Projector Mini-Shootout Thread - Page 571 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 5024Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #17101 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 05:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,575
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
My suggestion for a good test would be this: Use a high quality and high mega pixel DSLR camera and shoot some images with lots of fine detail and sharp lines (or alternatively try to find some such photos online, e.g. in dpreview digicam image galleries). Then scale the images down to 4K, maybe even add a touch of high quality sharpening, ideally some ringing-free deconvolution. The original images should be much larger than 4K, ideally at least 8K. Then test how faithfully either of these projectors can reveal every last ounce of texture and edge detail. This should be a good test of what reference quality 4K movies might look like some years from now.

Picking the right test image is important. It should have high contrast sharp fine lines, and a lot of texture detail. Ideally a mixture of something human built (house, plane, bridge, whatever) and a lot of nature (trees, bushes), too.
I can provide such test image later this evening, if that will be of any help.
Elix is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17102 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 06:42 AM
Member
 
vtial77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Hi Seegs,
While you are posting comparison pics of XPR, would you be able to post the same above Windows menu, 3840x2160, eShift on, ui scaling off, using your JVC RS500? If you did so already I didn't see it. But if you didn't, it would give us all a useful reference point on how a JVC/Epson pixelshifting unit compares to a DLP pixelshifting unit with real-world windows content. Thank you.
I just did that screenshot on LS10500.
But such small text is actually useless in any real scenario - its just to small to read. So I use scaling for Windows desktop - its 150% and then text looks perfect.

And here are links to actual usage of 4k eshift in gaming - its PC version of Tomb Rider:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214591
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214592

its 4k eshift VS 1080p (no eshift) on LS10500. In my opinion 4k image is really sharp, and from my viewing distance I won't distinguish any additional resolution
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0957[1].jpg
Views:	83
Size:	223.4 KB
ID:	2217753  
vtial77 is offline  
post #17103 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 07:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
My suggestion for a good test would be this: Use a high quality and high mega pixel DSLR camera and shoot some images with lots of fine detail and sharp lines (or alternatively try to find some such photos online, e.g. in dpreview digicam image galleries). Then scale the images down to 4K, maybe even add a touch of high quality sharpening, ideally some ringing-free deconvolution. The original images should be much larger than 4K, ideally at least 8K. Then test how faithfully either of these projectors can reveal every last ounce of texture and edge detail. This should be a good test of what reference quality 4K movies might look like some years from now.
I've wondered about taking a very high resolution ISO resolution test pattern, scaling it down to the input resolution you're using. Something like this:
http://www.techradar.com/news/photog...lained-1027585

It would seem you'd be able to relatively objectively measure resolution with that, because it would effectively be a sampled image at that point (very high original resolution, downscaled) rather than an on/off pixel pattern.
rak306 likes this.
stanger89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17104 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 08:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 658 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2883 Post(s)
Liked: 4358
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I've wondered about taking a very high resolution ISO resolution test pattern, scaling it down to the input resolution you're using. Something like this:
http://www.techradar.com/news/photog...lained-1027585

It would seem you'd be able to relatively objectively measure resolution with that, because it would effectively be a sampled image at that point (very high original resolution, downscaled) rather than an on/off pixel pattern.
That might work nicely to get an impression of resolution capability. Of course a high quality downscaling algorithm should be used, so the downscaled result is sharp but without ringing artifacts.
madshi is offline  
post #17105 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 08:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
rak306's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Syracuse NY
Posts: 993
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 618 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
FWIW, I do like these kind of test patterns. They serve a specific purpose and can tell us a lot. However, they need to be taken with a big pinch of salt because real world content never has a black pixel right next to a white pixel ...


.
+1. I totally agree!,

An interesting exersise would be to take an excellect quality blu-ray like Oblivion, or Lucy, and do an analysis in the frequency domain.

Plot the spatial frequenciy and see just where high frequency content falls off. I would do it myself, but i don't know how to get access to the digital data. (but i bet you do😎).

