8 ms·

Monitor replacement – using a projector for a home office setup

95 points by plun9 2y ago

kohlerm 2y ago
isn't 1080p resolution too low for that size?
xnx 2y ago
(2021) I'm generally interested in alternatives (televisions, HMDs, etc.) to traditional monitors, but I don't see many benefits to the setup described in his post. It would be more interesting if the image were projected onto the ceiling since that can result in a more relaxed posture and is an orientation very difficult to achieve with a monitor. > Main plus points: Larger viewing surface; This seems entirely dependent on angular distance. An average desktop monitor would be similar to the setup here. > Indirect, reflected light is easier on the eyes than a direct, projected one. Is this true? I'd guess that it is more a matter of overall brightness. I don't think the eye can distinguish between an emitted and reflected photon.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  I feel like a projector in a dark room is harder on the eyes than a monitor in a well-lit room, in fact. Plus less tripping when I stand up
  - rob74 2y ago
    I'm less worried about the effect on the eyes and more about the effect on my mood of constantly being in a darkened room, even in the middle of the day. I'm currently happy with my 38" 4K monitor (Asus/ROG PG38UQ) - better for the eyes than 32" at 4K, not as huge as 43", nice colors, contrast and brightness.
theden 2y ago
Honestly this would be good for infra diagrams, miro boards, wireframes etc. — sometimes a laptop screen can feel claustrophobic
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  Then don't use a laptop screen. I wouldn't consider a loud projector, but I love using my 48" OLED.
maddynator 2y ago
Why not buy an 85” tv? They are dirt cheap and you can place them far. For webcam, I have used my dslr in the past but any webcam works as now Google meet autozooms in on the face
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  The article makes the claim > reflected image from a projector screen is gentler on the eyes than a projected one from a computer monitor If true, that is a very strong reason. However, it strikes me as a [citation needed] or questionable extrapolation from indirect/diffuse room lighting or bias lighting.
  - DoingIsLearning 2y ago
    Arguably what I think is actually happening is the focus distance has increased considerably. The muscles that contract or relax to change your lens shape (to focus your vision at different lengths) don't work linearly. Most of the work/tension of the lens is happening in the last meters range. Such that looking out at a 10m distance or 200m distance is a lot closer in muscle tone then the tension applied to focus between 10m and 0.05m. Most likely what is happening is that the visual field workspace is equivalent but the eye strain is considerably reduced from being able to not look at something so close by such as the displays we use every day. The theory in the article is that this is due to reflected vs direct light but I think this is a post rationalization derived from the author's experience. The perceived experience is that it is easier on the eyes. The reason is less clear.
  - dtgriscom 2y ago
    Citation most definitely needed. Perhaps the rationale is that the image is blurrier, or the contrast is worse, but both of those could easily be simulated by a monitor if you valued them.
    - joseda-hg 2y ago
      I'd have taken it more as, reflected light would be better than straight to the eye light
tempcommenttt 2y ago
I’d consider energy use. I use a projector for home cinema and it draws more power (over 200W) than I would want to pay for to run for a whole working day.
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  0.2 kW * 8 hours/day * 5 days/week * 50 weeks/year * $0.25/kWh = $100/year It's less than you'd think.
  - lurking_swe 2y ago
    the projector they purchased was $800 and the 90” screen was $200. That’s $1k. I can buy an 85” 4K QLED tv for $650 (BestBuy). New TV’s of that size use about 0.1kwh, which is $50 per year instead of $100. So she’s paying $350 more up front just for set up, and then $50 more per year just to use it. How is that “not that bad”? Seems wasteful, especially if the person in the blog claimed that $1k was “crazy expensive” for them. $1k is pocket change for a lot of people on this forum, including myself, but if $1k is a lot to you then this seems like a strange purchase. criticism aside, this is a cool project and i enjoyed the blog post.
- nick88msn 2y ago
  When it's something about your health you don't look at the energy bill or power consumption TBH.
romulobribeiro 2y ago
I've considered using my cheap projector as a second monitor, however its fan is so noise I don't think I would endure much time, and even though the resolution is not bad I still feel it adds unnecessary strain focusing to read/write
- nick88msn 2y ago
  That is absolutely true, I've tried that too and you need to use headphone to cancel that noise and get focused.
evanjrowley 2y ago
I've been using a pair of RayNeo Air 2 "XR" glasses for the past week. "Xtended Reality" is not really true VR, but instead, simply provides a huge 1080p screen in the middle of your field of vision. They're flawed in a handful of ways, especially with blur/visibility around the edges. I need to increase the font size to read with them. Despite those flaws, it's extremely liberating to be able to position myself in any way I want and still be able to see the main focus of my work. I think I'll just keep investing in glasses like these and never buy another monitor ever again.
- langsoul-com 2y ago
  It'd be cool if someone reviewed all the 2024 AR glasses. Each one is quite pricey, so trying them all for the best one isn't a solid option.
  - darrenf 2y ago
    uploadvr.com do a decent job of reviewing most kit, IME. Here's the RayNeo X2 review: https://www.uploadvr.com/rayneo-x2-standalone-ar-glasses-review/ https://www.uploadvr.com/rayneo-x2-standalone-ar-glasses-rev...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mentos 2y ago
  What glasses are you looking forward to next?
  - evanjrowley 2y ago
    The RayNeo Air 2s have come down in price for Black Friday. If I had known how much I'd like the Air 2, then I'd probably have gone with the Air 2s. By the time I'm ready to buy a new pair, I'll look closer at what competing offerings are available from XREAL and VITRUE.
- dr_kiszonka 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
itronitron 2y ago
