BenQ W11000 : 4K DLP projector - Page 28 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 314Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #811 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,676
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6553 Post(s)
Liked: 7574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztar35 View Post
Yeah, I did see Art's review of the H9090 and he said he could still slightly detect them. But I'm not sure how that is happening.

Your old Sim Lumis had around 6K:1 native contrast, right? That wouldn't be bad in a 4k shift unit, I think.
6K:1 native, and around 15K:1 dynamic. That new 4K DLP is going to need laser though, or no deal these days. I'm done with lamps.
Aztar35 likes this.
Craig Peer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #812 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Buddylee123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 867 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
it's not going to matter how sharp the panels are when sci-fi movies are gong to look this with only 1000:1 native. How did they go this far off course?



removing 3D makes it DOA as well. I have a feeling these will end up on WOOT in a few years.


native 4K panels, 6000-7000:1 native, HDR WCG capable, 3D + full motorized lens controls, it could have been awesome.
This picture reminds me of watching a dark movie on my cheap sharp LCD TV, never again hopefully

Last edited by Buddylee123; 04-25-2017 at 11:37 AM.
Buddylee123 is offline  
post #813 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,698
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked: 5457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddylee123 View Post
This picture reminds me of watching a dark movie on my cheap sharp LCD, never again hopefully
I have several DLP projectors with 1000:1, low APL scenes look like mud when native is this low. No DI in the world can help when it's that low.

even if every other feature was excellent this would be the blocker for most folks with a dedicated HT and some light control in the room.
zombie10k is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #814 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 11:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Buddylee123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 867 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
I have several DLP projectors with 1000:1, low APL scenes look like mud when native is this low. No DI in the world can help when it's that low.

even if every other feature was excellent this would be the blocker for most folks with a dedicated HT and some light control in the room.
It seems like TI is not putting much focus on DLP these days. Kinda disappointing considering how much I liked my Infocus ScreenPlay 4805. I wish TI would just sell the patents to DLP and let other companies run with it.
Buddylee123 is offline  
post #815 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 11:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
What is says (regarding CTA) is:
"...from the CTA (CEA tech board), the 4K UHD definition requires a display to produce over 8 million pixels, 16:9 aspect ratio, and at least 3840 by 2160 horizontal and vertical pixels."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
CTA's wording was very deliberate. They could have easily stated 4K UHD means a native resolution of 3840x2160 if they wished to exclude DLP XPR from being considered 4K UHD. But that is not what they stated. They stated 8.3m individually addressable pixels, which allows DLP's method (but not Epson/JVC's) to meet the CTA 4K UHD requirement. Again, if you don't like this definition, I would take it up with CTA as it is pretty clear where they stand and their wording was obviously constructed to be inclusive of DLP 4K XPR - having a native 3840x2160 resolution is not part of their requirements to be considered 4K UHD.
Ruined,

How many horizontal pixels and how many vertical pixels would you say the BenQ produces? And how many total?

Thanks,
Darin
Ericglo likes this.
darinp is offline  
post #816 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 12:21 PM
 
Dave Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Paradise on Earth
Posts: 6,554
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3159 Post(s)
Liked: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
it's not going to matter how sharp the panels are when sci-fi movies are gong to look this with only 1000:1 native. How did they go this far off course?



removing 3D makes it DOA as well. I have a feeling these will end up on WOOT in a few years.


native 4K panels, 6000-7000:1 native, HDR WCG capable, 3D + full motorized lens controls, it could have been awesome.

What's the problem? I think a mysterious fog bank just rolled in on poor Morgan. It's part of the plot of the movie. Why you gotta be hatin' man?
Buddylee123 likes this.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #817 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 12:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,676
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6553 Post(s)
Liked: 7574
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
it's not going to matter how sharp the panels are when sci-fi movies are gong to look this with only 1000:1 native. How did they go this far off course?

removing 3D makes it DOA as well. I have a feeling these will end up on WOOT in a few years.


native 4K panels, 6000-7000:1 native, HDR WCG capable, 3D + full motorized lens controls, it could have been awesome.
I already have that and more now. It's called an RS4500.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #818 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 12:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aztar35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,782
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
6K:1 native, and around 15K:1 dynamic. That new 4K DLP is going to need laser though, or no deal these days. I'm done with lamps.