Then use matlab ( or its free version clone) to do the analysis.
rak306 is offline  
post #17106 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 09:09 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Hi Seegs,
While you are posting comparison pics of XPR, would you be able to post the same above Windows menu, 3840x2160, eShift on, ui scaling off, using your JVC RS500? If you did so already I didn't see it. But if you didn't, it would give us all a useful reference point on how a JVC/Epson pixelshifting unit compares to a DLP pixelshifting unit with real-world windows content. Thank you.
Sure, here it is:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214325

Honestly, the comparison isn't all that much worse for the JVC. I should have lowered the exposure time for the JVCs image when taking it to make it look closer to the exposure for the UHD65 as it makes the JVCs image look worse off than it actually is. In person looking at my screen, it looks much more like the LS10500 shown above. The biggest difference in the UHD65's image is the that the pixel gaps are much easier to see as the pixel fill is lower on DLP than how it is on a JVC DiLA panel.

But I want to reiterate that I never have once said that the my JVC was able to form pixel based images (text) with eshift better than XPR. And yet you've constantly been telling people these XPR units are native 4K projectors. You can claim all day that you're just repeating what the CTA is sayin, but we all know without a doubt that you yourself thought that to be true even though you've never seen any of these projectors in person. Why do you recommend things to people you've never even seen? How do you justify your actions?
Ericglo likes this.

Last edited by Seegs108; 07-04-2017 at 09:16 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17107 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 09:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,859
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2643 Post(s)
Liked: 1273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Sure, here it is:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214325

Honestly, the comparison isn't all that much worse for the JVC. I should have lowered the exposure time for the JVCs image when taking it to make it look closer to the exposure for the UHD65 as it makes the JVCs image look worse off than it actually is. In person looking at my screen, it looks much more like the LS10500 shown above. The biggest difference in the UHD65's image is the that the pixel gaps are much easier to see as the pixel fill is lower on DLP than how it is on a JVC DiLA panel.

But I want to reiterate that I never have once said that the my JVC was able to form pixel based images (text) with eshift better than XPR. And yet you've constantly been telling people these XPR units are native 4K projectors. You can claim all day that you're just repeating what the CTA is sayin, but we all know without a doubt that you yourself thought that to be true even though you've never seen any of these projectors in person. Why do you recommend things to people you've never even seen? How do you justify your actions?
Please link to a single post where I stated an XPR projector is a native 4k projector, I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that ever actually happened. All I ever stated was that the XPR projectors offer native 4k-like detail for video content (also stated by Projector Central, Trusted Reviews, amongst others), and I have stated numerous times I didn't think they would pass every native 4k test pattern.

That difference is massive. The NVidia logo, for instance, looks like a green blob on the RS500. You can actually tell its an Nvidia logo on the UHD65 (mind you, a projector which is 1/3 the price of the RS500, consider a HK2288 for instance may be even sharper than the UHD65). The pixels are nice and defined on the UHD65, while they are blown away almost entirely on the RS500. And the text is far, far, far more defined on the UHD65 - the RS500 blows away any definition so when you step about 6ft back the JVC still looks blurred and borderline illegible while the XPR looks defined and readable.

I am less concerned about the 1 pixel checkerboard tests, etc, because content will never actually have that. XPR appears to give just enough detail that it will do full justice to 4K UHD content, and this is likely why the CTA approved it for 4K UHD branding. XPR to me seems like 320kbps MP3; when you analyze the wave spectrum or play back certain test frequencies it will appear much is lost compared to a 16bit/44.1khz WAV, but when played back with actual content it tricks the ear/brain and ends up sounding near identical to the source. XPR appears like this with native 4k content that I have seen - the algorithm TI put together here is truly a masterwork of pixelshifting IMO.

I appreciate your post of the comparison, even though you favor the JVC and your take more critical than mine of the UHD65, it was nice of you to get a UHD65 and do all of these tests which takes a lot of time - which I certainly don't have the time to do.

Last edited by Ruined; 07-04-2017 at 09:35 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #17108 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 09:36 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Please link to a single post where I stated an XPR projector is a native 4k projector, I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that ever actually happened. All I ever stated was that the XPR projectors offer native 4k-like detail for video content (also stated by Projector Central, Trusted Reviews, amongst others), and I have stated numerous times I didn't think they would pass every native 4k test pattern.

