Benq th671st vs. Optoma gt1080hdr for 4:3 ratio

[rdeyer]

In my setup I'll be hitting from about 9ft away, the screen will be 10ft wide, my ceiling height is 9'4". I'll for sure be using a 4:3 aspect ratio. My question is if any has any opinions about whether the Benq th671st or Optoma gt1080hdr is better for a 4:3 setup? Does anyone know if their resolutions would both be the same (i.e., can they both do 1600x1200 for example)?

[3on3putt]

Neither can do 1600x1200 because they are only 1080 projectors. Your max 4:3 resolution will be 1440x1080 (which is still solid).

Brightness is in the same ballpark but with a slight nod to the Optoma as it will be mounted closer to the screen and has more lumens to begin with.

Big differences are mounting distance (10 feet for the BenQ and about 6.5 feet for the Optoma) and vertical offset (just a couple inches for the BenQ and about a foot for the Optoma).

If you're comfortable with the projector being a couple feet in front of you, I would go Optoma. The vertical offset won't kill you since I'm guessing your screen is probably at least 8 feet high? That's probably better anyway for your ceiling because the BenQ would probably force you to drop it down from the ceiling some in order to get the top of the image on the screen.

[rdeyer]

That's really helpful. Do you know of any projectors, roughly in that same price range, that can do 1600x1200 resolutions?

[3on3putt]

There are plenty, but I don't think any of them will have a throw ratio small enough. Most would need to be mounted around 15-18 feet away which wouldn't work with your ceilings I'm afraid.

There are some that have different lens options. This one for example. https://www.projectorcentral.com/ASK...ulator-pro.htm

The standard lens wouldn't work but it has a short fixed lens option that would be perfect for your setup.

Same with this Infocus https://www.projectorcentral.com/InF...ulator-pro.htm

Standard lens is too high but the short fixed lens would work. No vertical offsets on these though so you'd have to drop them down a bit.

These are both discontinued (as are many on this list) so you'd have to hunt for them.

https://www.projectorcentral.com/projectors.cfm?g=1&hide=0&st=1&exp1=1&r=16&br=&c=&w=&db=&ar=&zr=&wt=&ltg=&ll=&wr=&dt=&mfg=&p=&t=&pjl=0&pjw=0&pjh=0&exp4=1&td=&is=&i=d&tr=0.5&tr2=1.0&exp5=1&oop=2&sort=%24&sz=15#list

[khalespace]

If you go with 4:3 ratio, then your image height will be only 7.5 ft. I have a 9x9 screen and I will try to fill it with a 1:1 ratio. My swing bay is not done yet so I am not sure how 1080x1080 will look. I have the Benq th671st.

[3on3putt]

If you go with 4:3 ratio, then your image height will be only 7.5 ft. I have a 9x9 screen and I will try to fill it with a 1:1 ratio. My swing bay is not done yet so I am not sure how 1080x1080 will look. I have the Benq th671st.

It looks bad. I tried doing the 1080x1080 on my 9x9 screen and it's just not worth it in my opinion. Filling the screen was cool. But the picture quality was just too much of a sacrifice because those pixels are getting stretched so much. I went back to a 4:3 after just a couple days. By all means give it a shot to see for yourself and you might decide that you prefer filling the screen despite the quality loss. But I find that the picture is still plenty big in 4:3 (almost 7 feet and I hit from only 7 feet away) with a much crisper image.

[GarnetGolf]

It looks bad. I tried doing the 1080x1080 on my 9x9 screen and it's just not worth it in my opinion. Filling the screen was cool. But the picture quality was just too much of a sacrifice because those pixels are getting stretched so much. I went back to a 4:3 after just a couple days. By all means give it a shot to see for yourself and you might decide that you prefer filling the screen despite the quality loss. But I find that the picture is still plenty big in 4:3 (almost 7 feet and I hit from only 7 feet away) with a much crisper image.

Nothing should be getting "stretched" with a 1080x1080 resolution. If the resolution is set correctly and the software supports the ratio, you will get just as "sharp" of a picture as with the full 1920x1080, you will just get less of it. I'm not a fan of 1:1 resolution but it can work.

[3on3putt]

Nothing should be getting "stretched" with a 1080x1080 resolution. If the resolution is set correctly and the software supports the ratio, you will get just as "sharp" of a picture as with the full 1920x1080, you will just get less of it. I'm not a fan of 1:1 resolution but it can work.