We have one of these as our 'TV', just projected onto a white wall. The main advantage it has over a large TV is that it's easy to move. Disadvantages are that it is lower resolution, although it's fine for home entertainment. 1080p is on the low end for a productive work monitor. This particular projector has a very short throw, so you can get a massive screen from just a few feet away. But the larger the screen the less bright it will be and the darker you'll need to make the room, which can limit its use during the day. It's also a reliable source of heat, which can be an issue depending on the season.
- jansan 2y ago
  We also have been using short throw projector instead of a TV for at least 10 years. An obvious advantage is that the screen size can be huge, but as you mentioned on the down side this means that you need a relatively dark room. Also, there is a fan noise, which is not much of an issue if you are watching Terminator 3 on full volume with subwoofer turned on, but may be annoying if you are working in a silent environment.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  At this point you can get quite decent 4k projectors for around $1000. Also usable during the day (though less ideal). For us it was the difference between 3000 and 4000 lumens. Pretty silent too.
  - zokier 2y ago
    The problem with cheap 4k projectors is that they are pixel-shifted 1080p projectors. Combine that with DLPs colorwheel tech, and you are relying persistence-of-vision to combine at least 12 frames into one image. It's kinda neat that it works at all, but if you are sensitive for temporal hijinks then its not great solution to all-day use.
    - buffington 2y ago
      Do you know of any good write-ups on how this works? I've often thought I was crazy for noticing weird "glitches" when around some of the newest projectors. I'll see "sparkles" or flashes of a solid color out of the corner of my eye, but never if I try to look directly at the screen to catch it. I chocked it up to some sort of PWM based lighting or something that's more detectable in my periphery because of how cones and rods work. Sounds like I might be close, but not quite?
dmje 2y ago
The room setup being weird is the thing that strikes me about this. My desk (probably like many?) is against a wall, not a distance from it. That dead space between back of desk and wall with the projection on it isn’t going to work in many rooms, is it?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Yeah, desk against the wall is a common setup (except in open-plan offices, where it's desk against a desk). However, when setting up my current home office, I opted for a different layout. It's similar to this: https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/other/defiant-readyroom.jpg https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/other/defiant-rea... but with an L-shaped standing desk from IKEA, with windows on the right side (behind the auxiliary desk), doors on the left, and remaining wall surface filled with random assortment of cabinets and wardrobes. Having the desk in the middle doubled the usable wall surface area I could put closets and cabinets against. Also, I have something behind the screen for eyes to refocus on, reducing the strain. (Also, I was totally going for the "Starfleet ready room" style; that's as close as I got. It's really hard to capture the feel without a proper carpet; unfortunately, I have dust mite allergy, so that's off the table.)
  - 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
    I was expecting a picture to be of an Ikea showroom or similar. Got a real chuckle when I saw it was a Ready Room.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Got to post what you can easily link to :).
- itronitron 2y ago
  Desk against a wall could be handled very easily with a short throw projector but you would need to ceiling mount it upside down. The bottom edge of the projected image would trace back to the projector at a steep angle, your head would therefore not cast a shadow over the image.
alfonsodev 2y ago
I’ve tried this with a cheap projector from Amazon, it almost worked but unfortunately the edges of the screen were too blurry, only central area of the screen was perfect, the projector’s fan was noisy as it generates a lot of heat, and the placement was a bit hard and messy, I didn’t want to drill it and hang it as it was just a test. Then I’ve tried oculus quest 2 and honestly it might be paranoia but I’ve noticed my near sight dropping too obviously after just couple of sessions.
- nileshtrivedi 2y ago
  > I’ve noticed my near sight dropping You mean your vision got worse after using quest2?
dt3ft 2y ago
What about the fan noise?
elric 2y ago
My experience with projectors is that they are noisy, power hungry beasts with display quality far inferior to monitors. Has that changed?
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  My laser projector is crystal clear, colorful, bright and the fan never kicks on. It can do 4K/60Hz or 1080p/240Hz. Highly recommend. I have a 120" gray screen a couple meters away and I code on it all the time. Nowadays it's even easier with the wealth of ultra short throw projectors on the market, if you have the budget. Personally I got an open-box long-throw projector for half-off at $1500, plus a $500 mid-budget screen. Definitely worth the investment.
  - fraXis 2y ago
    What brand/model do you have?
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      Optoma UHZ50. It's not a high-end model and a lot of people have reported issues, but I've had none and I think it was a no-brainer at 50% off on an open box. It's not true 4K in that it's natively 1080p, but has a mirror that rapidly shifts the laser, allowing it to show "4K" albeit at 60Hz instead of 240Hz. Not quite as clear as true 4K, and if you get really close to your screen you'll see pixel lines corresponding to 1080p, but it's not noticeable from even two feet away. It's also a single laser, not triple laser, so it's not quite as vibrant or bright as a triple laser, but it's also way less expensive. Personally, I leave it on 1080p/240Hz when gaming and it's very lush. Paired with the right screen, it can be vibrant and have great black levels. I've been using it for a year and a half almost daily with no problems. I recommend it if you can find it at a good price, but if I got a projector today I'd probably look for an ultra short throw out of convenience. If you have a higher budget though, I'd recommend looking at some higher-end models.
- plun9 2y ago
  A little bit. You could get an ultra-short throw projector which sits close to the screen, and sit on the other side of the room. Projectors still draw more power than monitors; but, with new tech like LED and laser lighting, it doesn't matter that much.

