New Computer

[MossRoad]

 

[JasperFrank]

The answer is No. The human eye can not distinguish anything past 1080. We can't tell a difference on a higher resolution. We don't even have that many receptors in our eyes. So resolution has been solved. 4k is something that is only meaningful to a very few number of people in astrophysics and other advanced sciences. A 4k if sent off to a site like Youtube, becomes 1080 anyway in compression. And display devices right now, don't do 4k. They say they do ... but, then they don't. In an odd way we are editing a capture system, that we can't really use as a projection system... if that makes any sense.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I would think it would make a huge difference. The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count. People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.
As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture. I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

 

[rswyan]

Let me preface this by saying I don’t have a 4K projector or any experience with one.

We do however have a 4K UHD flatscreen display/tv (3840 × 2160 native resolution) - it’s a Vizio M55Q7-H1.

I would think it would make a huge difference.

It could.

To some degree, it’s probably going to be dependent on the distance the image that the projector projects is viewed FROM.

To that end, you might find the link below helpful:

Carlton Bale’s Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size

The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count.

Correct (obvs)

People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.

That’s largely true … but again it can be dependent on a variety of factors:

1. The inherent resolution of the original source material itself.

Source material that was originally shot at 720p or 1080i will never look as sharp on a 4K display as the same subject matter that was originally shot at 4K res, assuming all else being equal.

2. How the set handles scaling up material that has an inherent resolution that is LESS than the native resolution of the tv set.

3. The general quality of the set itself. To some degree, the brightness, contrast ratio, and dynamic range of the set play a big factor in how good the image looks.

I can tell you that it’s pretty easy for me to discern the difference in picture quality between a local channel broadcasting in 720p or 1080i and a 4K UHD streamed movie.

Do the local stations broadcasting at a lower resolution look really good on our set ?

Generally, yes … although sometimes video footage will look “soft” (lacking sharpness) … but who knows what res that footage was shot at and with what quality of camera ?

The chyrons and graphics tend to look great regardless though.

As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture.

Yup - I would certainly think that would be the case.

Certainly makes sense from a logical standpoint.

One thing I would check into if I were you, is whether the screen you’d be projecting onto might need to be upgraded as well.

I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

Can’t really help you there … except to note that to some degree one gets what they are willing to pay for.

 

[kenmbz]

I was the first person in my college to hand in a paper printed at home on a computer.
those printers were awful slow and ripping the perfs off made a mess.

For projections-they have short throw projectors so you can put them right up against the wall on the floor. Or do you want ceiling mount?
Looking at a high cost vs. low cost projector seems to make more of a difference in picture quality.
Lots of image processing to make the image clear and to offset any skew. Also quicker pixel updates so less artifacts.
Source material resolution is also key in getting better output as noted above.

 

[WinterDeere]

The answer is No. The human eye can not distinguish anything past 1080. We can't tell a difference on a higher resolution. We don't even have that many receptors in our eyes.

Whoa... back up! Correct data, but wrong conclusion, because those receptors are coupled to some mighty good zoom lenses. One is not simply absorbing the entire screen worth of data into their eyes like a scannner, but rather we focus on where the motion or subject detail is on the screen. So, while projecting at 12' width at 16:9, your eyes may be zoomed and focused on a 6" square where the hockey puck is in play. Now rather than 4k lines, you're observing only observing 355 lines, which is quite detectable as different from 1080 (which would be only 86 lines).

The answer to the question has a lot more to do with the size of the projection and the content being played, than anything else. If you don't believe that, expand the concept to a 100 ft. projection width at 16:9, and 4k would have 6 lines per inch, versus 1080 at 1.6 lines per inch.

 

[2manyrocks]

I would think it would make a huge difference. The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count. People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.
As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture. I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

What sorts of things do you intend to project onto a 12' screen? Text, charts, spreadsheets, pictures, video??? How many people are viewing and how far away are they from the projection screen?

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Thanks RS, that tool makes sense. 480p looks sharp on a small screen, once you go larger it sucks.
Even 480p looks good on a small screen, but terrible as you go bigger.

 

[JasperFrank]

Optoma UHD60. At least this is the one I've looked at that seems the best.

 

[cqaigy2]

I was the first person in my college to hand in a paper printed at home on a computer.
those printers were awful slow and ripping the perfs off made a mess.

For projections-they have short throw projectors so you can put them right up against the wall on the floor. Or do you want ceiling mount?
Looking at a high cost vs. low cost projector seems to make more of a difference in picture quality.
Lots of image processing to make the image clear and to offset any skew. Also quicker pixel updates so less artifacts.
Source material resolution is also key in getting better output as noted above.

Same here. I had a Commodore 64 using, i think it was called EazyWrite or something like that, took 20 minutes to load it and the printer couldn't do the part of the letter below the baseline. My prof was dubious about accepting it, but i finally talked him into it.