Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 556 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3885Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #16651 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
yes it's a trade off, I thought the x-talk on the LS10K I calibrated was excessive and bothered me more than the mild flicker on the JVC. The flicker is there on the 15K 4K Sony's as well. Also the JVC and Sony are a good bit brighter in 3D so that is another strike for 3D on the Epson Laser.

I use the JVC for darker 3D movies (Underworld Blood Wars looks amazing in a way that simply doesn't work on DLP) and my Sharp 30K for bright 3D content, animations, etc. This 3D projector is better in every way vs my previous BenQ W7000 and love the 3D on it. Plus the Sharp G20 glasses are bar-none the best 3D glasses I've used.

I don't see any 1 model that excels in all areas of 2D / 3D / UHD so the multi-projector setup works great depending on what i'm watching.
I like the Sharp but it's out of production and they aren't even repairing it anymore. Don't think that OEM lamps from sharp are available either and I don't want to chance an exploding or poor quality lamp.

So w7000 continues to satisfy for 3d for me and BenQ continues to support it.

But 2 projectors in my room is tough due to low ceiling and riser.

So when I upgrade next year going to figure out best tradeoff I guess :/ one of the main reasons I keep putting off upgrade.
Ruined is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #16652 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3223 Post(s)
Liked: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreNewman View Post
Thanks for the screenshots, finally something where a screen shot is actually meaningful!

I'm taking some of my own media but I don't have any 3D calibration patterns beyond what's on the spears & munsil disk so yes please to a link, iso, mkv is fine, I have bluray media and a burner, Ricky is the UK dealer for Zappity so I expect he can play iso and mkv... I may just put a drive in my Mede8er and take that too.
yes the L/R screens are actually useful since it's show how the projector handles dark on light x-talk. This is the achilles heal for most non-DLP's but JVC somehow in 2016 figured out a way to reduce it to almost non-existence even in tough content like Happy Feet which is a 3D torture test. I was surprised at the epson laser in this area.

I just sent you a link with a download to the L/R patterns, it's a 3D BD ISO. It will play fine on the Mede8ter.

now that 3D is dead on the next gen DLP's we should be thankful to JVC/Epson/Sony for continuing to support it. I can't stop watching SwordMaster 3D, amazing 3D demo material and beautifully filmed movie. High recommended import title for fans of Crouching Tiger genre.
zombie10k is online now  
post #16653 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Is that true if you feed the Epson 24p? I think the JVC does 60Hz per eye if you feed it 60p.
JVC maxes out at 48khz per eye per my understanding. Epson uses 3:2 frame sequencing on 24p to make 60hz.

Best of course is DLP 72hz with triple flash. No flicker and also no pull down artifacts.
Ruined is offline  
 
post #16654 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:50 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,421
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 2044
The one big rub for me with trying out the Sharp and replacing my 7000 is no FI in 3d which I just remembered. Always some sort of compromise it seems no matter which way you go.

JVC CMD Vertical Banding: Affects all currently shipping lamp based JVC Projectors
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...rojectors.html
PLEASE CALL JVC AND REPORT THE CMD BANDING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU
1-800-252-5722
Choose option 1, then 4 and have your serial# ready (located on back of unit or box).
Toe is online now  
post #16655 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:53 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,421
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
I like the Sharp but it's out of production and they aren't even repairing it anymore. Don't think that OEM lamps from sharp are available either and I don't want to chance an exploding or poor quality lamp.

So w7000 continues to satisfy for 3d for me and BenQ continues to support it.

But 2 projectors in my room is tough due to low ceiling and riser.

So when I upgrade next year going to figure out best tradeoff I guess :/ one of the main reasons I keep putting off upgrade.
Which 3d glasses do you use on your 7000? I need to try a different pair to see if they hold sync better vs the ones I have.

JVC CMD Vertical Banding: Affects all currently shipping lamp based JVC Projectors
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...rojectors.html
PLEASE CALL JVC AND REPORT THE CMD BANDING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU
1-800-252-5722
Choose option 1, then 4 and have your serial# ready (located on back of unit or box).
Toe is online now  
post #16656 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 08:01 AM
Member
 
AndreNewman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
JVC maxes out at 48khz per eye per my understanding. Epson uses 3:2 frame sequencing on 24p to make 60hz.