I understand, and thanks for the feedback. Now I'm curious...if your Sim Lumis were the same price as your RS600, which would you choose?
Aztar35 is offline  
post #819 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 01:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Ruined,

How many horizontal pixels and how many vertical pixels would you say the BenQ produces? And how many total?

Thanks,
Darin
Hi Darin,

It has a native resolution of 2716x1528 that produces (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 individually addressable, active, physical pixels per frame per CTA definition.

Although technically the XPR tech processes an optical composite of 5432x3056 = 16,600,192 pixels via half pixel diagonal shift, but this larger pixel count would not qualify per CTA definition of total pixels as they are not all individually addressable, active, physical pixels. When discussing the CTA specifications, you'd have to go back to what is actually being physically reproduced in terms of individually addressable active pixels - which is (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 pixels.

Hope this is helpful.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-25-2017 at 01:56 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #820 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztar35 View Post
Yeah, I did see Art's review of the H9090 and he said he could still slightly detect them. But I'm not sure how that is happening.

Your old Sim Lumis had around 6K:1 native contrast, right? That wouldn't be bad in a 4k shift unit, I think.
I didn't see any RBE at all with the H9090, even with high contrast white objects moving on black backgrounds. It was extremely stable. I do see it with the W7000 quite a bit. But it doesn't bother me at all. Possible Art was seeing something else?

There are LED projectors that have significant RBE, and those are mainly the ones without the RAPCUR modules (i.e. Optoma HD91) - LED projector without the RAPCUR modules (or similar) will potentially have as much RBE as a lamp projector because the LEDs don't cycle all that fast (about same speed as a wheel). Note the BenQ X12000 is like the Optoma HD91 in that it has slow cycling LEDs, unlike the H9090.

As stated earlier the big problem with the H9090 is the color shift and sluggishness of the LED dimming. While Art addressed this a little bit in his review, I felt he should have been much more critical after seeing myself how much it harmed the image. The LED dimming to supplement the low-ish native contrast was really a make-or-break feature for this projector for home theater use, and due to artifacting it did not live up to the task as it needed to even at lowest setting of 4x. That being said for gaming, TV, sports, etc - it would be fine and likely not noticeable.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-25-2017 at 02:14 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #821 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
it's not going to matter how sharp the panels are when sci-fi movies are gong to look this with only 1000:1 native. How did they go this far off course?
*This* projector is off course, yes. I would not buy it. It is first gen. I don't think the DLP XPR tech is off course at all, just needs time to mature with a better lightpath design. The design is everything, again the Vivitek H9090 is 0.95" DMD and it only pulls off 1300:1 native due to lightpath design - less than what some 0.67" DMD DLPs pull off native. Also the BenQ W7000 native is worse than the W11000 with a similar size DMD. So this one design doesn't necessarily say anything about the capabilities of the DMD.

If 2nd gen they can pull off 2000:1-3000:1 native and a good 4x iris then I think that will be a very interesting option. That being said it sounds like rec709 will be the standard for lamp projectors with p3 saved for LED/laser, as apparently there is too much light loss going through both the color wheel and a p3 filter (per vivitek) with a consumer-grade lamp. Also 3D apparently is achievable from my understanding but I am not sure how much extra cost it would incur. Likely the software still needs to be worked out, as I assume 1920x1080 3D would have to be scaled to and processed in silent mode/native resolution (2716x1528) as opposed to the projector's default 4K XPR mode. Odds are they wanted to something out and didn't have time to implement 3D in gen1; if XPR couldn't be disabled I could see it maybe being a barrier for 3D, but since it can be disabled I think 3D just isn't ready yet for this new pj tech.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-25-2017 at 02:28 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #822 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:42 PM
Senior Member
 
AndreNewman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Also 3D apparently is achievable from my understanding but I am not sure how much extra cost it would incur. Likely the software still needs to be worked out, as I assume 1920x1080 3D would have to be scaled to and processed in silent mode/native resolution (2716x1528) as opposed to the projector's default 4K XPR mode. Odds are they wanted to something out and didn't have time to implement 3D in gen1; if XPR couldn't be disabled I could see it maybe being a barrier for 3D, but since it can be disabled I think 3D just isn't ready yet for this new pj tech.
I had a discussion with Acer about 3D and it was always a case of can't be bothered because we don't think the market wants it, rather than it can't be done. They stated that 3D would have to be scaled to 2716x1528 due to bandwidth constraints but I think that would look fine.

