21:9 CinemaWide HDTV

[coffeeman]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

There will be no huge plasmas. See what they'd prefer. It's all subjective, and they'll want the big screen.

that's open to personal preference really.
some people don't always think VERY big is better than BIG

if someone can have a 84' lcd, which many people do have, and that is a VERY huge screen, I mean you sit at the right distance with a full 5.1 mid price range surround sound THX system and you are enjoying a fantastic movie experience. the colors will be better than any projector for most users , no?

the colors from the LCD will be the best they can be!

now let's say you go 120" screen, with a mid range projector, screen and the same system?

first of all, the person wont be able to watch movies, sports and tv on his projector during the day as he can with this HUGE 84' there will be a very big difference.
he doesnt have to worry about bulb life either.

why will he just pick the biggest screen?
if the person is a serious movie buff, enjoys BR at the highest quality, looks for PQ and black levels, scrutinizes film transfers, a so called videophile.
the mid range cheap projector wont cut it.


really a projector needs to accompany a home projector system.
its not one or the other, it's both.

but for some people, the 84' lcd is enough!


for me sometimes I think, how much is enough for me...
if I had an 84' lcd, would I even consider a projector?
sometimes I think no..

but for one think I know, 120' wont be big enough for me
I know I will need 170-200' for my ultimate home theater
and I am happy to wait until retirement for it..
thats 25 years from now! LOL but I will enjoy all my favorite movies in my golden years in style! hahahaha
BUT... that being said, I wont buy a 200' system if it doesnt look better than a tv at a size I can afford. and probably in 20 years time 100' screens will be affordable.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

but for one think I know, 120' wont be big enough for me
I know I will need 170-200' for my ultimate home theater
and I am happy to wait until retirement for it..
thats 25 years from now! LOL but I will enjoy all my favorite movies in my golden years in style! hahahaha
BUT... that being said, I wont buy a 200' system if it doesnt look better than a tv at a size I can afford. and probably in 20 years time 100' screens will be affordable.

I agree with just about everything you said. But a 70" screen will be standard by year's end. 84" to 90" will not be a big push, and manufacturers are now making 105" screens. They'll be standard in a year or two, and will not be especially hard to make.

The limitation is the method of home furnishings used world-wide. People purchased stands and "home theater" nooks, and feel stuck with them. I have a relative that is a complete sports nut, whose wife told him he could get anything he wanted, as long as it fit in their huge, medieval looking stand/chest with all her gewgaws on it.

Turned out he could slide a 42" set in there without scraping the sides too much. He's the jealous type; the smallest TV I have is 52", and I use it for a monitor. I'm trying to figure out how to get a 105" unit.

My house - I bought it new just a few years ago - has a "TV nook" area in the family room. Most of the homes in my neighborhood have one, and the owners quickly bought into the fad of turning it into a shelved area, with "enough room for the TV", and quickly put all the crap they collected on vacations, decorative plates, ceramic figurines, photos of ancestors, and stuff like that. In mine, there is a 70" TV. Next room over, a 60". Neither room is centered on the TV's; they're just there, and huge.

So people come over, and they see this thing, and especially the guys think, jeez, this is so much nicer. Fashion will change. There are still people who deride technology in the home as being a "man-cave" and all that nonsense.

Projection is for a dedicated area, and will never catch on generally; it requires too many compromises for good viewing. Large screens are already here, today, and are simply waiting for manufacturers to stop overpricing them, and the public to make that change in viewpoint.

[Mr.Poindexter]

I would not expect those extremely large screen flat panels (100" or more) to be large movers. First off, try and get one up a flight of stairs. Just to get my projector screen into my theater, I had to bring it in through a hole in the wall because it would not fit around the corners in the hallway. When they have screens that can roll up, I think you will see more people put in mega screens in their house.

As for the idea of a $10k 150" plasma, I would have to see what it looks like. If it doesn't look like film, I would pass on that for installation in my theater. As for the people who would eschew a dedicated theater for a big plasma, that is their choice. There are people who skip on speakers for headphones. Everybody has different preferences and priorities and not everybody will vote with their dollars for a projector or set aside the square footage in their house for a dedicated viewing room, something I think you need for a projector to really perform.

[Mr.Poindexter]

I also agree that home design needs to change. Most family rooms still have a fireplace as a focal point with a tv nook in the corner, rather than a large wall for a monster screen. Even if that changes, there are lots of houses already out there that have small tv nooks in the corner of the room.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

I would not expect those extremely large screen flat panels (100" or more) to be large movers. First off, try and get one up a flight of stairs. Just to get my projector screen into my theater, I had to bring it in through a hole in the wall because it would not fit around the corners in the hallway. When they have screens that can roll up, I think you will see more people put in mega screens in their house.