Best of course is DLP 72hz with triple flash. No flicker and also no pull down artifacts.
Yeek!

Despite a lot of reading around I didn't know that, I hate 3:2 pulldown, it drives me nuts. I'm pretty used to DLP triple flash, 24p artefacts in 3D are bad enough if there's 3:2 pulldown on top that's not going to be pretty.

I should be able to cope with 48Hz per eye, maybe.

Well from the 3D standpoint tomorrow may not be an expensive day after all.
AndreNewman is offline  
post #16657 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 08:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3223 Post(s)
Liked: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
The one big rub for me with trying out the Sharp and replacing my 7000 is no FI in 3d which I just remembered. Always some sort of compromise it seems no matter which way you go.
the 3D is nice and smooth on the Sharp, it almost looks like some kind of FI processing. I did used to run FI on the BQ and compared content when I had them both. The big stand-out is the perceived contrast in 3D (IR vs DLP Link), native is higher to begin with and don't see RBE in 3D on the Sharp but used to catch it on the BenQ.

it's a shame Sharp left the market. I don't have much confidence we will see 3D in the faux 4K DLP models which is a major bummer for 3D fans. Plus that business class native hurts no matter how sharp they are. I hope they make progress in this area and find a way to get 3D working.
Toe likes this.
zombie10k is online now  
post #16658 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 09:24 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,421
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
the 3D is nice and smooth on the Sharp, it almost looks like some kind of FI processing. I did used to run FI on the BQ and compared content when I had them both. The big stand-out is the perceived contrast in 3D (IR vs DLP Link), native is higher to begin with and don't see RBE in 3D on the Sharp but used to catch it on the BenQ.

it's a shame Sharp left the market. I don't have much confidence we will see 3D in the faux 4K DLP models which is a major bummer for 3D fans. Plus that business class native hurts no matter how sharp they are. I hope they make progress in this area and find a way to get 3D working.
Sounds good. I will stick to the plan and track down a Sharp at some point. Hopefully the glasses you like so much for the 30k are still available for purchase?

JVC CMD Vertical Banding: Affects all currently shipping lamp based JVC Projectors
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...rojectors.html
PLEASE CALL JVC AND REPORT THE CMD BANDING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU
1-800-252-5722
Choose option 1, then 4 and have your serial# ready (located on back of unit or box).
Toe is online now  
post #16659 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
Which 3d glasses do you use on your 7000? I need to try a different pair to see if they hold sync better vs the ones I have.
Optoma ZD201 very happy with them.
Toe likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #16660 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 07:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
I don't have much confidence we will see 3D in the faux 4K DLP models which is a major bummer for 3D fans. Plus that business class native hurts no matter how sharp they are. I hope they make progress in this area and find a way to get 3D working.
3D is available on more expensive (over 20k) 4k XPR DLP projectors. 3D works fine with XPR but it is a significant cost (for processing power, ports, etc) while the cheaper Pj manufs are trying to get costs as low as possible.

Only progress that needs to be made is convincing one of the cheaper brands that people will still actually pay more for 3D I can see why it makes more sense for lower price manufs to primarily compete on who can get the cheapest, best looking 4K + HDR projector when 3D has been dropped from virtually all flatpanel TVs this year. HDR already seems to be much more popular than 3D ever was, unfortunately. Likely due to LCD TVs sucking at 3D and manufs gouging on glasses price.

When Vivitek refreshes its "CEDIA" line down the road with XPR I bet we'll see a 3D XPR projector, though.

Also note for DLP - if you meant "faux 4k" as a knock - 4k XPR with its 8M pixels makes exponentially more engineering sense than native 4k with 8M pixels. Native 4k DMDs have been out for some time (such as the 1.38" DMD in some of the DPI pjs) but given the same DMD size they take a massive nosedive in native contrast compared to an XPR chip. Given 4k XPR DLP does have 8M pixels like native 4k (even though they overlap and thus aren't quite as precise), the final output is so close it doesn't make any sense to pillage native contrast just to check a box on a spec sheet that it is "native 4k". This is a different story than Epson/JVC who have half the pixel density of native 4k (4M pixels) after shift and are more deserving of the "faux 4k" label since it is not even close to the amount of pixels a native 4K pj puts out.

