Sony's New Front Projectors Bring Movie Theater Experience H

[Shane]

Sony Electronics today unveiled two new front home theater projectors that bring the movie-going experience home at prices beginning at about $1,000.

The new BRAVIA 3LCD VPL-AW15 and VPL-AW10 projectors feature 1280 x 720 progressive resolution, which is ideal for large screen home entertainment applications like enjoying HD movies, gaming and sports.

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2007/03/sonys_new_front.php]Read the Full Article[/url]

[jhecondevsys]

I can't find anyone/any retailer that has a front projection system display that looks "good" or even passable to me.

Because of a large, dark room...I'd like to at least consider one if the picture quality is anywhere close to a 70" Japanese plasma.

Is it your opinion that if I had these two formats side-by-side...I couldn't tell the difference?? If not...what would be the disadvantages to the front projector? Please advise. Thank you.

[Richard]

A plasma will never look like a front projector.

Film is the reference for large images. Front projection comes the closest to reproducing that look and can also do imaging science. Seeing a quality FP setup is not easy... unfortunately...

Plasma fails on many levels for imaging science. It also has that glass look because that is what it is made of and also another sheet of glass that sits in front the of plasma screen. If that is the look you prefer there is no other choice.

You can get a plasma up to 103" as I recall

[AlanBrown]

The remaining alternative for large format imaging that could emulate a "plasma look" would be 2-piece rear projection with a rigid, high gain, diffusion screen. Plasmas are not engineered for dark room viewing. They are built for high ambient light viewing environments, such as fully lit retail, public areas for digital signage, or brightly lit homes.

Richard is correct in mentioning movie reproduction. Most folks want large format imaging for home theater. Films and digital cinema have a substantially different appearence than most live or studio video productions. Video productions can be composed to emulate a film look but most are not. Video is mastered in a dark viewing environment on CRT monitors set to 30 - 35 footLamberts, but viewed by most consumers in bright rooms on TVs that typically are twice as bright or more. Film is mastered on projection screens only half as bright at best, and typically viewed by the public in commercial theaters at 8-10 ftL.

If you want to see a video or movie program as the original program producer intended it to be seen, you'll have to adhere to imaging industry standards and practices. Most consumers have only seen programs that are seriously distorted. Imaging science, display standards and human perceptual factors govern the electronic motion imaging industries, at least on the production side. Reference imaging can be enjoyed by consumers, but only if standards and practices are adhered to.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
www.cinemaquestinc.com

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[alice]

Let's not get carried with these devices . They are price point displays and if that's suitable for yoyr needs , good . Yet remember , price is only part of the
equation and there many trades offs to had when the manufactuer is concentrating on volume generating pricing.

You will not get a Ruby for the price of Zircon

[jhecondevsys]

Jeeze...My point of reference used to be a 36" Sony CRT flat screen. Then I bought a 27" Sharp LCD for the kitchen that was, let's say twice as "clear" as the Sony and in my world a very "good" upgrade. Now I want to consider a 75" plasma or a front projector to about 80" in a bedroom that has black-out shades. Compared to my Sharp...what kind of picture will I be getting on the FP? Better or worse? For both film or ? I don't need too much technical jargon. I don't "get-off" on it. Can someone just answer a simple question?

[Richard]

You are asking a technical performance question yet don't want technical jargon. I don't know if we can help you...

Compared to my Sharp...what kind of picture will I be getting on the FP?

If you just want us to tell you stuff...

In a perfect world that revolves around imaging science the FP is better. Is it your kind of better? unknown...

Plasma creates a look that only glass can recreate.

LCD typically uses an anti glare process for the screen; it can't have the look of plasma but it does create a frosty look to bright things.

I'd like to at least consider one if the picture quality is anywhere close to a 70" Japanese plasma.

Based on your first post it appears you are not seeing this difference nor do you care.

Is it your opinion that if I had these two formats side-by-side [plasma versus FP]...I couldn't tell the difference?

I can't answer that for you but have provided information on what to look for. For me they would be night and day not only in overall look but performance. Based on the information you have given us so far it appears you do not see these natural differences between these very different technologies. Based on what you have said about FP though I can't figure out if you simply don't like that look or if you have not seen a good setup.

There is one thing none of us can do for you and that is tell you what you will find acceptable which is why you have received some minor technical jargon. What each person considers acceptable is up to each person so ultimately your question is loaded to the hilt with if's , and's and but's, and the only way we can address it is through objective science and leave the subjective look you are seeking up to you.

[AlanBrown]

Can someone just answer a simple question?

Yes, as soon as you ask one. So far you have not narrowed down your terms to a specific enough level.

It sounds to me like you may prefer a blazingly bright image, but you only mentioned "picture quality" without defining your terms. Very bright pictures can be attained on a front projection screen, depending on screen type, size, projector model, ambient lighting, wall/ceiling color, and viewing angle. However, brightness is only one characteristic of a video image. Perhaps you could articulate better what you mean by "quality" and "clear."

[stevekaden]

Try - if you can, Tweeter in Palm Desert CA. They have a Qualia (Sony SXRD) projector in a nice large dark room. Okay, I'm no calibrator or calibrated, but I have a Sony SXRD rear projector, an A2000 series and I love it as does all the lay watchers that have come to my house. The Qualia was all that, AND no plastic screen between the imager and the eyes. It was another level better than the rear projector - at least (it also seems to have a better imaging engine as there were almost no motion artifacts in the fast moving images - car racing).

I would be suspect this rather expensive room was worth calibrating the projector so I was probably seeing the best that I have ever seen.

So maybe other Tweeters stores have rooms like this. And certainly given the choice, I think the 120" or so of that installation's screen beat any plasma I have seen. (Then again the Pioneer Elite 1080 is really nice in the small - glass image screen class).

[Richard]

I am starting to think your question...

I'd like to at least consider one if the picture quality is anywhere close to a 70" Japanese plasma.

...has only come up because an FP application would be far less expensive than a 70" plasma?

It