My contact said he would push for it in next generation development but that there was resistance from the rest of the team.

If Acer could do it, any of the other usual manufacturers could too.
AndreNewman is offline  
post #823 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:46 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: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post
removing 3D makes it DOA as well. I have a feeling these will end up on WOOT in a few years.
There's in interesting tidbit in the Barco whitepaper I linked, and that's that single-chip solutions are limited to 60Hz (while 3-chip can do 120Hz). Seems as though when you combine having to flash three colors, and do it twice, and not produce RBE, there's just not enough "extra" time left to be able to cut that all in half and do it twice for two images. Now I suppose theoretically you could disable the shift for 3D, but that may be more complicated too, since some XPR machines seem not to allow that either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Hi Darin,

It has a native resolution of 2716x1528 that produces (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 individually addressable, active, physical pixels per frame per CTA definition.
Except it does not produce 2716x1528*2 active pixels on screen, since the two subframes overlap and combine, and thus they are not individually addressable.

Quote:
Although technically the XPR tech processes an optical composite of 5432x3056 = 16,600,192 pixels via half pixel diagonal shift, but this larger pixel count would not qualify per CTA definition of total pixels as they are not all individually addressable, active, physical pixels.
I don't see where CTA defines that. The CTA press release say 8 million "active" pixels. XPR defenders are always quick to point out that what you display at any instant is meaningless, it's the net result on screen that's important, ie that single chip DLP is color because our eyes integrate the three flashes over time. Well with XPR that's 16.6 million pixels, that are not individually addressible, yet now you want to say that each flash counts individually.
stanger89 is offline  
post #824 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Hi Darin,

It has a native resolution of 2716x1528 that produces (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 individually addressable, active, physical pixels per frame per CTA definition.

Although technically the XPR tech processes an optical composite of 5432x3056 = 16,600,192 pixels via half pixel diagonal shift, but this larger pixel count would not qualify per CTA definition of total pixels as they are not all individually addressable, active, physical pixels. When discussing the CTA specifications, you'd have to go back to what is actually being physically reproduced in terms of individually addressable active pixels - which is (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 pixels.

Hope this is helpful.
Thanks. It seems like you keep saying it qualifies by the CTA definition while ignoring the part of the CTA definition for 4K UHD that says, "... and at least 3840 by 2160 horizontal and vertical pixels." Producing 8 million or more pixels is only part of the requirement.

It seems like you said that 5432x3056 didn't qualify for horizontal and vertical resolution. Do you believe that this projector produces 3840 or more horizontal pixels and 2160 or more vertical pixels? If so, how may horizontal pixels would you say it produces? And how many vertical pixels?

Thanks,
Darin
darinp is offline  
post #825 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 02:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Thanks. It seems like you keep saying it qualifies by the CTA definition while ignoring the part of the CTA definition for 4K UHD that says, "... and at least 3840 by 2160 horizontal and vertical pixels." Producing 8 million or more pixels is only part of the requirement.

It seems like you said that 5432x3056 didn't qualify for horizontal and vertical resolution. Do you believe that this projector produces 3840 or more horizontal pixels and 2160 or more vertical pixels? If so, how may horizontal pixels would you say it produces? And how many vertical pixels?

Thanks,
Darin
That is because the CTA spec does not require that the actual H*V resolution need be a physical native 3840x2160 resolution. It only requires that this resolution is generated at minimum, and that is generated by at least 8million physical, individually addressable, active pixels. Hence DLP 4K XPR qualifies as 4K UHD under the CTA definition, because it generates at least a 3840x2160 resolution (non-native) and does so with at least 8million physical, individually addressable, active pixels.

