should I use 4k Upscaling or JVC 4K eshift? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 10-28-2014, 11:22 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
should I use 4k Upscaling or JVC 4K eshift?

Hi All


I have been reading on this forum for years before I made my first post.
Anyway, I have a approx. $1300 Anthem MX310 receiver and will be getting the JVC X500, and I use computer as source.


The receiver has this 4K upscaling feature, yet the projector has 4K eshift3 from JVC. Should I enable both options? or should I leave the job to JVC only and disable the receiver 4k upscaling?


Thanks in advance.
cckwokchun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 10-28-2014, 03:50 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
What are you computer's specs? If you have a decent GPU your best option would be to have your PC do the scaling. You'd use JINC or NNEDI3 scaling via MadVR. Both of which are a much better scaling solution compared to what's inside the JVC or Anthem receiver. Sending a 4K input to the JVC necessitates e-shift being enabled. That's the only way it can display the pseudo 4K image e-shift creates. If you send a 4K input to the JVC it simply bypasses the internal scaling that would normally take place before the optical portion of eshift happening. If you choose to do this make sure you take a look at the MPC settings. You don't need to turn them up high to get a pleasing image. Normally I set "Enhance" to around 10-15 and turn both "Dynamic Contrast" and "Noise Reduction" to zero.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #3 of 29 Old 10-28-2014, 05:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
BWDinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Greenville,SC
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Based on what I saw with the F7500 BD player. I got a better image letting the JVC do the work.
BWDinc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 29 Old 10-28-2014, 07:43 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
What are you computer's specs? If you have a decent GPU your best option would be to have your PC do the scaling. You'd use JINC or NNEDI3 scaling via MadVR. Both of which are a much better scaling solution compared to what's inside the JVC or Anthem receiver. Sending a 4K input to the JVC necessitates e-shift being enabled. That's the only way it can display the pseudo 4K image e-shift creates. If you send a 4K input to the JVC it simply bypasses the internal scaling that would normally take place before the optical portion of eshift happening. If you choose to do this make sure you take a look at the MPC settings. You don't need to turn them up high to get a pleasing image. Normally I set "Enhance" to around 10-15 and turn both "Dynamic Contrast" and "Noise Reduction" to zero.
Thanks for your reply.
I am afraid my Intel HD4600 can't handle that. Letting JVC upscale the image might work best for me. I won't have the projector until later next month, any article that I can read up on MPC settings as well other settings?


The store I purchased it from suggests me getting a calibration after 50 hours, they charge $350.
cckwokchun is offline  
post #5 of 29 Old 10-28-2014, 08:10 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
Yeah, you'd a $300-$400 dedicated GPU to handle the scaling on a PC. The results from JINC and NNEDI3 scaling are the best out there currently. The JVC will most likely be better than the Anthem's scaling but you'd have to be the ultimate judge on whether or not you like the quality from either.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 04:33 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 Seegs108 View Post
Yeah, you'd a $300-$400 dedicated GPU to handle the scaling on a PC. The results from JINC and NNEDI3 scaling are the best out there currently.
That's great and all but there's more stuff you can't use that for than you can use it for.
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chrisreeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,395
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked: 289
I have the X500 and to be honest I do not think I could tell in a blind test whether or not the e-shift is on when using a 1080P source. The only thing I do notice for sure is how noisy it is when e-shift is engaged. This is not to take away anything from the projector, because the image is great - but I don't see the "enhancement" from e-shift, personally.

I have not yet seen it with a 4K source.

"Don't forget that a significant contribution made by the use of high-end cabling is emotional. Knowing that you have the best available causes the listening and viewing to be that much more enjoyable. Observable improvements make it even better."

