed avatar on both the sony 45 and the epson 9300 and they looked reasonably simular in contrast but the epson seemed smoother to my eyes.

these projectors are lot closer than people make out. as a previous epson owner I can tell you the jump to a 3 times superseded jvc was handy but it isn't like the epson is rubbish. its a very good projector as happens certainly lot better than some other options i can think off. I for one preferred the epson at time when I got one to the sony that cost more for instance. so yeah i would trust your eyes

[Owen]

13 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

Imo the distances (4 and 6 metres) the projector will be viewed from would make '4K' kind of pointless anyway as it wouldnt be much of a difference to hd at 6 metres viewing distance.

 

At 4m from a 130" screen 1080 has PLENTY of resolution and looks fantastic when its processed properly, the limitation is almost always the original video source not 1080,  VERY few movies push the limits of 2K. 4K disks look "different" because they are mastered to look "different" and the projector will remap gamma to what Epson thinks most people will like anyway. 1080 content will be displayed much more accurately and much brighter then 4K HDR WCG content on the Epson and the extra pixels make stuff all difference, you will never notice at 4m plus.

Remember there is no such thing as 4K visible resolution video.

 

Having said the above, plenty of people enjoy viewing 4K disks because of the different "look" even when the presentation is far less accurate. There have been "remastered" versions of movies going back to the days of DVD that where preferred over the original release, although with DVD and 1080 Bluray it was possible to display the video accurately.

 

14 hours ago, Home theatre rookie said:

When you say "have the contrast of the sony, which sony model are you refering to?

Sony where getting over 5000:1 native contrast out of their projectors 10 years ago so these days even the base model is better then the Epson in that regard. Having said that a doubling of contrast is not very noticeable to the eye so the next useful step up from the Epson for contrast is a base model JVC with about 5 times greater contrast.

 

It all comes down to your priorities and preferences mate. The Epson makes sense if its cheap enough and suits your needs, but the base model JVC is a better projector IMHO and more suitable for HDR.

[Kezzbot]

15 years ago when I got my first projector i projected onto 110 inch screen I thought wow this is huge then about 10 years ago I upgraded 120 inch screen which I sit at a viewing distance of 3 metres. now I think 140 inches at 3 m would be perfect for me so plan on upgrading my blackout material screen soon.

 

Each to their own, but if I was sitting at 4 metres or 6 m i would want a 150 inch screen.

 

I had the Sony 40 ES, which I'm guessing is close to the Epson, for a while projecting onto 120" 0 gain screen, super bright ran it in low lamp mode. not calibrated.

 

I sold the Sony though because the 3D was terrible. if you want good 3D bigger is better.

 

Edit. But don't mind me I'm a bit of a amateur, I don't even know what is involved in calibrating a projector or why you would want it.

 

 Edit. Or I might play it safe and go 130" at 3m, not sure yet

[janidbest]

how did it go mate? which screen did you go and any reviews? I'm on the same boat. 

[Home theatre rookie]

I haven't purchased the screen as yet but i will be going with the selby 133 inch delux screen as posted above.

Ive also ditched the projector shelf mount and bought a peerless ceiling mount and will be mounting the projector at around 4.2m from the screen.

I really should start my own ht build thread.......