So long as the basic physics and design of DMDs don't radically change, given everything being the same (other than native resolution) an XPR DMD will always greatly exceed a native 4k DMD in contrast - where most would agree DLP has the least room to be taking hits on. And thus XPR will always be the best choice for 4K DLP unless contrast is not a priority for the application.

4k XPR 0.95" (native 2560x1600) DC4 DMD is where the real potential for overall best home theater 4K DLP lies given current DMD design. Only one model I know of actually uses this currently, but at least its in production...

Last edited by Ruined; 05-22-2017 at 08:32 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #16661 of 16794 Old 05-22-2017, 10:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3223 Post(s)
Liked: 3308
In the BQ thread someone mentioned 3D on the Nero 4.

I read through the entire Nero 4 manual, there is no mention of 3D anywhere and no 3 Pin VESA port for a transmitter.

http://sim2-extranet.com/files/downl...ide-EN_1-5.pdf

so no 3D for 30k on this specific model. We also only get R709 which it mentions 1/2 dozen times in the manual but no discussion of P3/BT2020 for UHD content. There are HDR gamma adjustments but P3/BT2020 is a major feature of UHD HDR content that needs to be there if someone is spending $30000 on a single chip projector. Imagine seeing RBE at this price point?

I'm glad to watch this progress from a distance but can't see investing in any of the faux 4K projectors until they mature in a few years. WCG support has to be there, 3D would be better.
zombie10k is online now  
post #16662 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 04:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
In the BQ thread someone mentioned 3D on the Nero 4.

I read through the entire Nero 4 manual, there is no mention of 3D anywhere and no 3 Pin VESA port for a transmitter.

http://sim2-extranet.com/files/downl...ide-EN_1-5.pdf

so no 3D for 30k on this specific model. We also only get R709 which it mentions 1/2 dozen times in the manual but no discussion of P3/BT2020 for UHD content. There are HDR gamma adjustments but P3/BT2020 is a major feature of UHD HDR content that needs to be there if someone is spending $30000 on a single chip projector. Imagine seeing RBE at this price point?

I'm glad to watch this progress from a distance but can't see investing in any of the faux 4K projectors until they mature in a few years. WCG support has to be there, 3D would be better.
Barco put 3D in the spec sheet for the Loki XPR and publicly stated they would be implementing 3D, though I haven't seen one in person.
Ruined is offline  
post #16663 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 05:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Also note for DLP - if you meant "faux 4k" as a knock - 4k XPR with its 8M pixels makes exponentially more engineering sense than native 4k with 8M pixels. Native 4k DMDs have been out for some time (such as the 1.38" DMD in some of the DPI pjs) but given the same DMD size they take a massive nosedive in native contrast compared to an XPR chip.
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. Further XPR DMDs can't properly render 2160p or 1080p test patterns.

Quote:
Given 4k XPR DLP does have 8M pixels like native 4k (even though they overlap and thus aren't quite as precise), the final output is so close it doesn't make any sense to pillage native contrast just to check a box on a spec sheet that it is "native 4k".
The whole 8Mpix thing is a TI marketing red herring, nothing you see on screen appears to be 8Mpix.

Quote:
This is a different story than Epson/JVC who have half the pixel density of native 4k (4M pixels) after shift and are more deserving of the "faux 4k" label since it is not even close to the amount of pixels a native 4K pj puts out.
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.
stanger89 is offline  
post #16664 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 05:10 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,421
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 2044
Zombie, which glasses do you like for the Sharp 30k and are they still available for purchase?

JVC CMD Vertical Banding: Affects all currently shipping lamp based JVC Projectors
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...rojectors.html
PLEASE CALL JVC AND REPORT THE CMD BANDING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU
1-800-252-5722
Choose option 1, then 4 and have your serial# ready (located on back of unit or box).
Toe is online now  
post #16665 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 07:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 79 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3223 Post(s)
Liked: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
Zombie, which glasses do you like for the Sharp 30k and are they still available for purchase?
there's still a good number of them available on ebay. that's a great price, I might grab a bunch of spares.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Sharp-Acti...-/302309244416

I haven't seen a 30K for sale in quite a while unfortunately.


Sharp G20 and the Sony RF glasses. The G20's are very light / comfortable with large lenses and the cool feature of the '2D' switch for any guests that can't stomach Lichtmond Volume 2..

