This Projector Actually Works in a Normal Room

[@grand7m]

Something you sort of glossed over... No one makes an ultra short throw screen like this thats acoustically perforated. The UST options that vivid storm offer with perforations are not perforated in the reflective part of the screen, but only the black boarder bits, which means your center speaker basically has to be on the floor or you are adjusting the visible picture higher than one might want. A proper center channel setup should be behind the screen at the same height as your left and right and that is currently only possible with traditional long throw perforated screens, but they do sell those with ambient light rejecting tech also.

[@BenVallack]

Pinned here too - cheers for a great catch.

[@realeatisaiy]

I find amusing how like every new video is about some other community XD

[@BenVallack]

Got to watch those pesky communities! They all have skeletons in the closets!

[@kensingtonwick]

@@BenVallack😂😂😂😂

[@svenniepennie4237]

I'm not quite sure what it supposedly is that the "home cinema community" doesn't want to talk about. I looked into getting one of these not long ago, and the information I got from said community was pretty much the same as the information in this video.

[@BenVallack]

The main thing no one talks about is that turning off the lights is not enough to get good contrast from a normal projector in smaller rooms with light walls and ceilings. No one seems to make this as clear as it needs to be.

[@sage11x]

Really disagree. Most communities put room treatment and setup at the primary. In fact, I’d say many forums and groups arguably place too much emphasis on having a dedicated space as I was discouraged from adding a projector to my living space when just reading comments and advice online. When I finally did jump to front projection I was surprised at just how versatile it was. Now this isn’t always the case with some MANUFACTURERS who hilariously market their projectors in bright living spaces surrounded by windows. Haha

[@BenVallack]

@@sage11xYeah I guess to be fair I mean 'industry' but that includes reviews and manufacturers etc.

[@peoplewithpixels]

I got this $2700 projector but no money changed hands - anyone see anything wrong with this statement?

[@BenVallack]

Hopefully I made it clear that there is still a natural element of incentivization but only because I like the product (I would have returned it if not)

[@peoplewithpixels]

@@BenVallack I get that you like the stuff, but I'm pretty sure you can see how the statement is not that accurate, even with all the extra fluff added on top

[@clo4]

For someone with this kind of setup (two HomePods, an LG G-series TV, and let’s not even talk about the keyboards) I don’t think that receiving a product for free, whether $27 or $2700, would really see that as money changing hands. He received a cool product and talked about it because it was cool 😊

[@KaiStarkk]

It's called a joke. He informed us that it was a sponsorship, as is his legal obligation, and did it in a classic British dry wit kind of way. Nothing to see here other than a creator doing the right thing.

[@nkpenn]

Thank you so much for mentioning the RBE! I’m super sensitive to it!

[@atzedevries9563]

Would you use this as your only 'tv' like device? What daily annoyances would you have?

[@BenVallack]

Nope this would always be a 'film night' setup for me. Something that size in a normal lounge is just going to be too dominating and still requires the lights off to look good. Oled for eveyday, UST for film nights is the gold standard I reckon!

[@herbert633]

@@BenVallack $7000 worth of television for a tiny room sure sounds like a "gold" standard

[@BenVallack]

@@herbert633 Gold standard *if* you're using it in an existing room with white ceiling!

[@herbert633]

@@BenVallack operative word is gold for the moneybags viewers

[@KaiStarkk]

I'd only use projectors for massive screens (e.g. 120" +). For 75" and lower we're in the era of $1000 TVs that have HDR10+/DV+ 4K 144Hz 4:4:4 with deep blacks and 10000 nits max luminance, there's no point. You alluded to this correctly, I'm just reiterating it more clearly here since some folks are wondering about it as a daily driver. 2300 lumens is actually pretty poor, ~630 nits. When they quote the max luminance in lumens, this is usually why. Some displays are getting up to double that. Luminance is so important to getting the richness out of saturated colours in HDR too. Movies like Dune make it obvious, the rich orange glow of spice needs to be displayed at like a third of max luminance due to its colour.

[@GabrielSoldani]

Other than the folding, seems like you could achieve similar picture quality, brightness levels and immersion with a big miniLED TV (OLEDs don’t get as bright). To make the TV not dominate the space, you could make it display some art or something. My Samsung had me take a picture of the wall surrounding it so it could mimic its color and texture for a “seamless” look (it even adjusts to changes in ambient light). A projector and a screen are too much friction to set up, imo. Big TV would get much more use.

[@BenVallack]

No way my wife would stomach anything bigger in here - art or no art!

[@mdribblecastle]

Good video. Thanks. Can the AppleTV control the volume of the projector speakers via the AppleTV remote (HDMi-CEC)? The Epson LS800 which uses GoogleTV OS cannot and that was a game breaker in the simple setup I want to utilize this in.

[@BenVallack]

Yep - Apple TV volume changes change the projector volume when Apple TV is set to send its audio to the 'TV Speakers' (projector).

[@mdribblecastle]

@ thanks for the response. I just got your response an hour after I received the unit. Confirmed what you noted above. After some tweaking I’m liking the projector in the first few hours.

[@BenVallack]

@@mdribblecastle I've just got some 3D glasses for it and am picking up 3D Blu-rays off ebay - highly recommended!!! I feel like if these things were around when the industry was pushing 3D it would have taken off. What an experience.

[@tumanyninjas]

Do ALR screens look just as good, if you don't sit straight in front of it but at a slight angle?

[@BenVallack]

Yep these lenticular type ones are fine off-axis.

