Originally Posted by Seegs108
So in reality and to quote Ruined, it seems that XPR "mangles" the 4K source image quite a bit. To me at least, it seems like XPR's greatest claim to fame (8.3 million pixels on screen) doesn't equate to true 4K image because it can't render the information true to the source. So this technology is still a stop gap, just like eshift from JVC and Epson. Who's to say TI will release a REAL native DMD? I'd put a large bet we don't see one, or at least for several more years way after the big 3 have their native 4K panels on the market. What's going to happen when 12-18 months from now Epson, Sony and JVC all have REAL native 4K panels selling at around the $5000 price point? Will Ruined still be in here touting XPR as better? I wonder if we'll see his fanboy posts any longer?
It really is becoming a common theme that those who dislike XPR launch personal attacks against those who like XPR. This is generally a last resort tactic taken when one is clearly losing an argument. (Logical fallacy - ad hominem attack).
Anyway, regarding your latest points:
JVC performance at 1080p is irrelevant. We are comparing unscaled 4k performance which is 4x smaller than 1080p. The XPR projectors are billed as 4K UHD projectors, not 1080p projectors. If you want a 1080p projector you can get one for much less money.
Regarding mangling the 4k source image, if I show the XPR image vs the JVC eShift image to my computer buddies, I guarantee 100% would choose the XPR image instantly. It retains sharp pixel definition and while not perfect is leagues ahead of the JVC's eShift image. It is not even a contest, the JVC wipes out the pixel grid and pixel definition entirely and all you are left with is a smoothed-over low resolution image.
Regarding detail, several professional reviewers agree with my stance that DLP's XPR offers similar detail to native 4k projectors with video content. That seems to be the common theme when the detail for these projectors has been evaluated thus far. Test pattern, maybe not. Real world content? Yes.
Regarding "transition technology," XPR is not a transition technology for the under $15k DLP market. The XPR DMD is already packed in density and I don't see a way TI would possibly cram more micromirrors into a 0.67" DMD. Over $15k, you may see an 0.95" native 4k DMD at some point arrive, which would have roughly the same density as the 0.67" XPR DMD. And this would be sharper than anything else in the market, including native 4k LCOS projectors, if they did so. But this will not impact the under $15k market, as I can count the number of under-$15k 0.95" 1080p DLP projectors on one hand. With a 4k projector the lens will need to be much more resolving, and thus it will increase the cost even more from the 1080p DLPs, pushing it easily into the over-$15k range. So I see XPR as here to stay for mainstream projectors, perhaps down the line we will see a native 0.95" DMD for the $15k+ bracket.
And what happens when Sony, Epson, JVC have native 4K panels available for $5k? Well, Optoma has a 4K UHD DLP home theater projector on the market for under $2500 right now. So I think you know the answer to that. DLP will continue to offer the best value - and hence continue to dominate the market for home theater projectors as official sales charts indicate - by offering a 4K UHD projector with similar detail to native 4k for video content at a fraction of the price of Epson/JVC/Sony.
And while we are talking about future "what ifs," there is always the wildcard "stacked DMD" technology. If that was ever licensed out by Dolby, then we could put all these arguments to rest as no other projector tech would even be able to remotely compete with it.