That difference is massive. The NVidia logo, for instance, looks like a green blob on the RS500. You can actually tell its an Nvidia logo on the UHD65 (mind you, a projector which is 1/3 the price of the RS500, consider a HK2288 for instance may be even sharper than the UHD65). The pixels are nice and defined on the UHD65, while they are blown away almost entirely on the RS500. And the text is far, far, far more defined on the UHD65 - the RS500 blows away any definition so when you step about 6ft back the JVC still looks blurred and borderline illegible while the XPR looks defined and readable.

I am less concerned about the 1 pixel checkerboard tests, etc, because content will never actually have that. XPR appears to give just enough detail that it will do full justice to 4K UHD content, and this is likely why the CTA approved it for 4K UHD branding. XPR to me seems like 320kbps MP3; when you analyze the wave spectrum or play back certain frequencies it will appear much is lost compared to a 16bit/44.1khz file, but when played back with actual content it tricks the ear/brain and ends up sounding near identical to the source. The algorithm TI put together here is truly a masterwork of pixelshifting IMO.

I appreciate your post of the comparison, even though you favor the JVC and your take more critical than mine of the UHD65, it was nice of you to get a UHD65 and do all of these tests which takes a lot of time - which I certainly don't have the time to do.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. The UHD65 is completely missing most of the nvidia logo too. See how it's supposed to look here:

(JVC eshift off)


Go back and look to see what the UHD65 looks like. It's definitely not the proper nvidia logo.

Edit: here it is to see easier:

Seegs108 is offline  
post #17109 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 09:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2122 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
So I ask again, why are we calling this a "native" 4K projector? Sure...it puts 8.3 million pixels on screen, but most of them aren't accurate to the source. So where does that leave us?
I agree Seegs. Thanks for all the testing and info.

From what you have shown, the new XPR projectors definitely aren't 4K native. In fact, with their odd ball native pixel count I doubt they can render 1080p single pixel patterns as sharp as your RS500.

I guess from what we are seeing 1080p e-shift resolution gets you almost half the difference between native 1080p to native 4K. The new XPR DLP chips get you maybe 2/3s of the the way to 4K but still don't deliver true 4K resolution. I don't care what CTA says, none of these XPR DLP projectors should be advertising with the true 4K moniker.

Also from your testing it is clear that contrast, brightness, color, black level, and pixel gap issues are going to be big negatives with the UHD60/65 projectors. They just don't compare to even the Epson 5040UB when it comes to overall picture quality.

I don't see the logic of sacrificing so many other aspects of picture quality and convenience features for just a tiny bit of sharpening over current e-shift LCoS projectors. Most people don't have the screen size, sit close enough or have the perfect vision needed to see the slight difference in sharpness.
Ericglo likes this.
GregCh is offline  
post #17110 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 09:59 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Ugh, I used to think that UHD65 XPR text rendering was bad, now seeing the RS500 barf. It's clear one pixel shifting is far superior to the other. Too bad about the other DLP shortcomings though.
Seegs108 likes this.
brendabryg is offline  
post #17111 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
I guess from what we are seeing 1080p e-shift resolution gets you almost half the difference between native 1080p to native 4K. The new XPR DLP chips get you maybe 2/3s of the the way to 4K but still don't deliver true 4K resolution. I don't care what CTA says, none of these XPR DLP projectors should be advertising with the true 4K moniker.
Which is really the heart of the matter isn't it. I haven't done a scientific poll, but it "feels" like most of the people excited about XPR DLP, are so because of the "true 4K" and "8.3 million pixel" marketing. It seems like most of those really excited about it are excited because they think they're getting something equivalent to native 4K at a much lower price point. I know we'll never get an honest answer, but I wonder how many of those folks would be as excited if the DLP manufacturers were a little more "open" about what their solution really is.

I've said it before, but XPR really is brilliant marketing on the part of TI. Take a couple off the shelf components, an optical actuator and a 4Mpix DMD, combine them (along with probably some intense lobbying with CTA) and you've now got a really great marketing campaign: "UDH is 8.3Mpix, 4K DLP is 4.15Mpix * 2, 8.3=8.3 so 4K DLP = UHD".