Toe likes this.
zombie10k is online now  
post #16666 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 07:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
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.

Quote:
Further XPR DMDs can't properly render 2160p or 1080p test patterns.
You can enjoy watching test patterns, I watch movies .

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Ruined; 05-23-2017 at 08:51 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #16667 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 08:07 AM
Toe
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,421
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 2044
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
there's still a good number of them available on ebay. that's a great price, I might grab a bunch of spares.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Sharp-Acti...-/302309244416

I haven't seen a 30K for sale in quite a while unfortunately.


Sharp G20 and the Sony RF glasses. The G20's are very light / comfortable with large lenses and the cool feature of the '2D' switch for any guests that can't stomach Lichtmond Volume 2..

Appreciate the info!

I just watched a couple of the Lichtmond films again about a month ago and the 2d feature on those glasses you mention could very well be needed for some guests! I love the super aggressive 3d on these and they can be even more fun using your own music.
zombie10k likes this.

JVC CMD Vertical Banding: Affects all currently shipping lamp based JVC Projectors
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...rojectors.html
PLEASE CALL JVC AND REPORT THE CMD BANDING IF THIS BOTHERS YOU
1-800-252-5722
Choose option 1, then 4 and have your serial# ready (located on back of unit or box).
Toe is online now  
post #16668 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 09:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
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.
That all makes sense in theory, but so far, the the XPR machines that we are talking about here have the same (ballpark) contrast as the 0.47" 1080p DMD machines like the LG. So with the machines we have today, XPR has no contrast advantage over a theoretical (at this point) native 4K 0.94" DMD.

Now if a ~0.9" XPR DMD machine would have better contrast than a ~0.9" 4K native DMD machine, that will be interesting to see if we ever see home theater machines materialize with those combinations.

Quote:
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.
Industry standards more often than not have no relation to reality/quality. Show me an image where I can count 8 million individual pixels on screen (I'm happy with a crop where can calculate based on area), and I'll buy that the 8Mpix is not a red herring. But it doesn't work that way. XPR displays 4Mpix at a time, overlapped, which generates ~16 million individual areas of color/brightness. There's nothing you see on screen that appears to be 8 million pixels.

Quote:
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.
I generally have e-Shift off on my RS600.
stanger89 is offline  
post #16669 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
That all makes sense in theory, but so far, the the XPR machines that we are talking about here have the same (ballpark) contrast as the 0.47" 1080p DMD machines like the LG. So with the machines we have today, XPR has no contrast advantage over a theoretical (at this point) native 4K 0.94" DMD.

Now if a ~0.9" XPR DMD machine would have better contrast than a ~0.9" 4K native DMD machine, that will be interesting to see if we ever see home theater machines materialize with those combinations.
This is the point - Any given Dmd size, the XPR implementation will have more contrast than native 4k. It is all about # of micromirrors vs chip size. 0.67 Dmd with 4M micromirrors has more micromirrors per inch than 0.47 Dmd with 2M micromirrors.

So an 0.9 XPR Dmd with 4M micromirrors will have far more contrast than an 0.9 Dmd with 8M micromirrors. There is no way around this.

And 0.9" XPR Dmd is already in production, the Barco Loki is using one (2560x1600 native) so it has already materialized.


Quote:
Industry standards more often than not have no relation to reality/quality. Show me an image where I can count 8 million individual pixels on screen (I'm happy with a crop where can calculate based on area), and I'll buy that the 8Mpix is not a red herring. But it doesn't work that way. XPR displays 4Mpix at a time, overlapped, which generates ~16 million individual areas of color/brightness. There's nothing you see on screen that appears to be 8 million pixels.
8 million pixels are being projected per frame but as you stated they form an optical composite. But 8 million pixels are still being projected - vs 4 million from the competition. Industry standards are important even if not related to quality.
Ruined is offline  
post #16670 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:24 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
This is the point - Any given Dmd size, the XPR implementation will have more contrast than native 4k. It is all about # of micromirrors vs chip size. 0.67 Dmd with 4M micromirrors has more micromirrors per inch than 0.47 Dmd with 2M micromirrors.

So an 0.9 XPR Dmd with 4M micromirrors will have far more contrast than an 0.9 Dmd with 8M micromirrors. There is no way around this.
But there's a lot more to projector contrast than DMD capabilities. Like I said, sure in theory, but lets wait until we see machines in people's hands before we draw conclusions.