Again, if CTA did not want technologies like DLP XPR to qualify all they'd have to specify is "3840x2160 native resolution." They would not even have to get into minimum # of pixels as it would be implied by the native resolution. In actuality, native resolution 3840x2160 is not required by CTA 4k UHD spec, and very most likely the spec was written this way purposefully. In greatest likelihood, TI probably demo'd the DLP XPR tech with their 4k prototype to CTA and CTA felt it was worthy/precise enough to be called 4k - and wrote the spec worded as such it would include TI's XPR tech; yet, at the same time wrote it in a fashion that would exclude other, lower-resolution pixel shifting techs offered by JVC/Epson with half the number of physical, individually addressable, active pixels.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-25-2017 at 03:12 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #826 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 15,676
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6553 Post(s)
Liked: 7574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztar35 View Post
I understand, and thanks for the feedback. Now I'm curious...if your Sim Lumis were the same price as your RS600, which would you choose?
The Lumis can't display 4K, so I'd still have to give the nod to the RS600. It's all about choices and trade offs. Of course my current RS4500 is like a 4K laser Sim Lumis in many ways !
Spizz and Aztar35 like this.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #827 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aztar35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,782
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
I didn't see any RBE at all with the H9090, even with high contrast white objects moving on black backgrounds. It was extremely stable. I do see it with the W7000 quite a bit. But it doesn't bother me at all. Possible Art was seeing something else?

There are LED projectors that have significant RBE, and those are mainly the ones without the RAPCUR modules (i.e. Optoma HD91) - LED projector without the RAPCUR modules (or similar) will potentially have as much RBE as a lamp projector because the LEDs don't cycle all that fast (about same speed as a wheel). Note the BenQ X12000 is like the Optoma HD91 in that it has slow cycling LEDs, unlike the H9090.

As stated earlier the big problem with the H9090 is the color shift and sluggishness of the LED dimming. While Art addressed this a little bit in his review, I felt he should have been much more critical after seeing myself how much it harmed the image. The LED dimming to supplement the low-ish native contrast was really a make-or-break feature for this projector for home theater use, and due to artifacting it did not live up to the task as it needed to even at lowest setting of 4x. That being said for gaming, TV, sports, etc - it would be fine and likely not noticeable.
Good stuff, Ruined! I really appreciate the time 'cause I was thinking about an H9090 for different tasks. Now, would you say that turning LED dim off and AC on in the H9090 showed more contrast than the W7000 with the W7000's iris on?
Aztar35 is offline  
post #828 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,698
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked: 5457
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
There's in interesting tidbit in the Barco whitepaper I linked, and that's that single-chip solutions are limited to 60Hz (while 3-chip can do 120Hz). Seems as though when you combine having to flash three colors, and do it twice, and not produce RBE, there's just not enough "extra" time left to be able to cut that all in half and do it twice for two images. Now I suppose theoretically you could disable the shift for 3D, but that may be more complicated too, since some XPR machines seem not to allow that either.
thanks for the info, I figured there had to a technical limitation why all the manufacturers who are using this panel suddenly dropped the 3D option. They all had 3D DLP's prior to this.
zombie10k is online now  
post #829 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztar35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
I didn't see any RBE at all with the H9090, even with high contrast white objects moving on black backgrounds. It was extremely stable. I do see it with the W7000 quite a bit. But it doesn't bother me at all. Possible Art was seeing something else?

There are LED projectors that have significant RBE, and those are mainly the ones without the RAPCUR modules (i.e. Optoma HD91) - LED projector without the RAPCUR modules (or similar) will potentially have as much RBE as a lamp projector because the LEDs don't cycle all that fast (about same speed as a wheel). Note the BenQ X12000 is like the Optoma HD91 in that it has slow cycling LEDs, unlike the H9090.

As stated earlier the big problem with the H9090 is the color shift and sluggishness of the LED dimming. While Art addressed this a little bit in his review, I felt he should have been much more critical after seeing myself how much it harmed the image. The LED dimming to supplement the low-ish native contrast was really a make-or-break feature for this projector for home theater use, and due to artifacting it did not live up to the task as it needed to even at lowest setting of 4x. That being said for gaming, TV, sports, etc - it would be fine and likely not noticeable.
Good stuff, Ruined! I really appreciate the time 'cause I was thinking about an H9090 for different tasks. Now, would you say that turning LED dim off and AC on in the H9090 showed more contrast than the W7000 with the W7000's iris on?
LED dim off and AC on will give a more "contrasty" look than w7000 with iris on but it blows out whites and crushes blacks to achieve that look. So I'd say more contrasty looking but less realistic looking.
Ruined is offline  
post #830 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
That is because the CTA spec does not require that the actual H*V resolution need be a physical native 3840x2160 resolution. It only requires that this resolution is generated at minimum, and that is generated by at least 8million physical, individually addressable, active pixels. Hence DLP 4K XPR qualifies as 4K UHD under the CTA definition, because it generates at least a 3840x2160 resolution (non-native) and does so with at least 8million physical, individually addressable, active pixels.