[@Victor-i4g4u]

Did you see any rainbow effects or any laser speckles?

[@BenVallack]

Yep to rainbow effects - discussed at the end of the video.

[@Victor-i4g4u]

@@BenVallack I didn't watch the end plus was that a pre-production of the projector or the actual projector that is on sale now

[@BenVallack]

​​⁠I think it's the same as the production version - I certainly haven't been led to think there are any differences. The only thing is they sent me the version with EU power cord so I used my own. The real one is grey to match the projector.

[@KC-hk2ub]

Thanks for the great vid, very interesting indeed!

[@BenVallack]

Thanks!

[@mathewj5133]

Considering how this whole setup costs at least $4000 ($2700 for the Aura 2 projector and $1350 for a 100" screen) I would rather get something like a 98" TCL tv, which you can get for as little as $1200 (open box from best buy). It could replace your regular TV as well. Besides the obvious downsides of a living room projector vs TV, in my experience even the best projectors lose picture quality a lot sooner than most TVs. IMO there's no reason to get a short throw projector over a large TV if your screen size if going to be less than 150"... unless you want to watch 3D movies. I do, so I would love a setup like this, but most people probably shouldn't get this.

[@BenVallack]

The main reason it makes sense to me is that a 100" TV on the wall of a normal living room would just look horrendously intrusive. This way you get to have a nice smaller TV for daytime use and then the big guns for film nights!

[@mathewj5133]

@@BenVallack That's fair.

[@walterverbeeck6929]

​@@BenVallack Compare the power consumption between a 100 inch led tv and a 120 inch ust laser projector. On the long term the ust laser projector wins.

[@tg_73]

Some well-intentioned feedback: I've been a subscriber for years, but the recent move to clickbaity subjects, titles and thumbnails is too unpalatable for me, so I'm off. Thanks for your hard work, and wishing you success in the future.

[@BenVallack]

Happy to hear ideas on how I can make broad appeal videos without being using these kinds of title/thumbnail concepts. My audience covers so many niches now that I need to make sure my videos appeal to wide audiences so I can't just stay in a tighter niche where less 'dramatic' title/thumbs are still effective. This is at least the way I see it! I mean lets use this one as an example - the main point in the video that I think most people would consider new/interesting is that normal projectors fail in normal home rooms, even with the lights off. What title/thumb concept would you find more palatable?

[@herbert633]

i'm with @tg_73, long time subscriber and this one is the straw on the camel's back pushing me into unsubscribing

[@tg_73]

@@BenVallack I'm probably an outlier in this regard: I actively recognise and refuse to engage with curiosity gap bait, regardless of the subject matter or youtuber. I see this as a good online hygiene practice, to build and maintain mental defence against manipulative techniques. "What [some group of people with a vested interest] doesn't want to talk about" is pure curiosity gap bait and a 100% avoid trigger for me. The actual content of this video would actually be interesting to me, but I won't watch it on principle as I refuse to reward the manipulative title. I'm sure you could think of a less manipulative title, but I recognise that it would likely be less effective for a wider audience. On the other hand, some channels have taken a stand against this and remain highly successful (eg, Veritasium).

[@BenVallack]

@@tg_73 Really appreciate the feedback. I just looked at some popular vids by Veritasium and the first one I saw was 'What everyone gets wrong about planes'. Surely that is curiosity gap packaging? I do really respect your overall position though - and actually agree. I wonder though maybe if you added the variable of prior knowledge to your online filter if you might get more out of the platform - i.e if the creator is known to you and has a track record of delivering on content in general (a test I hope I might pass!) then maybe an allowance could be made for more mainstream packaging which creators may need as a tool to appeal to newer audiences :)

[@BenVallack]

I have just changed title and thumb - would you consider that less 'curiosity gap'?

[@mrcasimoto]

This projector is not native 4K. It’s a shift system.

[@BenVallack]

Says 'standard resolution' on their website with no mention of pixel shift?

[@mrcasimoto]

@@BenVallack yeah that’s strange. Because the chip they using is not able to produce a native 4K pic. Anyway nice video 👍🏻✌🏻

[@zerdofish9989]

I came to see comments complaining about the title and not to watch the video as I was disgusted by the title.

[@BenVallack]

Disgusted seriously? I'm just dabbling with things based on my barefoot shoe video title. More to the point though there is a really serious point that is totally underplayed everywhere you read about rear throw projectors. No one tells you how important it is to have black walls and ceilings, they just say turn off the lights. This is a main point in the video so the title seems on-point to me. Never mind, you lot have all killed the video now with dislikes so I will try more literal title soon.

[@zerdofish9989]

@@BenVallack Just giving honest feedback about how your title strategy is not the best. I know your work and know you can do really, really good. Surely I didn't mean true disgust as in I wanted to puke. Just tell me what the video is about and I- with all the information- I will decide whether I watch it *now* or *later*. The trick of not telling us what is the point of the video makes me *never* want to watch it.

[@zerdofish9989]

@@BenVallack and for what's worth. I apologize if it came too rude earlier. Sometimes one forget that there is another person behind the comments. Sorry about that.

[@BenVallack]

Really appreciate the follow ups cheers! I have switched to a more literal title now - what do you think?

[@zerdofish9989]

@@BenVallack I don't feel disgust :)

[@MrJakson112]

All this, and you're still using 2 home pods as your stereo setup lmao

[@BenVallack]

Perfect for this room! Room accoustics is limiting issue in this room. (given we don't want any more visible speakers in here).