95 points by plun9 2y ago

isn't 1080p resolution too low for that size?

xnx 2y ago

(2021) I'm generally interested in alternatives (televisions, HMDs, etc.) to traditional monitors, but I don't see many benefits to the setup described in his post. It would be more interesting if the image were projected onto the ceiling since that can result in a more relaxed posture and is an orientation very difficult to achieve with a monitor. > Main plus points: Larger viewing surface; This seems entirely dependent on angular distance. An average desktop monitor would be similar to the setup here. > Indirect, reflected light is easier on the eyes than a direct, projected one. Is this true? I'd guess that it is more a matter of overall brightness. I don't think the eye can distinguish between an emitted and reflected photon.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
I feel like a projector in a dark room is harder on the eyes than a monitor in a well-lit room, in fact. Plus less tripping when I stand up
- rob74 2y ago
  I'm less worried about the effect on the eyes and more about the effect on my mood of constantly being in a darkened room, even in the middle of the day. I'm currently happy with my 38" 4K monitor (Asus/ROG PG38UQ) - better for the eyes than 32" at 4K, not as huge as 43", nice colors, contrast and brightness.

theden 2y ago

Honestly this would be good for infra diagrams, miro boards, wireframes etc. — sometimes a laptop screen can feel claustrophobic

brokenmachine 2y ago
Then don't use a laptop screen. I wouldn't consider a loud projector, but I love using my 48" OLED.

maddynator 2y ago

Why not buy an 85” tv? They are dirt cheap and you can place them far. For webcam, I have used my dslr in the past but any webcam works as now Google meet autozooms in on the face

