Optoma UHZ65 - 4K laser ($4,500 MSRP) - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 966Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 12:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,370
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6992 Post(s)
Liked: 8284
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
I sure seems like there is a lot happening with projectors this year.

Completely new lasers entering the market. New DLP chip projectors from BenQ, Dell, Casio, Optoma, etc. A very high end laser from JVC already available this year.

Now I wonder what Sony, Epson, and JVC are going to do with their projectors in the $2,000 - $10,000 price range. I wonder if JVC will introduce a bulb projector native 4K or maybe a laser e-shift for that price bracket. Sony really needs to up it's game if it wants to stay competitive and sell any more 4K projectors in this price range. A $3000 1080P 65ES and a $8000 4K 365ES just aren't going to cut it anymore.
Sony has it's new " VW1200 " 4K laser projector ( in the $25K + range ). Who knows what else is coming out. The bigger question for me is which of the new projectors will have a great picture you would want in your theater, and which are mediocre or poor performers picture wise. Going to take a bit of time to really figure that out. We've gotten our hopes up in the past only to be let down ( Optoma, I'm looking at you ) !

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 12:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 901 Post(s)
Liked: 613
Optoma UHZ65 - 4K laser ($4,500 MSRP)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Typical show demo conditions - impossible to judge the picture quality in that environment. It will be interesting to see at Cedia though, assuming that actual production units are there.
I sure seems like there is a lot happening with projectors this year.

Completely new lasers entering the market. New DLP chip projectors from BenQ, Dell, Casio, Optoma, etc. A very high end laser from JVC already available this year.

Now I wonder what Sony, Epson, and JVC are going to do with their projectors in the $2,000 - $10,000 price range. I wonder if JVC will introduce a bulb projector native 4K or maybe a laser e-shift for that price bracket. Sony really needs to up it's game if it wants to stay competitive and sell any more 4K projectors in this price range. A $3000 1080P 65ES and a $8000 4K 365ES just aren't going to cut it anymore.
I'm wondering too. If Optoma can add lasers to its uhd model for only $2000 more, hopefully jvc can do something similar to theirs.
mbw23air likes this.
blee0120 is online now  
post #93 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,520
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12544 Post(s)
Liked: 10162
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post
I'm wondering too. If Optoma can add lasers to its uhd model for only $2000 more, hopefully jvc can do something similar to theirs.
That is what I am hoping to see from JVC, laser powered E-shift units and perhaps a lamp based native 4K.
Dave Harper, mbw23air and DavidHir like this.
Mike Garrett is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
TheBrandon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,573
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 555 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR9 View Post
Got pictures I dont see many shelf installs.
Here is mine. The PS4 Pro is mounted outside of the network closet directly behind it. I did this so there would be no input lag with the controller. I've been thinking about knocking a chunk out from where that shelf sets and building it into the wall recessed. The acoustic paneling is because I have 2 Rythmik FV15HP and also a pair of Outlaw LFM1-EX and strangely they almost blow that back door apart.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0319.jpg
Views:	229
Size:	181.2 KB
ID:	2195537  
TheBrandon is offline  
post #95 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 03:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 2,103
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked: 765
I have owned two Optoma projectors (H31 and currently HD3300) and they've both been super reliable. I was going to get the UHD65 but hearing this I think it's worth the extra coin to get the laser one. How in the world am I gonna convince my wife this is a worthy purchase??? I'll probably just buy it and ask for forgiveness later. It usually works best that way.
blastermaster is offline  
post #96 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 03:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,547
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1320 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
That is what I am hoping to see from JVC, laser powered E-shift units and perhaps a lamp based native 4K.
I'd 'like' to see JVC introduce a 4.15Mpixel chip e-shifted to give 8.3Mpixels, true 4k , but not native 4k, with enhanced native contrast. Mated to a laser light source. At a similar price point as the RS620

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #97 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 04:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,370
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6992 Post(s)
Liked: 8284
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
I have owned two Optoma projectors (H31 and currently HD3300) and they've both been super reliable. I was going to get the UHD65 but hearing this I think it's worth the extra coin to get the laser one. How in the world am I gonna convince my wife this is a worthy purchase??? I'll probably just buy it and ask for forgiveness later. It usually works best that way.
I haven't owned an Optoma since the H79. It ate lamps by dimming rather quickly. Hopefully this model will be more reliable.