Quote:
And 0.9" XPR Dmd is already in production, the Barco Loki is using one (2560x1600 native) so it has already materialized.
Has anyone used or tested one? Got links to tests proving it's superior contrast?

Quote:
8 million pixels are being projected per frame but as you stated they form an optical composite. But 8 million pixels are still being projected - vs 4 million from the competition.
It's a Red Herring because it's an attempt to distract people with the "8 million pixels" and lead them to the false conclusion that it's the same as native 4K. I'd say the same if JVC or Epson were trying to claim they were 4Mpix displays.

Quote:
Industry standards are important even if not related to quality.
Not if they're just for marketing purposes. Which is what the CEA/CTA "4K" spec is, just a marketing apparatus to sell displays, clearly TI (or someone with similar interests) had a lot of influence in that definition.
stanger89 is offline  
post #16671 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
But there's a lot more to projector contrast than DMD capabilities. Like I said, sure in theory, but lets wait until we see machines in people's hands before we draw conclusions.
Again, given the same design you could have had way more contrast from an XPR. There is no getting away from the contrast gutting effect doubling the amount of mirrors in the same space will have. Unless ti totally revamps dmd design there is no escaping this.

Quote:
Has anyone used or tested one? Got links to tests proving it's superior contrast?
I believe the Loki is based on the old projection design (Barco acquired them) 2560x1600 projectors. They worked with ti to take that same Dmd and XPR it. As shifting 2560x1600 nets you over 8M pixels... And thus can still be CTA certified 4K UHD.

A better question is, how in the world do you believe you could double the amount of mirrors in the same space and retain the same contrast? Simply not possible given the way Dmd works.
Quote:

It's a Red Herring because it's an attempt to distract people with the "8 million pixels" and lead them to the false conclusion that it's the same as native 4K. I'd say the same if JVC or Epson were trying to claim they were 4Mpix displays.

Not if they're just for marketing purposes. Which is what the CEA/CTA "4K" spec is, just a marketing apparatus to sell displays, clearly TI (or someone with similar interests) had a lot of influence in that definition.
I agree it is marketing but engineering wise for DLP XPR also makes a whole lot more sense than native 4k. You can either have XPR with double (or at least much more) the contrast or native 4k with half the contrast. You can't have both. Given DLP's already lower contrast native 4k thus makes zero sense given the minimal visual difference with actual movie content when compared to XPR.

Last edited by Ruined; 05-23-2017 at 10:47 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #16672 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 490
Does anybody really expect single (or 3) chip DLP to compete, anymore? IMHO the only way for DLP to survive for "proper" (dark walls/ceiling etc) home theaters is if they finally start putting 2 chips in a row. Such projectors should have been available several years ago, but it seems nobody has the balls to create such a projector. Or maybe there are patents which stop companies from doing that?
madshi is offline  
post #16673 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Again, given the same design you could have had way more contrast from an XPR. There is no getting away from the contrast gutting effect doubling the amount of mirrors in the same space will have. Unless ti totally revamps dmd design there is no escaping this.


I believe the Loki is based on the old projection design (Barco acquired them) 2560x1600 projectors. They worked with ti to take that same Dmd and XPR it. As shifting 2560x1600 nets you over 8M pixels.

A better question is, how in the world do you believe you could double the amount of mirrors in the same space and retain the same contrast? Simply not possible given the way Dmd works.
I'm not disagreeing with the theory. But of the machines we have available today, and have seen tested, XPR isn't gaining us anything because it has the same pixel density as a theoretical 0.94" 2160p DMD. A 0.94" 2160p DMD would be exactly the same pixel density as the currently available 0.47" 1080p DMDs, and those have about the same contrast as the current 0.65" XPR DMDs.

If we get two HT machines, one with a ~1" XPR 4Mpix DMD and one with a ~1" 2160p DMD, it will be interesting to see what the result is. Of course it will likely have more to do with the design choices of each model than the DMD's native capabilities.