diffeomorphism 2y ago
The article makes the claim > reflected image from a projector screen is gentler on the eyes than a projected one from a computer monitor If true, that is a very strong reason. However, it strikes me as a [citation needed] or questionable extrapolation from indirect/diffuse room lighting or bias lighting.
- DoingIsLearning 2y ago
  Arguably what I think is actually happening is the focus distance has increased considerably. The muscles that contract or relax to change your lens shape (to focus your vision at different lengths) don't work linearly. Most of the work/tension of the lens is happening in the last meters range. Such that looking out at a 10m distance or 200m distance is a lot closer in muscle tone then the tension applied to focus between 10m and 0.05m. Most likely what is happening is that the visual field workspace is equivalent but the eye strain is considerably reduced from being able to not look at something so close by such as the displays we use every day. The theory in the article is that this is due to reflected vs direct light but I think this is a post rationalization derived from the author's experience. The perceived experience is that it is easier on the eyes. The reason is less clear.
- dtgriscom 2y ago
  Citation most definitely needed. Perhaps the rationale is that the image is blurrier, or the contrast is worse, but both of those could easily be simulated by a monitor if you valued them.
  - joseda-hg 2y ago
    I'd have taken it more as, reflected light would be better than straight to the eye light

tempcommenttt 2y ago

I’d consider energy use. I use a projector for home cinema and it draws more power (over 200W) than I would want to pay for to run for a whole working day.

WorkerBee28474 2y ago
0.2 kW * 8 hours/day * 5 days/week * 50 weeks/year * $0.25/kWh = $100/year It's less than you'd think.
- lurking_swe 2y ago
  the projector they purchased was $800 and the 90” screen was $200. That’s $1k. I can buy an 85” 4K QLED tv for $650 (BestBuy). New TV’s of that size use about 0.1kwh, which is $50 per year instead of $100. So she’s paying $350 more up front just for set up, and then $50 more per year just to use it. How is that “not that bad”? Seems wasteful, especially if the person in the blog claimed that $1k was “crazy expensive” for them. $1k is pocket change for a lot of people on this forum, including myself, but if $1k is a lot to you then this seems like a strange purchase. criticism aside, this is a cool project and i enjoyed the blog post.
nick88msn 2y ago
When it's something about your health you don't look at the energy bill or power consumption TBH.

romulobribeiro 2y ago

I've considered using my cheap projector as a second monitor, however its fan is so noise I don't think I would endure much time, and even though the resolution is not bad I still feel it adds unnecessary strain focusing to read/write

nick88msn 2y ago
That is absolutely true, I've tried that too and you need to use headphone to cancel that noise and get focused.

evanjrowley 2y ago

I've been using a pair of RayNeo Air 2 "XR" glasses for the past week. "Xtended Reality" is not really true VR, but instead, simply provides a huge 1080p screen in the middle of your field of vision. They're flawed in a handful of ways, especially with blur/visibility around the edges. I need to increase the font size to read with them. Despite those flaws, it's extremely liberating to be able to position myself in any way I want and still be able to see the main focus of my work. I think I'll just keep investing in glasses like these and never buy another monitor ever again.

langsoul-com 2y ago
It'd be cool if someone reviewed all the 2024 AR glasses. Each one is quite pricey, so trying them all for the best one isn't a solid option.
- darrenf 2y ago
  uploadvr.com do a decent job of reviewing most kit, IME. Here's the RayNeo X2 review: https://www.uploadvr.com/rayneo-x2-standalone-ar-glasses-review/ https://www.uploadvr.com/rayneo-x2-standalone-ar-glasses-rev...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mentos 2y ago
What glasses are you looking forward to next?
- evanjrowley 2y ago
  The RayNeo Air 2s have come down in price for Black Friday. If I had known how much I'd like the Air 2, then I'd probably have gone with the Air 2s. By the time I'm ready to buy a new pair, I'll look closer at what competing offerings are available from XREAL and VITRUE.
dr_kiszonka 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

itronitron 2y ago

We have one of these as our 'TV', just projected onto a white wall. The main advantage it has over a large TV is that it's easy to move. Disadvantages are that it is lower resolution, although it's fine for home entertainment. 1080p is on the low end for a productive work monitor. This particular projector has a very short throw, so you can get a massive screen from just a few feet away. But the larger the screen the less bright it will be and the darker you'll need to make the room, which can limit its use during the day. It's also a reliable source of heat, which can be an issue depending on the season.