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is online now  
post #98 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 05:00 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I haven't owned an Optoma since the H79. It ate lamps by dimming rather quickly. Hopefully this model will be more reliable.
With a laser it won't be eating any lamps or light sources at all.

You'll want a new projector by the time this thing is even halfway thru I'm betting.
longhornsk57 is offline  
post #99 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 06:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,923
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1939 Post(s)
Liked: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Sony has it's new " VW1200 " 4K laser projector ( in the $25K + range ). Who knows what else is coming out. The bigger question for me is which of the new projectors will have a great picture you would want in your theater, and which are mediocre or poor performers picture wise. Going to take a bit of time to really figure that out. We've gotten our hopes up in the past only to be let down ( Optoma, I'm looking at you ) !
Craig, if you do get to demo the Optoma UHZ 65 Laser projector at CEDIA in good conditions, you'll have to give us a complete report.

I would think that a laser projector, (if it had good black levels, wide color gamut, full P3, pseudo 4k, great contrast, and lens memory) for under $5000 would sell like hotcakes.
GregCh is offline  
post #100 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 09:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,520
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12544 Post(s)
Liked: 10162
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
I'd 'like' to see JVC introduce a 4.15Mpixel chip e-shifted to give 8.3Mpixels, true 4k , but not native 4k, with enhanced native contrast. Mated to a laser light source. At a similar price point as the RS620
Don't hold your breath. I doubt JVC is going to design a new chip for a 1080P projector. Especially when there will not be a large improvement in the image by doing so. Have you viewed an E-shift image compared to a native 4K image in the same room. Unless you use a really high grade lens, the difference is not as great as you think.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #101 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 09:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 901 Post(s)
Liked: 613
Optoma UHZ65 - 4K laser ($4,500 MSRP)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
I'd 'like' to see JVC introduce a 4.15Mpixel chip e-shifted to give 8.3Mpixels, true 4k , but not native 4k, with enhanced native contrast. Mated to a laser light source. At a similar price point as the RS620
Don't hold your breath. I doubt JVC is going to design a new chip for a 1080P projector. Especially when there will not be a large improvement in the image by doing so. Have you viewed an E-shift image compared to a native 4K image in the same room. Unless you use a really high grade lens, the difference is not as great as you think.
Probably will be a minor gain in sharpness with a loss in contrast. Hopefully, jvc can develop a cost efficient way to incorporate lasers like we see in these cheaper dlp projectors.
blee0120 is online now  
post #102 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 09:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,370
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6992 Post(s)
Liked: 8284
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
Craig, if you do get to demo the Optoma UHZ 65 Laser projector at CEDIA in good conditions, you'll have to give us a complete report.

I would think that a laser projector, (if it had good black levels, wide color gamut, full P3, pseudo 4k, great contrast, and lens memory) for under $5000 would sell like hotcakes.
Mike and I will try and demo anything home theater that projects light !
Dave Harper and Mike Garrett like this.

[email protected] JVC RS4500, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreens - 128" diagonal 2.35:1 ST130 & 122" diagonal 16:9 Cima Neve, Denon X8500, Parasound A 52+ amp, Martin Logan Motion series 9.4 speakers, four SVS subs, Panasonic UB820, Oppo 203, PFP M1500 UPS
Craig Peer is online now  
post #103 of 2104 Old 06-19-2017, 09:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,547
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1320 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Don't hold your breath. I doubt JVC is going to design a new chip for a 1080P projector. Especially when there will not be a large improvement in the image by doing so. Have you viewed an E-shift image compared to a native 4K image in the same room. Unless you use a really high grade lens, the difference is not as great as you think.
You are more than likely correct.

However it may give them the opportunity to stay with the .69 chip size. Halve the number of pixels & and double their size. May increase the contrast over their native 4k chip.

Not a 2,073,600 pixel chip but a 4,147,200 pixel chip e-shifted to give 8,294,400 pixels in the screen.

A cheaper lens will suffice. Could be just the ticket to bring true 4K to the screen at a very affordable price. The marketing folks would love it!

