Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is a more expensive projector screen really better or worth it?
- Thread starter max2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My 95" screen is 15 years old and I've never ever felt the urge to replace it.
Right now I'm still on 1080P. Perhaps when I upgrade to a true 4K projector I might feel differently, but for right now it's fine.
Did I mention it was free with my first Optoma projector and the list price was just $90?
The only reason I could think of of getting a more expensive one otherwise is if it had a motorized retractor. That said, my current one has been fully extended almost 100% of its life...
Think thats a true 4K. The hybrid / faux 4K projectors use phase shifting to increase the Pixel count. That was the big issue when 4K was seen to be uber expensive. Phase shifting was seen as the cheaper answer. With that you can go with a HD chip and create a UHD image.
More expensive in relation to what? $100 vs $200 vs $1.000 vs $10.000? And what is "better"? Are you looking for a screen that improves your black level? Brightness? Viewing angle? Color uniformity? Reject ambient light? General build quality? Better tensioning? More masking options? Or maybe an acoustically transparent screen? Wooven or perforated? What's the viewing distance, how big can the perforation be? What speakers would you put behind the screen, that might limit your choices too. What resolution, etc.?
I've used screens from under $100 (including screen paint) to over $20k. Size is major factor in price as well. So what are you trying to accomplish?
Also the HT3550 isn't a true 4k projector. There are no native 4k consumer DLP chips or LCD panels. If you want native 4k cheap, then it's Sony or JVC. Otherwise it's more expensive, more light output, much bigger, noisier and hotter, so you better put those in a projection booth or custom (temperature controlled) hush box with glass sealing.
I've used screens from under $100 (including screen paint) to over $20k. Size is major factor in price as well. So what are you trying to accomplish?
Also the HT3550 isn't a true 4k projector. There are no native 4k consumer DLP chips or LCD panels. If you want native 4k cheap, then it's Sony or JVC. Otherwise it's more expensive, more light output, much bigger, noisier and hotter, so you better put those in a projection booth or custom (temperature controlled) hush box with glass sealing.
Better tensioning .
Viewing distance 8 to 10 ft.
Would it be worth it for a projector like my BenQ HT3550 ?
The answer is not as simple as one might think. The simple part of it is - yes, it certainly does. The complicated part is - the difference heavily depends on very many details and conditions. Three main points - the level of your demand for quality, the level of darkness in you room, the quality of your projector. The heaviest is your demand for quality. I know a lot of people, who use the most simple screens like just the bright wall (even not white!) and happily enjoy the movies. And I know enough people, who spend thousands Euros for a proper screen, and change one for another not one time (thus coming to the cost of 15-20 thousands Euro) to get the result which satisfy them, and this is not because they do not know where to spend their money (but yes, they really do have something to spend) but for demanding and trained eye in totally darkened room with really great projector the proper screen will make a huge difference. BUT there is only one person, who can tell you is it worth to pay for good screen - it is YOU, as only you know what is enough for you, and how much you gonna spend for all that. Good luck!
There's a detailed review of project screen at https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-projector-screen/
For better tensioning, better build quality is a must. So if you're looking for better tensioning, yes, it is absolutely worth it. The more expensive screens usually stay properly tensioned and flat in comparison to something cheaper. It can also depend on temperature and humidity. For tensioning the quality of the projector does not matter, it's a screen issue.
If you're not changing your room, then a screen can be something that is with you for decades so a higher priced model can be with you for a long time while you'll likely change the projector a few times in the same time period. Unless money is an issue, I'd always go Stewart for a non-AT screen. For AT screens I'd decide between Stewart (perforated) or DreamScreen V6 (wooven), depending on your use case and size. The latter is available as DIY material as well. Not only do you get better build quality, but also better visual performance. If that's worth it to you, is up to you.
You've also posted the same question over on AVS and received similar answers. For answers like this, I think you're better off over there than here. I've been active over at AVS for over 18 years, mostly in the Ultra Hi-End Gear $20k+ forum. Great community.
I've used my 1080p one for 5 years projecting straight onto an off-white wall - never had any thoughts about picture quality and never considered a screen.