Quote:
I agree it is marketing but engineering wise for DLP XPR makes a whole lot more sense than native 4k. You can either have XPR with double (or at least much more) the contrast or native 4k with half the contrast. You can't have both. Given DLP's already lower contrast native 4k thus makes zero sense given the minimal visual difference with actual content vs. XPR.
I'd like to see an XPR DLP with double the native contrast of another non XPR DLP. Barco only claims 1800:1 with their 2560x1600 XPR machines, eg:
https://www.barco.com/en/Products/Pr..._=specs#!specs
stanger89 is offline  
post #16674 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 10:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Does anybody really expect single (or 3) chip DLP to compete, anymore? IMHO the only way for DLP to survive for "proper" (dark walls/ceiling etc) home theaters is if they finally start putting 2 chips in a row. Such projectors should have been available several years ago, but it seems nobody has the balls to create such a projector. Or maybe there are patents which stop companies from doing that?
It's theoretically possible. The Lumis had native contrast that's not far off the RS4500 (7000:1 vs 9000:1), and the RS4500 is getting rave reviews.

Of course it might not be possible for any of these more dense DMDs to do that, who knows, we won't until we someone really try. Most DC4 machines were in the 2000-2500:1 range, except for some outliers like the Lumis. So we really don't know what's possible with these psuedo 4K and actual 4K DMDs.

That said, I'm really not optimistic. The DLP manufacturers that seemed to care about HT picture quality either got out of the business (Runco, Sharp, Marantz) or gave up caring (Sim2). The rest seem to be happy to push their (false) ANSI is all that matters narrative.
stanger89 is offline  
post #16675 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 11:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I'm not disagreeing with the theory. But of the machines we have available today, and have seen tested, XPR isn't gaining us anything because it has the same pixel density as a theoretical 0.94" 2160p DMD. A 0.94" 2160p DMD would be exactly the same pixel density as the currently available 0.47" 1080p DMDs, and those have about the same contrast as the current 0.65" XPR DMDs.

If we get two HT machines, one with a ~1" XPR 4Mpix DMD and one with a ~1" 2160p DMD, it will be interesting to see what the result is. Of course it will likely have more to do with the design choices of each model than the DMD's native capabilities.
What I feel you are missing the boat on here is that with DLP native 4k DMD will always be at a massive contrast disadvantage to XPR 4k DMDs of the same size. So unless contrast is not a priority (i.e. Pro use), the XPR will always be the winner for Ht use... Because with XPR you use half the mirrors in the same space - mirror density, tilt and coating have been the only things to impact contrast for *DMDs* in DLPs life. The projector could do other things to increase contrast but by starting with double the mirror density (native 4k vs xpr) the projector starts with a massive contrast disadvantage at the Dmd level. Thus from an engineering perspective native 4k Dmd makes little sense for contrast sensitive applications like home theater.

Your example is not a good one because you are not satisfied with 0.47" 1080p DMD. If you are not satisfied with 0.47" contrast why would you want this unsatisfactory contrast duplicated in your 0.9" native 4k example? That is the point of XPR, by halving the mirror density you can jack up the contrast.

Quote:
I'd like to see an XPR DLP with double the native contrast of another non XPR DLP. Barco only claims 1800:1 with their 2560x1600 XPR machines, eg:
https://www.barco.com/en/Products/Pr..._=specs#!specs
This projector is a bad example as it is 11800 (!) lumens and thus optimized for high brightness and a massive screen. And if it did use native 4k dmd in this exact same design it's contrast would probably be around 1000:1 instead of 1800:1.
Ruined is offline  
post #16676 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
It's theoretically possible. The Lumis had native contrast that's not far off the RS4500 (7000:1 vs 9000:1), and the RS4500 is getting rave reviews.

Of course it might not be possible for any of these more dense DMDs to do that, who knows, we won't until we someone really try. Most DC4 machines were in the 2000-2500:1 range, except for some outliers like the Lumis. So we really don't know what's possible with these psuedo 4K and actual 4K DMDs.