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #104 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 01:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 969 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
I have owned two Optoma projectors (H31 and currently HD3300) and they've both been super reliable.

I own the HD 83(00) and installed several others like the HD 33(00) and HD 50, I can happily concur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I haven't owned an Optoma since the H79. It ate lamps by dimming rather quickly. Hopefully this model will be more reliable.

The H79 was a lemon, I guess you can consider yourself lucky it just ate your lamps, I had two cases where lamp ignition had ceased to work, but at least Optoma had the courtesy to provide one of my customers with a special price for the upgrade to the HD 83, since he had hardly used the H79.


The way it looks to me Optoma learned its lessons since the H79 and like other projector manufacturer "newbies" of the past has steadily learned and improved its products. Admittedly, after the H79 I wasn't really enthusiastic recommending Optoma anymore, but gave them a second chance (because in 2011 they had the best Frame Interpolation on the market) - and have not (yet) regretted it since.


P.S.
I still do think they offer one of the best Frame Interpolation ("PureMotion engine") processors built into projectors, but the latest JVC series' CMD has gotten really close (although it just took JVC six years to catch up...)


P.P.S.


I haven't been able to find the UHZ 65 on the Optoma webpages, yet. Perhaps someone can notify us when that happens (and the user manual is available for download)

"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; 06-20-2017 at 02:10 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #105 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 02:31 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
You really think we're going to see 6000 lumen projectors in two years? In the past 10 years we've only gone from about 1000 Lumens to 2000 Lumens, it seems like a stretch to think we'll see a three fold increase in one fifth that time.
You're not wrong on the time frame but you are missing one important key factor.

Stagnation of lamp tech, OLED screens and HDR = WOW when you fundamentally change your display tech you can get huge leaps. So in this case it will not be lamps getting brighter but the move from lamps to LED or LED driven laser.

just my two cents, but I am a fool
UhltraAychDeeForK is offline  
post #106 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 04:37 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: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
Not a 2,073,600 pixel chip but a 4,147,200 pixel chip e-shifted to give 8,294,400 pixels in the screen.

A cheaper lens will suffice. Could be just the ticket to bring true 4K to the screen at a very affordable price. The marketing folks would love it!
Marketing folks might like it, but it's not true 4K if those pixels overlap each other, meaning they can't resolve the full resolution.
stanger89 is offline  
post #107 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 10:40 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
anthonymoody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: ny, ny usa
Posts: 6,958
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Liked: 629
I love this place. The moment I first hear of a new PJ there's already a 4 page thread on it
Craig Peer likes this.

Stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking, nerf herder.
Double True!
anthonymoody is offline  
post #108 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 10:49 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,520
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12544 Post(s)
Liked: 10162
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonymoody View Post
I love this place. The moment I first hear of a new PJ there's already a 4 page thread on it
With less than a week since thread started.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #109 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 11:09 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 Highjinx View Post
Not a 2,073,600 pixel chip but a 4,147,200 pixel chip e-shifted to give 8,294,400 pixels in the screen.

A cheaper lens will suffice.
Cheaper than what? Cheaper than true 4k chips and I could see an argument, but not sure if this assumption about a cheaper lens sufficing with eShift came from the misinformation Dave posted that came from his expert. That expert took some rather strange positions when put together and I expect they would correct their misinformation if they were asked the right questions.

As it stands it looks like Dave's expert claims that all 3 of these require the same lens quality if completely incoherent light is used, since they claimed A and B requirements are the same and B and C requirements are the same, so it follows from simple logic that A and C requirements must be the same, which is nonsense:

A: One 2.7k image.
B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.
C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.

If asked the right questions I think Dave's expert would realize that the spatial resolution lens requirements are not actually the same for A and B.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #110 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 12:41 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: 1723
Optoma UHZ65 - 4K laser ($5,000 MSRP)

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Cheaper than what? Cheaper than true 4k chips and I could see an argument, but not sure if this assumption about a cheaper lens sufficing with eShift came from the misinformation Dave posted that came from his expert. That expert took some rather strange positions when put together and I expect they would correct their misinformation if they were asked the right questions.



