Originally Posted by Ruined
Selling a native 1500:1 4k projector is exponentially easier than selling a 2000:1 1080p projector.
True. However, while anything is possible I doubt that doubling the pixel count on the same sized chip only cost that much on/off CR. From a marketing standpoint selling a 2.7k+eShift machine with 1500:1 where you can call it 4K by the CTA standard is probably easier than selling a 1080p+eShift projector even if that one had 2500:1. Probably even easier than if the latter had 3000:1 on/off CR. However, some people who understand all the parameters might actually prefer the 2nd one. It goes to what they value more for their particular setup.
On the other hand, I hadn't considered the selective eShift thing. With 1080p+eShift they may have wanted to shift all pixels or none of them.
Originally Posted by stanger89
... since XPR will now show more pixel grid than Native 4K or e-Shift ...
This is true, but since they are native 2.7k this is less of an issue than if they had used 1080p chips and added eShift. They may feel that 2.7k is enough to make SDE a non-issue for most people. Might be nice if we had the option to shift the whole image for those who would see the grid pattern otherwise, but I doubt they will add that.
I do wonder whether a person sitting close enough might see a screendoor effect that comes and goes depending on whether the pixels are being shifted, but given that the eShift may only happen in very high detail areas, that may not be a problem in real world use.