In 4:3, the 1,080 vertical pixels occupy 81 inches of vertical screen space (for my 9x9 screen). When you go to a 1:1 ratio to fill the screen, those same 1,080 vertical pixels are now being asked to occupy 108 inches of vertical screen space. The only way to do that is to increase the size of the pixels, increase the amount of space between the pixels or a combination of both. All of which are going to degrade the quality.

"Stretched" may have not been the right word to describe it. But my point is that 1080 pixels covering 108 inches is not the same as 1080 pixels covering only 81 inches. It's quite easy to tell the difference in the quality.

[jasonreg]

Yes, good description.

[GarnetGolf]

In 4:3, the 1,080 vertical pixels occupy 81 inches of vertical screen space (for my 9x9 screen). When you go to a 1:1 ratio to fill the screen, those same 1,080 vertical pixels are now being asked to occupy 108 inches of vertical screen space. The only way to do that is to increase the size of the pixels, increase the amount of space between the pixels or a combination of both. All of which are going to degrade the quality.

"Stretched" may have not been the right word to describe it. But my point is that 1080 pixels covering 108 inches is not the same as 1080 pixels covering only 81 inches. It's quite easy to tell the difference in the quality.

That's a good point and I'm following you there. With the width as the constant, you're absolutely right that the pixel size will increase.

[khalespace]

Thanks. I will try both 1:1 and 4:3. I am hitting the ball from 9.5 or 10 feet from the screen.

It looks bad. I tried doing the 1080x1080 on my 9x9 screen and it's just not worth it in my opinion. Filling the screen was cool. But the picture quality was just too much of a sacrifice because those pixels are getting stretched so much. I went back to a 4:3 after just a couple days. By all means give it a shot to see for yourself and you might decide that you prefer filling the screen despite the quality loss. But I find that the picture is still plenty big in 4:3 (almost 7 feet and I hit from only 7 feet away) with a much crisper image.

[RandomHero]

So I have the Benq TH671ST and a 8x8 foot Carl's enclosure. Here is what it looks like with the 4:3 aspect. You can set the display to 1600:1200 in Windows 10, then play with the resolutions in TGC 2019. There are small black bars due to the 4:3 but honestly once I start playing I don't even notice them. The BenQ has been a winner for me so far, also if I ever build a bigger enclosure I know I wont need a new projector. I can't speak to the Optoma projector.

[preludesam]

I thought the 4:3 resolution for 1080p should be 1440x1080?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/2f0n87/psa_add_1440x1080_through_your_video_drivers_to/

[3on3putt]

I thought the 4:3 resolution for 1080p should be 1440x1080?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffen...eo_drivers_to/

Yes that is correct. You can choose 1600x1200 but you aren't getting that unless your projector has at least 1200 vertical pixels to begin with. With a 1920x1080 projector you're maxing out at 1440x1080. A lot of people think that they're getting 1600x1200 because they're able to select that as an option in windows or in the graphics card or in TGC. But it's being scaled down. You can't get 1200 vertical pixels from a projector that only has 1080 pixels.

[preludesam]

Do you think it would look any different? Does it change the scaling or stretch the image when you are requesting more pixels than the projector can produce?

[3on3putt]

Do you think it would look any different? Does it change the scaling or stretch the image when you are requesting more pixels than the projector can produce?

"Requesting" more pixels doesn't do anything. You can't just magically make more pixels appear. You can enlarge the pixels to make them occupy more screen space but you can't add pixels that don't exist. A 1080p projector will only give you a max of 1080 vertical pixels no matter what you set the resolution to. If it were possible to somehow just add more pixels than there would be no reason to spend thousands of dollars on a 4k projector.

[jb1]

So I’m comparing the same two projectors, with a 9’ ceiling, a 4/3 screen ratio, with 10’6” screen width, and 7’11” screen height.

If I flush mount the Optoma 1080 to the ceiling I can get 12” of the recommended 15” drop (7’ back). So to get the projector to fill the screen I'd need to slightly tilt the projector backward, to gain 3" of picture height. I'm sure this would cause a slight focus issue.

If I use the BenQ, I need to get a mount that drops the lens center 12.5” below the ceiling height, and need to be 10’6” back.....this probably won't cause a shadow, but it does intrude on other activities I use the room for......it would be over the edge of a billiard/ping pong table.


What do people think would be the better fit? And does tilting a projector to get 3" result in much drop in picture clarity?

Thank you in advance.