6 ms·

That is why I am using a beamer. I may lose in outright resolution, but not in viewing experience.

by prmoustache 2y ago

eru 2y ago
I think they are called projectors in English?
- dx034 2y ago
  Too bad 4k projectors are still so expensive. I bought my 1080p projector 8 years ago and it seems like not that much has changed since then when it comes to prices. 4k projectors are still much more expensive than comparable TVs.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  Possibly, I think I have seen both terms used. Mine is a 1080p model. I have seen 4K TVs at friends houses but I can't say I miss it. Somehow the when you watch some old non HD it still looks good when projected on a wall. Sure it is not highres but the image seems smoothen the image instead of having a pixelated or badly upscaled result. For example these last few months I have been watching a lot the ER TV show and I wasn't the least annoyed by the lower res.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Isn't ER from the 90s? Most TV at that time was shot on videotape, not film, so there's no way to get an HD version of it, so if this is the case, you're seeing it in the best possible rendition already. Going through a projector probably helps actually, by making things smoother than they would be with upscaling on a 4k-res TV. If you want to see what a modern 4K TV can really do, you have to watch it with something new, shot in 4K, perhaps in HDR if the TV can render that (this works best if the TV is OLED; LCD TVs don't have the brightness to really show HDR properly). Watching the same media on your 1080p projector should look noticeably worse than your friend's 75" OLED set.
    - eru 2y ago
      Star Trek TNG was shot on film, not tape, and they made a remaster that's available online. So you can see Captain Picard on their shoddy sets in very high resolution now.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Yeah, I've watched much of the remastered TNG version. The sets aren't shoddy AFAICT. There is one famous scene in the pilot episode where a patch of carpet under Data's seat is plainly visible, but that was because the frame size is larger: in the TV days, TV sets had a rounded-off picture and that part wasn't visible. The people filming back then never thought that their film would be scanned in 4K and the full frame would be visible to viewers. The biggest problem visible on the TNG sets is the black cardboard pieces on the consoles in the rear of the bridge, used to block reflections from the lights. Those weren't visible after conversion to NTSC, but in HD they're noticeable. I'm not a director, but I wouldn't call this a problem with a shoddy set, but rather too many assumptions made at the time about how the video would be viewed. Surely, if they were filming a theatrical movie at the time instead of a TV show, they would have simply filmed it a different way, or rigged the lighting differently to avoid this problem.
        eru 2y ago
        You are right. I meant 'shoddy' in the sense that they just needed to look good on NTSC, so they were built with that in mind. That doesn't just meant that smaller details weren't important, so they were left out. But also that if something in your set needs to fulfill a role in the story, you better make that thing big enough to be legible on an NTSC screen, instead of something more subtle.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      > Isn't ER from the 90s? Most TV at that time was shot on videotape, not film, so there's no way to get an HD version of it, so if this is the case, you're seeing it in the best possible rendition already. Going through a projector probably helps actually, by making things smoother than they would be with upscaling on a 4k-res TV. That is exactly what I am trying to say. While I have an overall lower max res, my viewing experience is much more consistent across all kind of contents. And it never feels as crappy as upscaled content. >If you want to see what a modern 4K TV can really do, you have to watch it with something new, shot in 4K, perhaps in HDR if the TV can render that (this works best if the TV is OLED; LCD TVs don't have the brightness to really show HDR properly). Watching the same media on your 1080p projector should look noticeably worse than your friend's 75" OLED set. I know I've seen it at friends place. But what I mean is I don't really feel it unless I compare both side by side thus it doesn't make my viewing experience less enjoyable. Ignorance is bliss I guess. And I much prefer the immersion of having an albeit lower res projected in the full size of my living room wall than 4K res in a smaller screen. It would maybe be different if I was watching ice hockey games and trying to follow the puck but I am not. YMMV of course.

That is why I am using a beamer. I may lose in outright resolution, but not in viewing experience.

eru 2y ago

I think they are called projectors in English?

dx034 2y ago
Too bad 4k projectors are still so expensive. I bought my 1080p projector 8 years ago and it seems like not that much has changed since then when it comes to prices. 4k projectors are still much more expensive than comparable TVs.
prmoustache 2y ago
Possibly, I think I have seen both terms used. Mine is a 1080p model. I have seen 4K TVs at friends houses but I can't say I miss it. Somehow the when you watch some old non HD it still looks good when projected on a wall. Sure it is not highres but the image seems smoothen the image instead of having a pixelated or badly upscaled result. For example these last few months I have been watching a lot the ER TV show and I wasn't the least annoyed by the lower res.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Isn't ER from the 90s? Most TV at that time was shot on videotape, not film, so there's no way to get an HD version of it, so if this is the case, you're seeing it in the best possible rendition already. Going through a projector probably helps actually, by making things smoother than they would be with upscaling on a 4k-res TV. If you want to see what a modern 4K TV can really do, you have to watch it with something new, shot in 4K, perhaps in HDR if the TV can render that (this works best if the TV is OLED; LCD TVs don't have the brightness to really show HDR properly). Watching the same media on your 1080p projector should look noticeably worse than your friend's 75" OLED set.
  - eru 2y ago
    Star Trek TNG was shot on film, not tape, and they made a remaster that's available online. So you can see Captain Picard on their shoddy sets in very high resolution now.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Yeah, I've watched much of the remastered TNG version. The sets aren't shoddy AFAICT. There is one famous scene in the pilot episode where a patch of carpet under Data's seat is plainly visible, but that was because the frame size is larger: in the TV days, TV sets had a rounded-off picture and that part wasn't visible. The people filming back then never thought that their film would be scanned in 4K and the full frame would be visible to viewers. The biggest problem visible on the TNG sets is the black cardboard pieces on the consoles in the rear of the bridge, used to block reflections from the lights. Those weren't visible after conversion to NTSC, but in HD they're noticeable. I'm not a director, but I wouldn't call this a problem with a shoddy set, but rather too many assumptions made at the time about how the video would be viewed. Surely, if they were filming a theatrical movie at the time instead of a TV show, they would have simply filmed it a different way, or rigged the lighting differently to avoid this problem.
      - eru 2y ago
        You are right. I meant 'shoddy' in the sense that they just needed to look good on NTSC, so they were built with that in mind. That doesn't just meant that smaller details weren't important, so they were left out. But also that if something in your set needs to fulfill a role in the story, you better make that thing big enough to be legible on an NTSC screen, instead of something more subtle.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    > Isn't ER from the 90s? Most TV at that time was shot on videotape, not film, so there's no way to get an HD version of it, so if this is the case, you're seeing it in the best possible rendition already. Going through a projector probably helps actually, by making things smoother than they would be with upscaling on a 4k-res TV. That is exactly what I am trying to say. While I have an overall lower max res, my viewing experience is much more consistent across all kind of contents. And it never feels as crappy as upscaled content. >If you want to see what a modern 4K TV can really do, you have to watch it with something new, shot in 4K, perhaps in HDR if the TV can render that (this works best if the TV is OLED; LCD TVs don't have the brightness to really show HDR properly). Watching the same media on your 1080p projector should look noticeably worse than your friend's 75" OLED set. I know I've seen it at friends place. But what I mean is I don't really feel it unless I compare both side by side thus it doesn't make my viewing experience less enjoyable. Ignorance is bliss I guess. And I much prefer the immersion of having an albeit lower res projected in the full size of my living room wall than 4K res in a smaller screen. It would maybe be different if I was watching ice hockey games and trying to follow the puck but I am not. YMMV of course.