Again, if CTA did not want technologies like DLP XPR to qualify all they'd have to specify is "3840x2160 native resolution." They would not even have to get into minimum # of pixels as it would be implied by the native resolution. In actuality, native resolution 3840x2160 is not required by CTA 4k UHD spec, and very most likely the spec was written this way purposefully. In greatest likelihood, TI probably demo'd the DLP XPR tech with their 4k prototype to CTA and CTA felt it was worthy/precise enough to be called 4k - and wrote the spec worded as such it would include TI's XPR tech; yet, at the same time wrote it in a fashion that would exclude other, lower-resolution pixel shifting techs offered by JVC/Epson with half the number of physical, individually addressable, active pixels.
Can you answer the questions about how many vertical pixels it creates and how many horizontal pixels it creates, in your opinion?

You clearly think it qualifies for the part in bold from the CTA:

"the 4K UHD definition requires a display to produce over 8 million pixels, 16:9 aspect ratio, and at least 3840 by 2160 horizontal and vertical pixels."

or you wouldn't keep claiming that it qualifies.

How many horizontal pixels does this projector display?

How many vertical pixels does this projector display?

Where did you come up with the part that the 8 million pixels have to be, "physical, individually addressable, active pixels"? Did you make that up, or is it somewhere in the CTA requirements? What you claimed is different than "produce over 8 million pixels" unless there is a place that specifies that the pixels need to be what you said. Otherwise JVC can claim to produce over 8 million pixels.

Thanks,
Darin
Ericglo likes this.

Last edited by darinp; 04-25-2017 at 03:54 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #831 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 03:54 PM
 
Dave Harper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Paradise on Earth
Posts: 6,554
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3159 Post(s)
Liked: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
......Well with XPR that's 16.6 million pixels, that are not individually addressible, yet now you want to say that each flash counts individually.
Yes, but doesn't it address 8.3 million of those 16.6 individually, making it comply with CTA standards? I am seriously curious as I don't know and am still in the basic confusion stage of exactly how this tech works. Could it be that each mirror isn't exactly a "pixel" of info, rather just a reflection surface to project the image and fill in the space, and the actual "pixels" are within this and spread amongst and between a couple of the mirrors and wobulation/panel shift? Damn, I confused myself just saying that, haha!
Dave Harper is offline  
post #832 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 04:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
There's in interesting tidbit in the Barco whitepaper I linked, and that's that single-chip solutions are limited to 60Hz (while 3-chip can do 120Hz). Seems as though when you combine having to flash three colors, and do it twice, and not produce RBE, there's just not enough "extra" time left to be able to cut that all in half and do it twice for two images. Now I suppose theoretically you could disable the shift for 3D, but that may be more complicated too, since some XPR machines seem not to allow that either.
Yes, I believe XPR would need to be disabled for 3D, and some of the projectors are capable of this already but not 3D yet. Most likely the software isn't there, as this is considered a non-vital feature at this point in time.

Quote:
Except it does not produce 2716x1528*2 active pixels on screen, since the two subframes overlap and combine, and thus they are not individually addressable.
Actually 2716x1528 * 2 is *exactly* what is displayed. For each frame, it first displays 2716x1528 pixels (4,150,048 individually addressable pixels), then follows it with another 2716x1528 pixels a second time shifted a diagonal half pixel (another 4,150,058 pixels). This is a total of 8,300,096 individually addressable pixels per frame.

Quote:
I don't see where CTA defines that. The CTA press release say 8 million "active" pixels. XPR defenders are always quick to point out that what you display at any instant is meaningless, it's the net result on screen that's important, ie that single chip DLP is color because our eyes integrate the three flashes over time. Well with XPR that's 16.6 million pixels, that are not individually addressible, yet now you want to say that each flash counts individually.
It's not 16.6 million individually addressable pixels with XPR. XPR displays 4,150,058 pixels two times (shifted), for a total of 8+mil individually addressable pixels per frame. The 16.6 million composite of pixels created is not individually addressable. You cannot pick out one of the 16 million and turn it on and off, because there are not physically 16 million pixels. There are only physically 8.3 million pixels per frame, and you can individually turn on/off any of the 8million pixels in the 2716x1528 x 2 shift.