-From a post on the audio video improvements forum
chrisreeves is offline  
post #8 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,454
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2666 Post(s)
Liked: 2378
I have the RS4810 so I am not sure how much different e-shift is in terms of how the image looks on it compared to the 4910 but I do find it slightly smooths out jagged edges and stairstepping a bit more while ever-so-slightly giving a smoother image. I sit fairly close to my screen, so this does help a bit. The image is probably a hair sharper without e-shift though. I've heard in some cases e-shift might hurt motion a little as I believe there is a scene in The Dark Knight that indicates this as a test.
DavidHir is offline  
post #9 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 11:30 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 stanger89 View Post
That's great and all but there's more stuff you can't use that for than you can use it for.
Right, but he said he'd be using his PC as his source component so I figured that would be the best scaling solution if his PC was up for the task spec wise. Other than cable, what can't you use you PC for for scaling/content? And that's also a partial lie, you can watch cable through your PC if you buy a tuner/cable card.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 12:20 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 Seegs108 View Post
Other than cable, what can't you use you PC for for scaling/content? And that's also a partial lie, you can watch cable through your PC if you buy a tuner/cable card.
But madVR requires using special players (MPC-HC, JRMC, etc), and this is quite limiting. Here are a few things that can't use madVR:

Retail Blu-ray players (if you want menus or 3D)
Copy protected Cable
Pretty much any internet streaming, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Vudu, etc.
Anything at all if you don't want to use MPC-HC/JRMC

MadVR is awesome, and I wish to take nothing away from madshi, but it has serious limitations to use it as a substitute for quality video processing elsewhere in the system, unless you're willing/able to "force" all your media through a couple specific programs.
stanger89 is offline  
post #11 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 02:21 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
There are several work-arounds I know of but most wouldn't be willing to go those lengths to get MadVR to work with those other forms of media. I tend to only watch blu-ray on my projectors. I find when blowing up the images produced from other forms of streamed media (netflix, Hulu, cable, ect) it looks horrible and scaling to 4K won't make the image look any better so with those forms of media there really isn't a point in scaling and sending the JVC a 4K signal anyways. When 4K projectors do become more mainstream these companies will need to think hard about the scaling solutions they implement in their displays. From what I've seen so far, there's really only a few "good" scaling options out there and currently they're all expensive to obtain.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,284
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2908 Post(s)
Liked: 2885
FWIW...

I tried the 4K upscaling on my Lumagen 2041 VP to my JVC RS57 and I preferred letting the projector upscale (image was a bit soft from the Lumagen). I haven't tried any other upscaling.

As for E-shift, I go back and forth with it on and off. With E-shift off the image is slightly, noticeably sharper. With E-shift on the image takes on a slightly more dense, smooth image, which can be really nice. I believe I notice a bit more line twitter with E-shift on.
R Harkness is offline  
post #13 of 29 Old 10-29-2014, 03:14 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 R Harkness View Post
FWIW...

I tried the 4K upscaling on my Lumagen 2041 VP to my JVC RS57 and I preferred letting the projector upscale (image was a bit soft from the Lumagen). I haven't tried any other upscaling.

As for E-shift, I go back and forth with it on and off. With E-shift off the image is slightly, noticeably sharper. With E-shift on the image takes on a slightly more dense, smooth image, which can be really nice. I believe I notice a bit more line twitter with E-shift on.
Do you find the image to be sharper with just e-shift enabled or are you using MPC in conjunction with e-shift? I didn't get a chance to look at Mark's lumagen when I was at his house. He was letting one of the CRT guys borrow it. We did do a brief comparison of Sony's internal scaling with RC enabled but set to minimum versus MadVR's JINC scaler. The JINC scaling, to me, had a more natural looking appearance compared to the built in Sony scaling.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 11-01-2014, 07:50 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,284
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2908 Post(s)
Liked: 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
Do you find the image to be sharper with just e-shift enabled or are you using MPC in conjunction with e-shift? I didn't get a chance to look at Mark's lumagen when I was at his house. He was letting one of the CRT guys borrow it. We did do a brief comparison of Sony's internal scaling with RC enabled but set to minimum versus MadVR's JINC scaler. The JINC scaling, to me, had a more natural looking appearance compared to the built in Sony scaling.