Quote:
Also from your testing it is clear that contrast, brightness, color, black level, and pixel gap issues are going to be big negatives with the UHD60/65 projectors. They just don't compare to even the Epson 5040UB when it comes to overall picture quality.

I don't see the logic of sacrificing so many other aspects of picture quality and convenience features for just a tiny bit of sharpening over current e-shift LCoS projectors. Most people don't have the screen size, sit close enough or have the perfect vision needed to see the slight difference in sharpness.
I also feel like a lot of the "DLP or nothing" folks are like I was before I got my RS4910, worried about issues with LC machines that definitely were real, but have long since been mostly solved. The other key point is that most DLP fans these days are playing in the <$3000 market which is much different than the >$3000 market. In the "budget" market, things are much closer, DLP isn't nearly as far behind, it's actually much like it was 5 or 10 years ago in the high end market, where DLP is a bit behind in native contrast, but with a good DI can hold it's own against it's competitors (budget Epsons and Sonys). The "high end" market, however, is completely different, and I'm not sure a lot of the DLP/XPR fans/proponents realize it. It's something that's really hard to understand unless you've seen a really well setup high end projector.
MartyMcFlyy likes this.

Last edited by stanger89; 07-04-2017 at 10:12 AM.
stanger89 is offline  
post #17112 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 10:14 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
I agree Seegs. Thanks for all the testing and info.

From what you have shown, the new XPR projectors definitely aren't 4K native. In fact, with their odd ball native pixel count I doubt they can render 1080p single pixel patterns as sharp as your RS500.

I guess from what we are seeing 1080p e-shift resolution gets you almost half the difference between native 1080p to native 4K. The new XPR DLP chips get you maybe 2/3s of the the way to 4K but still don't deliver true 4K resolution. I don't care what CTA says, none of these XPR DLP projectors should be advertising with the true 4K moniker.

Also from your testing it is clear that contrast, brightness, color, black level, and pixel gap issues are going to be big negatives with the UHD60/65 projectors. They just don't compare to even the Epson 5040UB when it comes to overall picture quality.

I don't see the logic of sacrificing so many other aspects of picture quality and convenience features for just a tiny bit of sharpening over current e-shift LCoS projectors. Most people don't have the screen size, sit close enough or have the perfect vision needed to see the slight difference in sharpness.
A lot of people are just REALLY REALLY excited about getting a native 4K projector to the point where they just don't care about other aspects of the image because they want all of those pixels. These are the kinds of people I'm not going to change with regards to their opinion on the matter. I think the big thing to take away from this is that it's not really a native 4K projector (even though the CTA classifies it as one) because it cannot do the same things a real native 4K projector can do. Like I said before, XPR is still a stop gap technology. Are people willing to forego performance in image quality to get a small boost in detail on screen, especially when it's not even the amount of resolution rendered from the source that's advertised on the box? It's very misleading, but I suppose JVC and Epson do the same thing by trying to mislead people a bit when it comes to what's actually being put up on screen.

With that said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the UHD65's image. In fact, I kind of liked the image it gave on it's own when it wasn't projecting right next to the RS500's image. It's a very sharp image with subjectively "good" contrast performance, low RBE, enough brightness for a big screen with SDR content and it's really quiet. And it most definitely will give a little more resolution on screen due to the DMD having a higher native resolution. But I don't think it holds a candle overall to most of the projectors we discuss here in this subforum and rightfully so given it's price. It's an excellent option at it's price point and I think most people will be happy with it as long as they don't go searching around and demo'ing more expensive projectors. Personally if I had to choose a projector in the sub $3000 I'd probably still go with the Epson 5040UB. Right now, it's priced dead even with the UHD65.
MartyMcFlyy likes this.

Last edited by Seegs108; 07-04-2017 at 10:22 AM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17113 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 10:17 AM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by brendabryg View Post
Ugh, I used to think that UHD65 XPR text rendering was bad, now seeing the RS500 barf. It's clear one pixel shifting is far superior to the other. Too bad about the other DLP shortcomings though.
Most people aren't viewing text, luckily, on their home theater projector and the loss of pixel edge definition doesn't matter when it comes to video rendereing as video does not rely on having perfectly square portions of the screen (pixels) to create an image. But, yes, text does not look as delineated as it does on the XPR unit. I never once said it did or would look the same and if I were the fanboy some like to call me, I wouldn't have posted the image.
RLBURNSIDE likes this.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17114 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rak306 View Post
An interesting exersise would be to take an excellect quality blu-ray like Oblivion, or Lucy, and do an analysis in the frequency domain
.