This is why JVC/Epson fail to meet the CTA benchmark, as well. They display 1920x1080 x2, or 4,147,200 individually addressable pixels. There are only 4 million physical pixels that can be individually addressed per frame, not 8 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2
an you answer the questions about how many vertical pixels it creates and how many horizontal pixels it creates, in your opinion?
I already answered this question in my first reply to you above

It produces (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 individually addressable, active, physical pixels per frame per CTA definition, with an optical composite resolution of 5432x3056. This meets both the CTA requirements of at least 3840x2160 resolution and 8million+ individually addressable active pixels. The CTA does not require a native resolution of 3840x2160. If they did, they simply would say "A native resolution of 3840x2160 is required" and would not have to even talk about individually addressable pixels as that native resolution by definition has 8+ million individually addressable pixels.

Epson/JVC's eShift mechanism do not meet the definition as they only produce (1920x1080)x2 = 4147200 individually addressable pixels.

The terminology of physical, individually addressable pixels comes from the CTA consumer definitions paper.

Pacific Media Associates Research has gone a step further than the CTA and instead have three categories of definitions:
4K Support = 4+ million individually addressable pixels (i.e. JVC / Epson 4k e-shift)
4K UHD = 8+ million individually addressable pixels (i.e. TI XPR 4k DMD)
4K Native = minimum 3840x2160 native resolution (i.e. Sony 4K, JVC laser, TI 1.38" 4K DMD)

While there are more categories here, I think it is both less confusing and more useful that the single CTA definition.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-25-2017 at 06:23 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #833 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 06:40 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: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
Yes, but doesn't it address 8.3 million of those 16.6 individually, making it comply with CTA standards? I am seriously curious as I don't know and am still in the basic confusion stage of exactly how this tech works. Could it be that each mirror isn't exactly a "pixel" of info, rather just a reflection surface to project the image and fill in the space, and the actual "pixels" are within this and spread amongst and between a couple of the mirrors and wobulation/panel shift? Damn, I confused myself just saying that, haha!
First, lets look at the most technical info we have available, that being Barco's whitepaper on the subject:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uplo...per-4K-UHD.pdf

Based on that whitepaper, "XPR" DLP works (conceptually at least) exactly the same way e-Shift works. There is a chip with some native resolution, and an optical actuator that can shift that chip's pixels by a half pixel diagonally. Each frame on screen is then made by the sum of the two overlapping fields. The second subframe effectively splits each pixel in the first frame into four pixels.

Of course, since there's overlap, you can't control each of those resulting pixels independently, but with clever processing you can produce something that's significantly better in detail than you would with the chip's native resolution alone. But at the same time, it means you can't reproduce artificial patterns correctly.

As for CTA, all I have to go on is what's in the linked press releases: "Display Resolution – Has at least eight million active pixels, with at least 3840 horizontally and at least 2160 vertically."

Which brings us to the issue of the ambiguity in that "specification". Considering CEA/CTA is basically a marketing organization, I think we have to assume a rather loose definition, one that is free enough that pretty much any manufacturer can claim to meet it so long as they can make a reasonable explanation. TI's marketing department was very clever in this regard, they found they had a ~4Mpix DMD on the shelf, and there are already optical actuators available, they could combine the two and then have a very easy, unique marketing solution for 4K, regardless of the technical or engineering realities.

Now when it comes to the actual technical reality, I don't think the number of pixels used to create the image is necessarily that important in it's own right, it's the effects, benefits, and side effects of that implementation that are important. For example the fact that single chip DLP only uses one chip to show all three colors is not really and important distinction vs 3-chip machines, you wouldn't say it's not color because it's not showing all colors at the same time. Likewise you wouldn't say the same as a 3-chip, since there are technical limitations to the choice (RBE namely).

So when it comes to pixel shifting, how many pixels are used in the chip, is not really important, it's what's on screen that matters. Consider for a moment, the Picobit, it shows one pixel at a time, so how many active pixels does it have?

I guess what I'm saying is, the CTA definition of 4K, and linked in this thread (which is all I have to go on, if there are more details elsewhere I'd like to read them), is loose enough that both JVC/Epson's solution based on a 2K chip and TI's solution based on an approximately 2.7k chip, meet the definition because they place more than 8 million pixels on screen, and have a resolution of at least 3840x2160.