I keep E-Shift at "50' on all settings but DNR which I have at "0"
That's the same for when E-shift is turned off. As I understand it, the MPC settings are also active when E-Shift is off as well. That MPC setting isn't perfect for all material, but I've found these new MPC settings (vs my RS55) such a hassle to use I just set and forget.
R Harkness is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 11-05-2014, 04:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sanderdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 2,398
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post
What are you computer's specs? If you have a decent GPU your best option would be to have your PC do the scaling. You'd use JINC or NNEDI3 scaling via MadVR. Both of which are a much better scaling solution compared to what's inside the JVC or Anthem receiver. Sending a 4K input to the JVC necessitates e-shift being enabled. That's the only way it can display the pseudo 4K image e-shift creates. If you send a 4K input to the JVC it simply bypasses the internal scaling that would normally take place before the optical portion of eshift happening. If you choose to do this make sure you take a look at the MPC settings. You don't need to turn them up high to get a pleasing image. Normally I set "Enhance" to around 10-15 and turn both "Dynamic Contrast" and "Noise Reduction" to zero.
I want to know some more about this:
I previously owned a VW1000. With the VW1000 i simply let me HTPC do the upscaling from 1080p Blu-Ray content to 3840x2160. My GPU outputted the 3840x2160 signal and the VW1000 can accept this signal and DOES NOT DO anything anymore (when RC set to OFF). Now comes the X500:
The X500 does not have a 3840x2160 resolution but CAN accept 3840x2160 right? But if I let my HTPC do the upscaling and give the X500 a 3840x2160 the X500 is doing some scaling processing to the signal AGAIN doesn t it (you say Eshift is enabled by default when giving the X500 a 3840x2160 signal).
I hope you understand what I m asking but to my feeling there are 2 upscaling steps which cannot be good
sanderdvd is offline  
post #16 of 29 Old 11-05-2014, 08:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 88
My experience has been that watching a 2K (1080p) source at 2K instead of upsampling it to 4k results in a sharper more detailed and artifact free image.
Pete is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 11-05-2014, 12:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
egrady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
My experience has been that watching a 2K (1080p) source at 2K instead of upsampling it to 4k results in a sharper more detailed and artifact free image.
I'm confused. Unless one had a 4K set/projector what good would 4K upsampling be? If one did, a 2K source would have to be upsampled to 4K. The only call would be to do the upsample at the source or at the display. Am I missing something?
egrady is online now  
post #18 of 29 Old 11-05-2014, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by egrady View Post
I'm confused. Unless one had a 4K set/projector what good would 4K upsampling be? If one did, a 2K source would have to be upsampled to 4K. The only call would be to do the upsample at the source or at the display. Am I missing something?
The point I was trying to make is that a 2K projector reproducing a 2K source looks sharper and more detailed than a 4K projector that must upconvert 2k sources to its native resolution. The irony being that paying a premium for the 4k "feature" gets you a softer looking picture...sometimes with upsampling artifacts to boot. If you are looking to sit very close to the screen, the extra resolution -- soft though it may be -- may be of value. Then you simply refer to the soft image as "filmlike". Eventually there may be a few titles released in 4K and assuming the 4k projector one buys now is either forward compatible or "upgradable" to the 4K source standard, you can watch some 4k in 4k. Of course the other tens of thousands of 1080p titles will still need to be upconverted.

If your aim is to obtain a superior image, the wider color gamut of a 2K LED projector makes more sense...
Pete is offline  
post #19 of 29 Old 11-05-2014, 05:07 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 sanderdvd View Post
I want to know some more about this:
I previously owned a VW1000. With the VW1000 i simply let me HTPC do the upscaling from 1080p Blu-Ray content to 3840x2160. My GPU outputted the 3840x2160 signal and the VW1000 can accept this signal and DOES NOT DO anything anymore (when RC set to OFF). Now comes the X500:
The X500 does not have a 3840x2160 resolution but CAN accept 3840x2160 right? But if I let my HTPC do the upscaling and give the X500 a 3840x2160 the X500 is doing some scaling processing to the signal AGAIN doesn t it (you say Eshift is enabled by default when giving the X500 a 3840x2160 signal).
I hope you understand what I m asking but to my feeling there are 2 upscaling steps which cannot be good
The source doesn't get upscaled twice. The only thing that changes inside the projector is now the projector already has the 4K image it needs to create the two 1080p images for the e-shift process. It creates those two images from the 4K source. E-Shift works by displaying two 1080p image sequentially overlapped, one image displayed a half pixel shifted vertically and half a pixel shifted horizontally. The process happens so fast it looks like one solid image.

Before this years models the e-shift process worked like this:

1080p to 4K upscaling ---> MPC post processing (which you can disable if you want) ---> two 1080p frames created from the original 4K image ---> Display the two frames sequentially one optically shifted to create what looks like one solid image.