That said, I'm really not optimistic. The DLP manufacturers that seemed to care about HT picture quality either got out of the business (Runco, Sharp, Marantz) or gave up caring (Sim2). The rest seem to be happy to push their (false) ANSI is all that matters narrative.
Remember also the Lumis used an 0.9" DMD. If Ti made an XPR version of their 1.38" DMD it probably would be similar in contrast capability of the 0.9" 1080p DMDs. So basing a 4k Iumis on an XPR 1.38" DMD would probably get you there. Of course the lens would be more expensive, though.
Ruined is offline  
post #16677 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 21,742
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3065 Post(s)
Liked: 1626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
What I feel you are missing the boat on here is that with DLP native 4k DMD will always be at a massive contrast disadvantage to XPR 4k DMDs of the same size. So unless contrast is not a priority (i.e. Pro use), the XPR will always be the winner for Ht use... Because with XPR you use half the mirrors in the same space - mirror density, tilt and coating have been the only things to impact contrast for *DMDs* in DLPs life. The projector could do other things to increase contrast but by starting with double the mirror density (native 4k vs xpr) the projector starts with a massive contrast disadvantage at the Dmd level. Thus from an engineering perspective native 4k Dmd makes little sense for contrast sensitive applications like home theater.
1) I'm genuinely curious, where are you getting that there's a "massive" contrast disadvantage? I know the 0.65" 1080p DLP machines tend to be lower contrast than the 0.95" DLP machines, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a "massive" difference. Further, those machines are usually not really equivalent designs, the 0.95" DMDs are generally much higher end machines. I'm not saying I don't believe there's a disadvantage with smaller mirrors, but you seem very adamant, like you have access to measurements, to show that.

2) How much does the optical actuator negatively impact contrast? How much of the poor performance of the XPR machines is due to the optical actuator?

Quote:
Your example is not a good one because you are not satisfied with 0.47" 1080p DMD. If you are not satisfied with 0.47" contrast why would you want this unsatisfactory contrast duplicated in your 0.9" native 4k example? That is the point of XPR, by halving the mirror density you can jack up the contrast.
My point is I haven't seen evidence that XPR is actually superior in contrast, from shipping products with real measurements. Just about all the XPR machines that have been measured have bottom of the barrel contrast performance.

Quote:
This projector is a bad example as it is 11800 (!) lumens and thus optimized for high brightness and a massive screen. And if it did use native 4k dmd in this exact same design it's contrast would probably be around 1000:1 instead of 1800:1.
Every 4K Barco I found (in my very quick search) was only 1800:1 native contrast. Have you seen specs on the Loki that say it's higher?
stanger89 is offline  
post #16678 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 1,520
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Does anybody really expect single (or 3) chip DLP to compete, anymore? IMHO the only way for DLP to survive for "proper" (dark walls/ceiling etc) home theaters is if they finally start putting 2 chips in a row. Such projectors should have been available several years ago, but it seems nobody has the balls to create such a projector. Or maybe there are patents which stop companies from doing that?
Isn't that what the Christie sourced Dolby projectors do? If so, they must hold a patent on it. And that means it will be easily 5-10+ years to see that trickle down into <$5k machines.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #16679 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 02:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 532 Post(s)
Liked: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post
Isn't that what the Christie sourced Dolby projectors do? If so, they must hold a patent on it. And that means it will be easily 5-10+ years to see that trickle down into <$5k machines.
The whole HDR display concept is relatively new, but the idea of putting 2 panels in a row (for increased contrast, not for HDR) has been around for a looong time. So any HDR related Dolby patents are unlikely to protect the general concept of daisy chaining 2 panels, IMHO.
madshi is offline  
post #16680 of 16794 Old 05-23-2017, 02:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 9,052
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1905 Post(s)
Liked: 913
Are you talking about the Brightside technology that Dolby bought? I thought that was a LCD panel used somewhere in the light path to increase contrast. Is the sequential DLP panels a Dolby patent?

IIRC the use of a second panel results in a huge hit on lumens.

Current projector - JVC RS25 and Marantz VP15S1
Future projector - pre-ordered new JVC from AVScience
Ericglo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Benq W7000 Home Projection System , Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle , Jvc Dla Rs45 Home Theater Projector 1080p Hdmi , Epson V11h502020 Powerlite Home Cinema 3020e 2d And 3d 1080p Wireless Home Theater Projector , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Epson 5010 Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 3010 2d And 3d Projector V11h421020 , Panasonic Ptae8000u Hd Projector , Mitsubishi Hc7900dw Home Theater 3d Projector , Mitsubishi Hc8000dbl Dlp 3d Home Theater Projector With Spare Lamp 1300 Ansi 12 6 Lbs , Darbeevision Darblet Hdmi Video Processor , Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off