As it stands it looks like Dave's expert claims that all 3 of these require the same lens quality if completely incoherent light is used, since they claimed A and B requirements are the same and B and C requirements are the same, so it follows from simple logic that A and C requirements must be the same, which is nonsense:



A: One 2.7k image.

B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.

C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.



If asked the right questions I think Dave's expert would realize that the spatial resolution lens requirements are not actually the same for A and B.



--Darin


The original question and point was that your option C above was a native 4K panel, not two separate 2.7K panels. You just got so far into the weeds and off course that everyone gave up, including me and my "expert".

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-20-2017 at 12:46 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #111 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 01:16 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 Dave Harper View Post


The original question and point was that your option C above was a native 4K panel, not two separate 2.7K panels. You just got so far into the weeds and off course that everyone gave up, including me and my "expert".
Not true. Here is what you said that started the conversation this time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
If this is an eShift projector, which it is, then at any given point in time there's only half the image shining through the lens, unlike true native 4K like the Sonys, which shoot all 8.3 million out of it at the same time.
Then you posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
And the merging of the two sub-frames, where each goes through the lens at different points in time, happens in your eyes and brains, AFTER the lens, so what's your point?
You made it very clear that your position was that if the eShift sub-frames go through the lens at different times then the lens only has to resolve the native resolution.

The disagreement was always between the eShift sub-frames going through the lens at the same time versus at different times and I made that clear even if you hadn't. That is options B and C.

I really thought you would be more of a stand up guy about this. Your posts made it clear that you thought that between option B and C the C option would require more because B only required the same quality of lens as A.

Since the record is here for everybody to see you really should be more honest about what position you took.

If your expert really claimed that A and B require the same lens and so do B and C with completely incoherent light, then your expert was wrong and you both should own up to this misinformation even if the disagreement had been about something else.

We learn a lot when people are wrong, and despite your claims I haven't seen you actually come up with anything I was wrong about. Trying to claim your position was something different that it was is not reasonable.

Interesting how you decided the disagreement had gone on too long to continue just as you and your expert were shown to be wrong.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #112 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 01:26 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Interesting how you decided the disagreement had gone on too long to continue just as you and your expert were shown to be wrong.

--Darin
I think everyone on this forum is just so damn sick of this never ending argument that we don't really care if you need a Hubble size lens to project XPR and will agree to anything just to see it go back to the dedicated thread or die altogether. Especially because the same points are being given over and over again. It's like the groundhog day of lens talk.
Ruined and tomiy1 like this.
longhornsk57 is offline  
post #113 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 01:40 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 longhornsk57 View Post
I think everyone on this forum is just so damn sick of this never ending argument that we don't really care if you need a Hubble size lens to project XPR and will agree to anything just to see it go back to the dedicated thread or die altogether. Especially because the same points are being given over and over again. It's like the groundhog day of lens talk.
You are welcome to ignore them. I won't apologize for trying to correct misinformation from people like Dave on the AVScience forum. I don't think it is a coincidence that he decided to stop posting about it just as his expert was being proven wrong and would have trouble justifying his claims between:

A: One 2.7k image.
B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.
C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #114 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JackB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,825
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1465 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by longhornsk57 View Post
I think everyone on this forum is just so damn sick of this never ending argument that we don't really care if you need a Hubble size lens to project XPR and will agree to anything just to see it go back to the dedicated thread or die altogether. Especially because the same points are being given over and over again. It's like the groundhog day of lens talk.
Ditto! Go someplace else and have your discussion. I'm sick of it too.
Ruined, bobyvee, cardoski and 1 others like this.

Jack
JackB is offline  
post #115 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 02:38 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: 1723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post


The original question and point was that your option C above was a native 4K panel, not two separate 2.7K panels. You just got so far into the weeds and off course that everyone gave up, including me and my "expert".
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Not true. Here is what you said that started the conversation this time:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper
If this is an eShift projector, which it is, then at any given point in time there's only half the image shining through the lens, unlike true native 4K like the Sonys, which shoot all 8.3 million out of it at the same time.
Exactly Darin! In that post you quoted of mine, did I not say "...unlike true native 4K..."??? So where in there am I talking about "two native 2.7K images going through the lens at the same time???"