The only thing that changes this year with a 4K signal inputted into the projector is that first step. The scaling in the JVC isn't bad but what MadVR has to offer is better.

Last edited by Seegs108; 11-05-2014 at 05:11 PM.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #20 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 04:35 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 Pete View Post
The point I was trying to make is that a 2K projector reproducing a 2K source looks sharper and more detailed than a 4K projector that must upconvert 2k sources to its native resolution.
What experience has that been? How did you test this, come to this conclusion? The reason I ask is there are only two currently available 4k projectors (Sony VW600 and VW1100), and there really is no "2K" equivalent of either of them. There are numerous "2K" machines, but they all have very different attributes to the Sonys such that it would be impossible to draw any conclusions about whether 1080p is better on a 1080p machine or a 4K machine.

The closest way I can think to test it would be to use the same 4k projector (same lens, contrast, calibration, etc) and then to compare 1080p windowboxed, but zoomed (projector moved closer to the screen) enough to fill the screen, vs 4K. But then there'd be a significant brightness difference. You'd need an ND filter in place for the 4K part of the test.
stanger89 is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 09:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
What experience has that been? How did you test this, come to this conclusion? The reason I ask is there are only two currently available 4k projectors (Sony VW600 and VW1100), and there really is no "2K" equivalent of either of them. There are numerous "2K" machines, but they all have very different attributes to the Sonys such that it would be impossible to draw any conclusions about whether 1080p is better on a 1080p machine or a 4K machine.

The closest way I can think to test it would be to use the same 4k projector (same lens, contrast, calibration, etc) and then to compare 1080p windowboxed, but zoomed (projector moved closer to the screen) enough to fill the screen, vs 4K. But then there'd be a significant brightness difference. You'd need an ND filter in place for the 4K part of the test.
Ok...let me be more specific...having viewed a 2K source on a number of premium single-chip 2K DLP projectors -- both conventional lamp-driven and LED -- and having viewed the same source material upconverted on a Sony 4K projector, the image on the upconverted Sony is softer and seems more prone to artifacts. Same with the JVC faux K. That's all. And, I would add, I don't seem to be the only one who has commented on this. The typical come-back from those financially or emotionally invested in the 4K "feature" is "yeah, but when there's 4K material, the picture quality will be better." Most likely it will be...again, provided you sit very close to the screen. Otherwise...no difference.
Pete is offline  
post #22 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 10:00 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
Yeah, that doesn't really surprise me, 1080p single-chip DLPs are basically the naturally sharpest machines out there, especially the ones with good lenses. Upconverted to 4k, the image will necessarily be smoother since there will be less aliasing from the pixel edges (smaller pixels, smaller edges, less aliasing). On top of that Sony and JVC are big on using electronics to "bring back" some of that sharpness, which some like and some don't.

I'd be really curious to see (with a VW1100 for example) someone compare 1080p unscaled, with the projector moved forward for the correct size, to upconverted 1080p, brightness matched of course. Now that would be an interesting comparison.

Personally I'm holding out hope for 4K DLP.
stanger89 is offline  
post #23 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 88
How can a VW1100 display 1080p "unscaled"?
Pete is offline  
post #24 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 02:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,135
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 499 Post(s)
Liked: 206
I suppose upscaled would just be double the pixel into 2x2 pixels all of same color instead of applying a gradient between adjacent 1080p "pixels".
jjcook is offline  
post #25 of 29 Old 11-06-2014, 03:12 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
I'm fairly certain it has a 1:1 pixel mapping mode where a 1080p image is centered and display "pixel perfect". You'd have to take a look in the manual to see how to enable that mode. This is the only way I know of to avoid scaling.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #26 of 29 Old 11-07-2014, 12:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 659 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2883 Post(s)
Liked: 4358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Ok...let me be more specific...having viewed a 2K source on a number of premium single-chip 2K DLP projectors -- both conventional lamp-driven and LED -- and having viewed the same source material upconverted on a Sony 4K projector, the image on the upconverted Sony is softer and seems more prone to artifacts. Same with the JVC faux K. That's all.
This might be your observations and I can accept that this is what your eyes were seeing. However, from a purely scientific point of view (this is AVScience, after all), when using two identical projectors, one being 2K and one 4K, the 4K one should produce a clearly better and sharper image with 1080p/2K content. The fillrate plays a certain role, though. Let me show you with images:



On the left side you're seeing a 2K video frame displayed on a 2K projector with 1:1 pixel mapping, when going so near to the screen that you can see the individual pixels. Each square on the left side of the image above is one pixel of the original 2K image. Now a 4K projector can simulate a 2K projector simply by using four (a 2x2 square) pixels to render one 2K content pixel. This is what you're seeing on the right side of the above image: A 4K projector simulating a 2K projector by using simple pixel replication (this method is called "nearest neighbor interpolation"). The final image is not identical, though, because usually fillrate is not perfect. So the fillrate makes a 2K projector look slightly different than a 4K projector simulating a 2K projector.

Now let's suppose both 2K and 4K projectors have 100% fillrate. So no black/gray borders around the individual pixels. The same image as above suddenly looks like this then:



This means: All else being equal, and with a 100% fillrate, a 4K projector can *perfectly* simulate a 2K projector, by using nearest neighbor interpolation. However, in real life there's always a small difference due to fillrate not being 100%. I don't think the difference is that big, though. Other factors will play a bigger role. E.g. if you compare a 2K DLP projector to a 4K SXRD projector, the projectors differ so much in various properties (e.g. on/off contrast is better on the SXRD, but ANSI contrast is better on the DLP etc) that you're comparing much more things than just the resolution difference.

Anyway, let's get back to comparing exactly the same theoretical projector in 2K and 4K versions, which has identical properties, except for the resolution difference. Let's also once again imagine that the projector has 100% fillrate. So in this situation the 4K projector could simulate the 2K projector perfectly, as shown above. But is this actually the best solution for the 4K projector to display 2K content? No. Here's why:

2K castle image displayed in 2K (or in 4K using nearest neighbor interpolation).
2K castle image upscaled to 4K and sharpened with good algorithms.

So using a 4K projector to display 2K content, using high quality upscaling and sharpening algorithms, should produce better results than using a 2K projector. BUT this only applies if we compare two projectors which are equal in all properties except for the resolution, *and* if we're using high quality algorithms.
madshi is offline  
post #27 of 29 Old 11-07-2014, 04:50 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 Seegs108 View Post
I'm fairly certain it has a 1:1 pixel mapping mode where a 1080p image is centered and display "pixel perfect". You'd have to take a look in the manual to see how to enable that mode. This is the only way I know of to avoid scaling.
Yup, this is exactly what I was talking about. It would be very interesting, when the next round of "can you see the difference between 2K and 4K" discussions start to see a test like I described. Same projector but compare 1:1 mapped 1080 (ie a window in the center of the screen) zoomed to fit the screen, to upconverted 4K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Anyway, let's get back to comparing exactly the same theoretical projector in 2K and 4K versions, which has identical properties, except for the resolution difference. Let's also once again imagine that the projector has 100% fillrate. So in this situation the 4K projector could simulate the 2K projector perfectly, as shown above. But is this actually the best solution for the 4K projector to display 2K content? No. Here's why:

2K castle image displayed in 2K (or in 4K using nearest neighbor interpolation).
2K castle image upscaled to 4K and sharpened with good algorithms.

So using a 4K projector to display 2K content, using high quality upscaling and sharpening algorithms, should produce better results than using a 2K projector. BUT this only applies if we compare two projectors which are equal in all properties except for the resolution, *and* if we're using high quality algorithms.
Yup, this is one of the reasons I'm excited for 4K displays. 1080p isn't quite "retina" yet, but 4K should easily meet that criteria.
stanger89 is offline  
post #28 of 29 Old 11-07-2014, 12:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Detail and sharpness are also a function of light engine technology. Having a greater fill factor on technology that is inherently softer looking (i.e. LCOS/SXRD) isn't going to solve that problem...even with superior lenses.
Pete is offline  
post #29 of 29 Old 01-04-2015, 02:29 PM
Senior Member
 
leeperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Having a greater fill factor on technology that is inherently softer looking (i.e. LCOS/SXRD) isn't going to solve that problem...even with superior lenses.
Good point, panel misconvergence kills the idea scenario.
leeperry is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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