On the flip side, neither solution produces 3840x2160 independently addressable pixels, and both solutions have all the limitations and side effects that have been so well advertised of the JVC/Epson solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Actually 2716x1528 * 2 is *exactly* what is displayed. For each frame, it first displays 2716x1528 pixels (4,150,048 individually addressable pixels), then follows it with another 2716x1528 pixels a second time shifted a diagonal half pixel (another 4,150,058 pixels). This is a total of 8,300,096 individually addressable pixels per frame.
By this logic single chip DLP isn't color, since it shows Red, Green, and Blue sequentially. You have to remember the screen is part of the system and that is not what's displayed (ie seen) on the screen. What you see is the integration of those two frames which is 16.6 million pixels that are not independently addressable.

Quote:
It's not 16.6 million individually addressable pixels with XPR. XPR displays 4,150,058 pixels two times (shifted), for a total of 8+mil individually addressable pixels per frame. The 16.6 million composite of pixels created is not individually addressable. You cannot pick out one of the 16 million and turn it on and off, because there are not physically 16 million pixels. There are only physically 8.3 million pixels per frame, and you can individually turn on/off any of the 8million pixels in the 2716x1528 x 2 shift.
Except you can't turn off just one of the pixels on screen, if you turn off one of the DMD mirrors in one subframe, it affects 4 pixels on screen, thus, not individually addressible.

Quote:
This is why JVC/Epson fail to meet the CTA benchmark, as well. They display 1920x1080 x2, or 4,147,200 individually addressable pixels. There are only 4 million physical pixels that can be individually addressed per frame, not 8 million.
Where does CTA say it has to be individually addressable? The links you provided, and the releases they reference just say "pixels".
stanger89 is offline  
post #834 of 920 Old 04-25-2017, 06:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
It produces (2716x1528)x2=8,300,096 individually addressable, active, physical pixels per frame per CTA definition, with an optical composite resolution of 5432x3056.
The part that stanger89 quoted uses the exact same "pixels" word for the 8 million requirement and the 3840 and 2160 requirements:

"the 4K UHD definition requires a display to produce over 8 million pixels, 16:9 aspect ratio, and at least 3840 by 2160 horizontal and vertical pixels."

Seems like you replace the first "pixels" with "individually addressable, active, physical pixels" and replace the second "pixels" with "optical composite resolution". What makes you define pixels differently between the 8 million requirement and the 3840 and 2160 requirements? Why not use "individually addressable, active, physical pixels" for both places where "pixels" appears.

Or would you say that they have more than 3840 individually addressable, active, physical pixels in the horizontal and more the 2160 individually addressable, active, physical pixels in the vertical?

If "pixels" means "individually addressable, active, physical pixels" then that should be applied to all 3 requirements unless they say otherwise.

--Darin
Ericglo likes this.
darinp is offline  
post #835 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 05:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Darin/stranger here you go, 8mil individually addressable pixels with minimum demonstrable resolution of 3840x2160 resolution are required per CTA spec, both of which DLP XPR is capable of achieving. DLP XPR is able to meet all requirements of the spec, unlike JVC/epson eshift:
https://www.cta.tech/getattachment/C...spx?lang=en-US

Again best bet is to write CTA a letter if you do not like their definition of 4K UHD not requiring native 4k resolution and excluding jvc/epson due to only having 4mil individually addressable pixels.

I am done repeating myself on resolution. Already answered question correctly, succinctly, and in detail twice. Appears you just don't like the answer. There is a difference between optical/virtual resolution and the physical number of individually addressable projected pixels.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-26-2017 at 06:23 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #836 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 06:04 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: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Darin/stranger here you go, 8mil individually addressable pixels with minimum demonstrable resolution of 3740x2160 resolution are required per CTA spec, both of which DLP XPR is capable of achieving. DLP XPR is able to meet all requirements of the spec, unlike JVC/epson eshift:
https://www.cta.tech/getattachment/C...spx?lang=en-US
Thanks that's quite helpful.

However it seems to back up my point that XPR isn't really 4K, here is exactly what it says:
"Display Resolution
Has at least 8 million active pixels, with at least 3840 horizontally and at least 2160 vertically. Physical pixels shall be individually addressable such that the horizontal and vertical resolution above can be demonstrated over the full range of colors provided by the display."

While it may have over 8 million individually addressable physical pixels, this test shows that XPR cannot demonstrate that horizontal and vertical resolution over the full range of colors provided by the display:

https://translate.google.ca/translat...-text=&act=url

Quote:
Again best bet is to write CTA a letter if you do not like their definition of 4K UHD not requiring native 4k resolution and excluding jvc/epson due to only having 4mil individually addressable pixels.