And ONLY the Blu-ray of Oblivion, not this disaster which is the UHD Blu-ray!!! (still can't believe it, a Blu-ray that looks sharper and has more image detail to offer than its UHD BD counterpart, I saw both on the Sony 1000 native 4K projector)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
It seems like most of those really excited about it are excited because they think they're getting something equivalent to native 4K at a much lower price point.

And that's exactly the case, what all the reviewers of XPR DLP projectors have thus far observed when comparing a 4K DLP with a 4K native Sony projector, i.e. that the actual images these 4K DLPs projected came very close to the 4K projection image of a Sony. Now, I don't feel that 4K image resolution / reproduction matters above all other factors, but from all the eye-witness reports I read, that is the biggest strength of these 4K DLP projectors.
And here is one with screenshot comparisons: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-dig...l#post53725849



ACER H7850 to the left, SONY VPL-VW550ES to the right
rak306 likes this.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 07-04-2017 at 10:59 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #17115 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 11:17 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
FWIW, I do like these kind of test patterns. They serve a specific purpose and can tell us a lot. However, they need to be taken with a big pinch of salt because real world content never has a black pixel right next to a white pixel (except maybe in extremely sharp and aliased subtitles).
Yep, exactly. Such 1-pixel wide content is effectively a square wave which as we all know, square waves are a superposition of an infinite number of frequencies, thus not band-limited. Video content is, however, band-limited (otherwise you'd see flickering / shimmering as objects moved across the screen), so the question becomes: does one want to use these projectors as data-grade windows-desktop monitor replacements (bad idea, unless you use DPI scaling in which case, probably OK), or just to watch UHD Blurays or 4K streaming?

Games are another story but I think those also deserve to be band-pass filtered for the same reason as video: supreme high frequency detail is probably a result of specular aliasing which these projectors would at least partially filter out (yay, free anti-aliasing), if the game didn't already do that properly (some don't).

These projectors are very likely video-grade 4K (frequency-limited), meaning they are (potentially, in theory) good enough to show most if not all of the detail possible in any video. And probably any (properly filtered / antialiased) AAA game too.

It's too bad they don't offer a 1:1 mode for windows desktop use. Some of these DLPs might, so it's worth checking into as more new models come out.

There's no reason XPR can't be disabled and apparently higher end models can do just that. Meaning these projectors would definitely be the highest res and sharpest data-grade content available at that price. (2716 x 1528). Then these screenshots become moot.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #17116 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,859
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2643 Post(s)
Liked: 1273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
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.
mmdd likes this.

Last edited by Ruined; 07-04-2017 at 12:11 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #17117 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
And that's exactly the case, what all the reviewers of XPR DLP projectors have thus far observed when comparing a 4K DLP with a 4K native Sony projector, i.e. that the actual images these 4K DLPs projected came very close to the 4K projection image of a Sony. Now, I don't feel that 4K image resolution / reproduction matters above all other factors, but from all the eye-witness reports I read, that is the biggest strength of these 4K DLP projectors.
And people have found the same thing with JVC vs Sony as well, when comparing real world content. Which brings us back to the point Seegs and I have tried to make a couple of times, that limitations in current content are rapidly becoming the limiting factor, not the "resolution" of the display. So if we know XPR isn't capable of rendering a 4K desktop well, and we're to a point where the sharpness difference between e-Shift, 4K Enhancement, XPR and native 4K (at least as it is in the <$10k market) is subtle at best, what's the excitement for XPR for?

