Like you know what we did...but feel free to have the last word.I'm sure you're used to it
BTW show me the definitive proof that KS is better than UHD.I mean c'mon it has to be somewhere on the web if it's so magical and obviously better .Funnily enough the company itself provides ZERO evidence or proof.Kinda like some other snake oil...How does one show definitive proof? Reviews? I can post a bunch of them. Screenshots? Useless, you cannot see fine details or artifacts on an uncalibrated computer screen.Like you know what we did...but feel free to have the last word.I'm sure you're used to it
Ah... so you must be the video version of the audiofool.Only your "golden eyes" can see and obviously I didn't have enough "burn in time" with the KS.You kinda sabotaged your own argument when you said no one can see the difference between KS and 4k UHD disc on a monitor
.The occasional slight differences in banding and contrast are infinitesimal.As for your weird multi-lingual poop fetish the less said the better...This response is a deflection. You have spent an awful lot of time feebly attempting to insult me, but you have spent no time informing us what equipment, movies, and conditions you did your little afternoon comparison. Why don't you focus on that?
I don't have golden eyes, I have trained eyes just like you can train your hearing. I've owned and used KS on daily basis for 4 years now, and you used it for one afternoon. Just what insights can you give me on the system? Wait, let me answer that. NONE!
Actually, I didn't. You need a large screen, a good projector and processing, and a dark room preferably dark grey or black which describes one of my home theaters. Monitors are too small to catch compression issues and other artifacts, which is why streaming looks so good on them - and so lousy on a projector and large screen. The KS system is really optimized for a projection system, not a small monitor. So if you used a monitor for your comparison, your "opinion" of the system cannot be taken with any credibility.
When your projector has an external processor that does excellent tone mapping, you are in a very dark room with no wall or ceiling reflections, and you have a screen that is optimized for the projector, you don't miss DV. HDR was not a concern here.
We were not evaluating HDR my friend, we were looking for compression errors and other artifacts. Your aim is off here.
And panel tech is constrained by its inability to spot fine artifacts (and by the way has its own set of built-in artifacts). Since we were using KS for very large screen projection systems, it would have been airheaded to use a panel to look for encoding and compression errors. Anyone with any level of logic would understand this. Remember, this is about finding compression issues and artifacts, not HDR. That means you cannot bark up that tree anymore.
Irrelevant argument since no video tech is more accurate than the source.
I agree with this comment if the person is trained to see those artifacts. Most folks are not, so no matter the screen size - they can miss even the obvious artifacts on any size screen.
If this is the limit of your exposure (or space), this is the limit of your perspective. My focus was not on 65 to 75" panels, that would be FAR, FAR, FAR too small for the rooms we are shooting for. I am talking about screens twice the size of what you suggest in rooms much larger than a 65 or 75" panel can support. Context and detail are more important than blanket statements without either. I attended a demonstration of the Christie Eclipse projector on a 200" screen, and no panel on this planet could keep up with that. It is approved for DV, can get FAR brighter than any panel, can produce blacks as dark as a QD-OLED, and can produce 100% of both the P3 colorspace and the BT.2020 colorspace. Exposure to something more than a panel is important here, and no panel can do what this projector can.
This is a prime example of a hyperbolic statement (which shows a profound lack of understanding of screen size and resolution vs proper viewing distance) with no grounds in reality. Who in their logical right mind would sit 3 feet away from a 200" screen? Please, do better than this so you do insult anyone's intelligence.
You have a thinking/communication problem vs other people. You misunderstand, wrongly imply, and wrongly extrapolate almost everything someone posts. You seem unable to get outside your own head to understand other people. I hit show ignored content to understand posts by another user. I'm not going to make that mistake again.
OLED technolgy is far superior to fpj,color gamut,contrast etc.Any credible source will tell you that the technology allows for far more precise light control,it's not even close.You are honestly just wasting time here.Tone mapping blah blah,none of them Lumagen etc can do true HDR/DV,at best its extended range SDR.Any calibrator who's honest will tell you this.Sure you have the immersion factor in a large screen in a big room but technically better it is not and with a 97 oled now out a 120 isn't far behind so that size advantage is fading.Not to mention to even get the best picture from a fpj system that still isn't as good as an OLED you have to sit in a black wall painted,no light dungeon.
It likely is so, and certainly in any reasonably affordable form OLED is the best currently. A certain other poster wanted to reference a Christie Eclipse, and it may be better than even OLED in some contexts. However, this is a near $400,000 unit which will require a purpose built facility. I recently upgraded my projector to a 4k LED based unit and there has been quite a bit of progress. It also has more than 100% Rec 709 and BT2020 color coverage with improved contrast, color gamut and brightness. You can get a very enjoyable picture even in a normal room that isn't a darkened dungeon. It can be improved enough to matter with an ALR (ambient light rejecting) screen which I may upgrade to eventually. It still falls short of good quality OLED panel however. My current screen is 110 inch, and I'll be going to either 130 or 140 inch. I wondered if I should wait for 100 inch or so OLEDs to get cheaper as they are currently expensive themselves. I'm willing to trade off a little for the larger picture so far, and large OLED's of similar price might still be 5 years away.
A good projector setup is nice,not for me(too much fussing about) but they can get close.The KS system we used was on a super nice JVC sota that I think our friend said cost him around 30k.He has a 83 oled as well and even he admitted it's still a better picture.I will wait for the 97 inch oled,if past oled pricing holds it should be around 6k eventually
I have a sony 83” A90J OLED, also have a Optoma Laser Projector ( will take 4K, but still only 1080P) with a 165” screen in my outdoor theater.
Nice setup,I get the whole immersion thing but I'm an outlier.I prefer the sharper panel images to what I consider softer projection images.
I have no idea, but if not you could do that with an SVS Wireless Audio Adapter for only $119.99 plus a spare stereo amp.
www.svsound.com