I am done repeating myself on resolution. Already answered question succinctly and in detail twice. Appears you just don't like the answer. There is a difference between optical/virtual resolution and the physical number of individually addressable projected pixels.
For the record, I had not seen this document until you linked it. And the links you'd previously provided did not support your argument about individually addressable physical pixels, hence the disagreement. I now see what you were basing your statements on and agree that 1080p base pixel shifting does not meet that definition. However there is also additional criteria that you did not mention, demonstrating that resolution, that I don't believe XPR achieves either.
stanger89 is offline  
post #837 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 06:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
CTA spec does not require 3840x2160 pass every test pattern, or that this resolution is native. It just requires tech is able to demonstrate a minimum of this resolution, which XPR can do. I. E. One Pixel at a time of each color would count for instance. So yes XPR can meet this portion of spec in addition to 8mil individually addressable pixels.

IMO spec obviously was worded in a way to accommodate XPR and exclude eshift. Whether that was due to CTA genuinely feeling XPR is 4k or a backroom deal with TI is another story. But PMA research came to same conclusion and calls XPR 4K UHD using similar criteria as CTA. Unlike CTA, though, PMA also has a higher category of 4K Native which only TI's 1.38" 4k DMD can achieve.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-26-2017 at 06:47 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #838 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 06:59 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: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
CTA spec does not require 3840x2160 pass every test pattern, or that this resolution is native. It just requires tech is able to demonstrate a minimum of this resolution, which XPR can do. I. E. One Pixel at a time of each color would count for instance. So yes XPR can meet this portion of spec in addition to 8mil individually addressable pixels.
So what test pattern would you use to demonstrate "...the horizontal and vertical resolution above... over the full range of colors provided by the display"?

XPR can't display one pixel out of 3840x2160 at a time.

Last edited by stanger89; 04-26-2017 at 07:03 AM.
stanger89 is offline  
post #839 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 07:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2568 Post(s)
Liked: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
CTA spec does not require 3840x2160 pass every test pattern, or that this resolution is native. It just requires tech is able to demonstrate a minimum of this resolution, which XPR can do. I. E. One Pixel at a time of each color would count for instance. So yes XPR can meet this portion of spec in addition to 8mil individually addressable pixels.
So what test pattern would you use to demonstrate "...the horizontal and vertical resolution above... over the full range of colors provided by the display"?

XPR can't display one pixel out of 3840x2160 at a time.
They could use the demo of the 5432x3056 optical composite resolution such as the one Barco discussed in their whitepaper. The spec does not state that 3840x2160 native must be achieved. It states that a -minimum- of that resolution (again not necessarily natively) must be achieved and the solution must have at least 8 million individually addressable pixels to attain that resolution. All of which Ti XPR meets. There is no mention at all in the spec of reproducing clean 3840x2160 test patterns.

Also, I don't find it realistic that TI and all of its partners would advertise meeting the CTA specs without getting CTA buy-in. It is pretty clear CTA wrote the spec in a way that TI XPR can pass and current epson/JVC eshift would fail. Otherwise they could have simply wrote "A native resolution of 3840x2160 is required" and skipped all the other qualifiers in the current definition.

Keep in mind JVC/Epson eshift could also pass the CTA 4K spec in the future if they upped their native resolution like TI did.

Last edited by Ruined; 04-26-2017 at 09:12 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #840 of 920 Old 04-26-2017, 10:08 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,410
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3368 Post(s)
Liked: 1824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Also, I don't find it realistic that TI and all of its partners would advertise meeting the CTA specs without getting CTA buy-in. It is pretty clear CTA wrote the spec in a way that TI XPR can pass and current epson/JVC eshift would fail. Otherwise they could have simply wrote "A native resolution of 3840x2160 is required" and skipped all the other qualifiers in the current definition.
.
You have been around awhile, so you should know by now that manufacturers have and will continue to stretch the truth. Usually it is the marketing guys not the engineers. It is why we read reviews and have enthusiasts on the forums to test and check.

Case in point. Barco at Cedia '15 tried to tell us that 80 to 1 cr is all that is needed because a room can't do more than that. Mike, Mark, Craig and I just looked at each other and rolled our eyes.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is online now  
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