For most modern developments, downstairs seems loaded for visiting and cooking, and dining only; upstairs is for bedrooms/office space, etc. Very illogical, but that's standard for modern American construction. Two story homes are terribly illogical, but cheap for builders - they'd rather buy wood than dirt, and have larger lots and fewer homes in developments. It's very odd. I refused to even look at two story homes when I was house-hunting, and have not spoken to one person who thinks they make sense.

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

As for the idea of a $10k 150" plasma, I would have to see what it looks like. If it doesn't look like film, I would pass on that for installation in my theater. As for the people who would eschew a dedicated theater for a big plasma, that is their choice. There are people who skip on speakers for headphones. Everybody has different preferences and priorities and not everybody will vote with their dollars for a projector or set aside the square footage in their house for a dedicated viewing room, something I think you need for a projector to really perform.

The lighting control requirements for good projection systems is beyond most homeowners, who still want to use (and furnish) a room as something other than a dedicated theater. While all of the gimmicks - blacking out windows with various treatments, sound traps, compromising seating locations for speaker/subwoofer locations, those ridiculous "theater seating" clumped chairs, and so on - looks cute on this forum, it turns the room into something other than a general use or meeting area. If there is a solo-purpose location, such as a basement, or game room, or something, such indulgences are fine, but if it's a normal home with a family living in it, after a time it just becomes a nuisance.

The theater equipment should blend in, as art and not a pillar. This won't stop it from being imposing, so it can take up a wall, and seating can "float" around it. As unbelievable as this may sound to some "theater" types, it's pretty easy to turn a chair towards a screen when you're watching something, and move it back when you're done.

Once people get beyond the Imposing Grandeur phase, it will be easier to accept larger screens, and make them part of the décor.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

For most modern developments, downstairs seems loaded for visiting and cooking, and dining only; upstairs is for bedrooms/office space, etc. Very illogical, but that's standard for modern American construction. Two story homes are terribly illogical, but cheap for builders - they'd rather buy wood than dirt, and have larger lots and fewer homes in developments. It's very odd. I refused to even look at two story homes when I was house-hunting, and have not spoken to one person who thinks they make sense.

You might not have spoken to enough people then. 2 story houses are cheaper for builders because they are cheaper to build and as such present a better $/ft^2 value to the buyer. They are also more energy efficient and allow for a larger yard on a fixed piece of land. You can buy wood a lot easier than buying dirt, too because we can produce more wood, but they are not making much land these days.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

You might not have spoken to enough people then. 2 story houses are cheaper for builders because they are cheaper to build and as such present a better $/ft^2 value to the buyer. They are also more energy efficient and allow for a larger yard on a fixed piece of land. You can buy wood a lot easier than buying dirt, too because we can produce more wood, but they are not making much land these days.

It took me three years of serious looking, within an eight hour drive of Los Angeles, to find a home. I can't tell you how often I heard that stuff about "cheaper to build" and "energy efficiency" and "value to the buyer". I have a 2900 Sq. Ft. home, as opposed to the two story houses on either side of me with 3400 and 3600 Sq Ft. They cost approximately 15% more than mine did.

They require dual air conditioning chillers, to my one; heaters almost twice the flow capacity of mine; and they took longer to build. I opted into my development when it was still in the first phase, and we got all brand new homes. The single story places went first - about 20% of the development. The rest were two-stories. They took a long time to sell. I got the nicest location for a one-story.

My heating and cooling costs are far below my neighbors - I know, my next door neighbor is a high-end A/C guy, and all of us talk about this stuff. All the heat goes upstairs, if you're downstairs in winter; and it's hard to pump A/C into the hotter upstairs areas in summer, when most people are downstairs anyway. It's easier to zone the house, with modern technology and controls.

Two story homes allow builders to divvy up lots into smaller parcels, pure and simple. Even one or two more lots can mean huge profits to developers, and everyone knows it, at least here in Southern California. In the city I live in, a one-story house can sell in as little as two days - the realtors keep lists of buyers who will take nothing else. A two story home can languish for months.

If you like running up and down stairs every time some joker is "working his way through college selling magazines", no problem. I've seen beautiful two story homes - too many to count - and they have an audience, but rarely a repeat audience.