Quote:
And here is one with screenshot comparisons: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-dig...l#post53725849


When I open that up, the Sony side is riddled with JPG artifacts, while the Acer side is not. I'm not sure that picture is an apples to apples comparison.
stanger89 is offline  
post #17118 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:13 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
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 - they could, they probably would have done that. 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 - by offering a 4K UHD projector with similar detail for video content at a fraction of the price of Epson/JVC/Sony.
What you constantly fail to acknowledge is that an image is far more than just it's pure on screen resolution. An image is only as good as it's constituent parts allow it to be. Most of these XPR units fail miserably outside of how many pixels they put on screen in other image quality aspects. Also, remember that these images were taken extremely close to the screen and that at a normal seated distance back it's actually pretty hard to see that the JVC eshift image is lacking in resolution. So, sure, you might be tell your "computer buddies" and they might say "yeah, these close up shots look higher in resolution" but what does that matter if the overall image looks obviously worse. As Madshi pointed out, you're never going to see single pixel information on screen in the way we do with these test patterns, so why does it matter how the JVCs appear to be in some of these images? My only point in showing the XPR images with these test patterns was to point out that it is in fact NOT a native 4K projector despite the marketing claim. My intention with them was not to say that it's image looked bad because of it. But you seem to want to say that because the JVC looks worse with single pixel information it's somehow going to look worse off overall. This is kind of the opposite of what my intention with these photos was. Your assessment couldn't be further from the truth and until you've actually seen quite literally ANY of these projectors (as you haven't seen any of them) you have absolutely no weight or truth behind any of the things you say. Why should anyone listen to you if you don't actually have any real world experience to base your claims off of? Please answer me that question. You might see that claim as an ad hominem attack, but it's the truth and I think people should be aware of that.

Last edited by Seegs108; 07-04-2017 at 12:23 PM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17119 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:22 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 11,228
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4403 Post(s)
Liked: 8047
Have the new BenQ 4K in for review. Will be comparing it directly to my native 4K RS4500. So we'll see how "4K" it really is.
Kris Deering is offline  
post #17120 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,575
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 107
@madshi @Seegs108

Please see if this sample will do as a real-world test image. The photo is mine so there're no copyright issues.
Oh, and the photo isn't resized, it's a 100% crop.

Rec.709 3840x2160 test image, 41 Mb PNG
Save

Last edited by Elix; 07-04-2017 at 12:27 PM.
Elix is offline  
post #17121 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:24 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
Have the new BenQ 4K in for review. Will be comparing it directly to my native 4K RS4500. So we'll see how "4K" it really is.
Here's how the Optoma UHD65 looks with 4K test patterns (which I know the RS4500 passes with flying colors):

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214550

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214551

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/214558

They kind of miss the mark quite a bit if you ask me. I'd love to hear if the BenQ fares better.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17122 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,230
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5681 Post(s)
Liked: 6261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
Have the new BenQ 4K in for review. Will be comparing it directly to my native 4K RS4500. So we'll see how "4K" it really is.
Kris, hi is this the BenQ HT9050?

when you have time can you please comment on RBE?

assuming this would need the UB900/Integral combo for SDR/BT2020 since it doesn't have HDR? thx!
zombie10k is online now  
post #17123 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 12:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 12,503
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4007 Post(s)
Liked: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
Have the new BenQ 4K in for review. Will be comparing it directly to my native 4K RS4500. So we'll see how "4K" it really is.
Are you going to invite Darin over to evaluate this pj as well?

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #17124 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 01:09 PM
Senior Member
 
AndreNewman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
It's too bad they don't offer a 1:1 mode for windows desktop use. Some of these DLPs might, so it's worth checking into as more new models come out.

Acer told me the V7850 & H7850 will have a 1:1 XPR off mode for gaming.

Also 120Hz 1080p XPR off for gaming & HFR if that ever exists.
AndreNewman is offline  
post #17125 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 01:31 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1413
@kraine has one of those Acers, maybe he knows if there's a 1:1 mode /w XPR off or a 120hz mode.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #17126 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 02:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 658 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2883 Post(s)
Liked: 4358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post
@madshi @Seegs108

Please see if this sample will do as a real-world test image. The photo is mine so there're no copyright issues.
Oh, and the photo isn't resized, it's a 100% crop.

