Originally Posted by noah katz
I just don't get this (which is not to say that it isn't true).
Even cheap pj's have lenses that allow seeing every pixel clearly.
Anyone who can discern each pixel from viewing distance is either too close or has extraordinary visual acuity; leaving those folks aside, how much better can sharper optics make it?
Noah, Im only addressing the pixel discernibility issue here as its one I see brought up often. I have see many reviews that state the pixels to be individually resolved and thus the PJ has no sharpness issue.
The fact that each pixel can be clearly resolved is not a guarantee that you have a sharp image, let alone the sharpest possible on any particular machine.
If you call up your focus pattern, defocus to the point where the pixels are just still clearly resolvable you will find that the impact on the image is very significant.
A lower MTF lens can certainly impact sharpness but still allow individual pixels to be clearly discerned.
Then there is the difference between machines that have a poor sub pixel noise performance and those that perform well. The difference between the 2 is easily seen, yet the pixels are still clear. Its also clearly seen at normal seating distance, despite the individual pixels being indiscernible. A machine with very low pixel noise will require a superior lens to allow that performance advantage to be fully realized. Also worth bearing in mind is that bigger chips start with an advantage. A DCI DMD will start cleaner than a .95", that doesn't always translate to the screen as a poorly engineered DCI engine can end up noisier than a well engineered domestic unit. This is one of Peters favourite points to labour.
All Im saying is that image sharpness does not end with discernible pixels, and quality optics have a major part to play.