jansan 2y ago
We also have been using short throw projector instead of a TV for at least 10 years. An obvious advantage is that the screen size can be huge, but as you mentioned on the down side this means that you need a relatively dark room. Also, there is a fan noise, which is not much of an issue if you are watching Terminator 3 on full volume with subwoofer turned on, but may be annoying if you are working in a silent environment.
Aeolun 2y ago
At this point you can get quite decent 4k projectors for around $1000. Also usable during the day (though less ideal). For us it was the difference between 3000 and 4000 lumens. Pretty silent too.
- zokier 2y ago
  The problem with cheap 4k projectors is that they are pixel-shifted 1080p projectors. Combine that with DLPs colorwheel tech, and you are relying persistence-of-vision to combine at least 12 frames into one image. It's kinda neat that it works at all, but if you are sensitive for temporal hijinks then its not great solution to all-day use.
  - buffington 2y ago
    Do you know of any good write-ups on how this works? I've often thought I was crazy for noticing weird "glitches" when around some of the newest projectors. I'll see "sparkles" or flashes of a solid color out of the corner of my eye, but never if I try to look directly at the screen to catch it. I chocked it up to some sort of PWM based lighting or something that's more detectable in my periphery because of how cones and rods work. Sounds like I might be close, but not quite?

dmje 2y ago

The room setup being weird is the thing that strikes me about this. My desk (probably like many?) is against a wall, not a distance from it. That dead space between back of desk and wall with the projection on it isn’t going to work in many rooms, is it?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Yeah, desk against the wall is a common setup (except in open-plan offices, where it's desk against a desk). However, when setting up my current home office, I opted for a different layout. It's similar to this: https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/other/defiant-readyroom.jpg https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/other/defiant-rea... but with an L-shaped standing desk from IKEA, with windows on the right side (behind the auxiliary desk), doors on the left, and remaining wall surface filled with random assortment of cabinets and wardrobes. Having the desk in the middle doubled the usable wall surface area I could put closets and cabinets against. Also, I have something behind the screen for eyes to refocus on, reducing the strain. (Also, I was totally going for the "Starfleet ready room" style; that's as close as I got. It's really hard to capture the feel without a proper carpet; unfortunately, I have dust mite allergy, so that's off the table.)
- 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
  I was expecting a picture to be of an Ikea showroom or similar. Got a real chuckle when I saw it was a Ready Room.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Got to post what you can easily link to :).
itronitron 2y ago
Desk against a wall could be handled very easily with a short throw projector but you would need to ceiling mount it upside down. The bottom edge of the projected image would trace back to the projector at a steep angle, your head would therefore not cast a shadow over the image.

alfonsodev 2y ago

I’ve tried this with a cheap projector from Amazon, it almost worked but unfortunately the edges of the screen were too blurry, only central area of the screen was perfect, the projector’s fan was noisy as it generates a lot of heat, and the placement was a bit hard and messy, I didn’t want to drill it and hang it as it was just a test. Then I’ve tried oculus quest 2 and honestly it might be paranoia but I’ve noticed my near sight dropping too obviously after just couple of sessions.

nileshtrivedi 2y ago
> I’ve noticed my near sight dropping You mean your vision got worse after using quest2?

dt3ft 2y ago

What about the fan noise?

elric 2y ago

My experience with projectors is that they are noisy, power hungry beasts with display quality far inferior to monitors. Has that changed?

soulofmischief 2y ago
My laser projector is crystal clear, colorful, bright and the fan never kicks on. It can do 4K/60Hz or 1080p/240Hz. Highly recommend. I have a 120" gray screen a couple meters away and I code on it all the time. Nowadays it's even easier with the wealth of ultra short throw projectors on the market, if you have the budget. Personally I got an open-box long-throw projector for half-off at $1500, plus a $500 mid-budget screen. Definitely worth the investment.
- fraXis 2y ago
  What brand/model do you have?
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Optoma UHZ50. It's not a high-end model and a lot of people have reported issues, but I've had none and I think it was a no-brainer at 50% off on an open box. It's not true 4K in that it's natively 1080p, but has a mirror that rapidly shifts the laser, allowing it to show "4K" albeit at 60Hz instead of 240Hz. Not quite as clear as true 4K, and if you get really close to your screen you'll see pixel lines corresponding to 1080p, but it's not noticeable from even two feet away. It's also a single laser, not triple laser, so it's not quite as vibrant or bright as a triple laser, but it's also way less expensive. Personally, I leave it on 1080p/240Hz when gaming and it's very lush. Paired with the right screen, it can be vibrant and have great black levels. I've been using it for a year and a half almost daily with no problems. I recommend it if you can find it at a good price, but if I got a projector today I'd probably look for an ultra short throw out of convenience. If you have a higher budget though, I'd recommend looking at some higher-end models.
plun9 2y ago
A little bit. You could get an ultra-short throw projector which sits close to the screen, and sit on the other side of the room. Projectors still draw more power than monitors; but, with new tech like LED and laser lighting, it doesn't matter that much.