I just thought of something regarding this CTA 4K UHD requirement. Part of the requirement is that the projector has to project 8.3 million pixels. However, from Seegs picture of the UHD65:
we can see that the projector doesn't usually shift all the pixels. TI may qualify for the CTA requirement by doing a test pattern where all of the pixels are eShifted, but actual owners could use the projector for months and never have it display 8.3 million pixels for any video frame.
Why do I say that? Because pixels that aren't eShifted don't get to count twice, otherwise the JVCs with eShift off would be 8 million pixels based on the way that JVC displays different images for the exact same pixel, as was shown when I filmed one with a 1000 fps camera. If the pixel doesn't shift to a new location then it isn't a new pixel, it is still the same old pixel, just with different light levels (if even that).
While I think being able to shift just some pixels could be advantageous, it does mean that the average UHD65 will probably never display as many pixels as a native 4k chip, even if it could if you picked just the right test pattern. The test patterns that make eShift occur with every pixel might also be the patterns that turn the images into a complete mess.
Anybody who claims, "XPR projectors display 8.3 million pixels per frame" is claiming something that is almost always false, if they are like the UHD65. They may have the capability, but they probably rarely actually do it.
If some other company made a projector where there was a single test pattern where it would display 8.3 million pixels, but not for any real images, would people here still call it 4K UHD, just as long as it qualified by the CTA spec?