Rec.709 3840x2160 test image, 41 Mb PNG
Save
Generally, I like this photo, but it looks quite aliased. Normally, a DSLR photo at 100% crop is very soft, but not aliased, so I'm a bit confused why your's quite sharp, but aliased?
madshi is offline  
post #17127 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 06:44 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kris Deering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Pacific Northwet
Posts: 11,228
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4403 Post(s)
Liked: 8047
Darin is coming over next Friday to look at this and the 4500. I get the projector tomorrow. It is the $9K retail version with LED. Can't remember model number off my head, I'm out of town presently. I have a linker and integral so that is no issue. Should be fun to see how DLP is doing now.
sonichart likes this.
Kris Deering is offline  
post #17128 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 06:46 PM
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 10,827
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5167 Post(s)
Liked: 2595
For the asking price. It should be doing quite a lot.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #17129 of 19605 Old 07-04-2017, 11:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,575
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Generally, I like this photo, but it looks quite aliased. Normally, a DSLR photo at 100% crop is very soft, but not aliased, so I'm a bit confused why your's quite sharp, but aliased?
I'm glad you've noticed. Because this is not a DSLR photo. This was taken by Sigma DP2 Merrill with a Foveon X3 sensor which is able to achieve per-pixel sharpness and color separation without artifacts usually associated with Bayer sensor cameras.

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131...aver-pond.html

Because it has 3 sensors layered on top of each other it captures RGB info at each pixel as opposed to Bayer sensors which use interpolation to determine the color of each pixel. Thus in my opinion this particular photo is better off cropped and not downsampled.

Here's a Sigma Merrill camera compared to high pixel count Bayer sensor camera in a controlled environment: Click

Last edited by Elix; 07-05-2017 at 12:20 AM.
Elix is offline  
post #17130 of 19605 Old 07-05-2017, 12:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
And people have found the same thing with JVC vs Sony as well, when comparing real world content.

I'm not aware that any 1080p e-shifting projector in the reviews we have at our disposal came seriously close to the actual 4K resolution of one of those expensive Sony models. The 4K DLPs, however, did and most reviewers noted that you actually had to get very close to the projection screen to see the difference. And apparently that's not a miracle or witchcraft but owed to the fact that the 4K DLPs have a native 3K Resolution and are free of pixel / panel convergence / alignment issues in contrast to the three other projection technologies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Which brings us back to the point Seegs and I have tried to make a couple of times, that limitations in current content are rapidly becoming the limiting factor, not the "resolution" of the display.

So why are people even buying the JVC DLA-RS4500 / Z1 or have been buying Sony 4K projectors in the past years? Why did I buy a 720p projector at a time (mid-2000's) when I just had DVDs and SDTV to watch on it? I'm unable to see any point in this argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
So if we know XPR isn't capable of rendering a 4K desktop well, and we're to a point where the sharpness difference between e-Shift, 4K Enhancement, XPR and native 4K (at least as it is in the <$10k market) is subtle at best, what's the excitement for XPR for?

From what I read the XPR excitement comes from the fact that it creates a 4K impression which has thus far been an exclusive of expensive and true 4K projectors from Sony and JVC - for a fraction of these prices.


TBPH, I don't get the point in this native 4K vs. "faux" 4K DLP XPR debate. What's the point of native 4K panels (e.g. Sony VPL-VW320ES) when the actual 4K image doesn't come close to that of a more expensive Sony model because of pixel alignment and/or lens optics issues? Maybe you have to put the blame on Sony for watering down the standards?
I couldn't care less whether a Sony 320ES has native 4K resolution or not if the image projected by a 4K DLP does a better job of showing that 4K resolution. IMHO it's not the native resolution that matters but what's ending up on the projection screen and apparently 4K XPR DLP does that better than originally anticipated, going by the reviews that exist thus far (2 from Germany, 1 or 2 from France and 2 from the US).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post
Have the new BenQ 4K in for review. Will be comparing it directly to my native 4K RS4500. So we'll see how "4K" it really is.

Please make sure to reflect that the RS4500 has a very sophisticated, complex and expensive glass optics array which the BenQ HT9050 has not when you compare 4K performance (which in this case will be more like comparing oranges and apples, considering the price difference between those two - which in the case of the RS4500 / Z1 is also owed to its outstanding lens quality).


And I'm looking forward to learn how these advanced Philips LEDs are actually improving color performance.
ggraef likes this.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 07-05-2017 at 12:58 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
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

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