Originally Posted by stanger89
How so? These XPR DLPs have contrast just as bad as the 0.47" 1080p DLPs like the LG PF1500. That 0.47" is exactly the same pixel density as a theoretical 0.96" 2160p chip.
How so? It's quite simple. The more mirrors you pack into a DMD of same size the lower the contrast gets. This is why 0.47" 1080p DMDs have less contrast than 0.67" 1080p DMDs which in turn have less contrast than 0.95" 1080p DMDs. It has always been this way for dlp.
So if you took an 0.67" chip and packed in 8M micromirrors it would obviously have dramatically less contrast than 0.67" chip with 4M micromirrors. This is true for every Dmd size of course.
The reason 0.67" 4k XPR has produced some products with contrast similar to 0.47" 1080p is because 0.67" XPR packs in double the amount of micromirrors in less than double the amount of space.
There is no way around the physics without radical dmd redesign - putting native 4k in a DMD will result in much lower contrast than using XPR in the same DMD.
So lets say with a 4k XPR 0.95" product you can get 5000:1 contrast on/off. Now take that same 0.95" design and put in native 4k and your contrast drops to 2500:1 (or some similar large amount). You are saying you'd give up half the contrast just to pass a test pattern and have a little extra fine detail likely not noticeable from seating distance? That sounds like a terrible decision to me, and is exactly why XPR makes most sense for DLP. Given DLP being lower in contrast it can use the extra help XPR provides to allow for 8M pixels and CTA 4k certification without being gutted in contrast by providing native 4k.
Further XPR DMDs can't properly render 2160p or 1080p test patterns.
You can enjoy watching test patterns, I watch movies
The whole 8Mpix thing is a TI marketing red herring, nothing you see on screen appears to be 8Mpix.
8M pix is actually 100% accurate, not a red herring. The key point of understanding is that the pixels are of larger size and overlap unlike a native 8M pixel display. But there are 8M pixels and there are double the amount of pixels packed in than JVC/Epson currently offer. And the 8M pixels XPR offers was good enough for CTA standards 4k UHD certification.
No doubt for 4K content XPR has the potential to be sharper, but Epson/JVC have the advantage with 1080p content of being able to display it without scaling.
This is somewhat useful I guess? Though no one I know who bought a 1080p projectors were clamoring for DVD resolution without scaling... And people seem to leave eshift on when using rs600. So perhaps not that important if the scaling is high quality.