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp
Then you posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper
And the merging of the two sub-frames, where each goes through the lens at different points in time, happens in your eyes and brains, AFTER the lens, so what's your point?
Exactly....at "different points in time"...not the same time Darin!

I stand by my assertion that the lens only needs to resolve the native 2K or 2.7K resolution, whether the projector is eShift or not. If we are talking NATIVE 4K, then it has to be of higher quality to resolve it.

Who gives a damn about 2 separate 1080p images going through at the same time, since that isn't even a thing and not what I questioned in the first place, just as I said to you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...I really thought you would be more of a stand up guy about this.Your posts made it clear that you thought that between option B and C the C option would require more because B only required the same quality of lens as A...
I am a standup guy, and I take sincere offense that you state otherwise, and I am standing up and walking right out on this ridiculous fiasco you have created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...Since the record is here for everybody to see you really should be more honest about what position you took...
The honesty is all posted above, which shows exactly what I was saying to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...Interesting how you decided the disagreement had gone on too long to continue just as you and your expert were shown to be wrong.

--Darin
I think you shown yourself to be the wrong one, since it clearly shows the position I took in the first post of mine you just quoted. You are the one that brought up both going through together at some point, for some unknown reason, when that isn't even a thing in eShift or native resolutions.

I have been in communication with my "expert" but he has been extremely busy. I was waiting to get full explanation on his points and your questions, although now I am just dropping this altogether and am washing my hands of this. When you yourself design super high end optics for telescopes like he is, then come back to me with your real science. Until then I am done with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
You are welcome to ignore them. I won't apologize for trying to correct misinformation from people like Dave on the AVScience forum. I don't think it is a coincidence that he decided to stop posting about it just as his expert was being proven wrong and would have trouble justifying his claims between:

A: One 2.7k image.
B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.
C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.

--Darin
The only misinformation is you switching the original intent from option C above being about native 4K, to being about two separate 2 or 2.7K imaging panels going through the lens at the same time.

I highlighted it all in RED, in case you missed it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackB View Post
Ditto! Go someplace else and have your discussion. I'm sick of it too.
Yes you are correct. I apologize for derailing this thread. Have a nice day everyone.
Ruined and Highjinx like this.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #116 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 03:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Moderator
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 25,069
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1632 Post(s)
Liked: 2235
Both parties have had their say. Please get back to the discussion on the Optoma. If either party would like to start a separate thread to debate the topic...please do so. Further posts will be deleted going forward.
rboster is offline  
post #117 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 03:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,848
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2636 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
I hope Optoma sacrifices some lumens for contrast optimizations with this pj and uses a quality dynamic contrast implementation.

$5k is an ideal price point for 4K UHD laser!
Dave Harper likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #118 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 04:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,547
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1320 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Marketing folks might like it, but it's not true 4K if those pixels overlap each other, meaning they can't resolve the full resolution.
Would it not be a step or two above 1080p e-shift as is currently available from JVC?

They 'could' have the improved e-shift line with the 4Mpix chip and the native 4k line. From my viewing distance improved e-shift should do just fine!

Edit: Why not have the 4.15Mpixel chip 3840x1080.

First flash = Odd lines (1/3/5/7 etc)
Second flash = Even lines (2/4/6/8 etc)

End Result = True UHD
Deucedriver likes this.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.

Last edited by Highjinx; 06-20-2017 at 06:05 PM.
Highjinx is offline  
post #119 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 04:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,547
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1320 Post(s)
Liked: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Cheaper than what? Cheaper than true 4k chips and I could see an argument, but not sure if this assumption about a cheaper lens sufficing with eShift came from the misinformation Dave posted that came from his expert. That expert took some rather strange positions when put together and I expect they would correct their misinformation if they were asked the right questions.

As it stands it looks like Dave's expert claims that all 3 of these require the same lens quality if completely incoherent light is used, since they claimed A and B requirements are the same and B and C requirements are the same, so it follows from simple logic that A and C requirements must be the same, which is nonsense:

A: One 2.7k image.
B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.
C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.

If asked the right questions I think Dave's expert would realize that the spatial resolution lens requirements are not actually the same for A and B.

--Darin
Cheaper than a lens that will be required to resolve a pixel that was half the size.

.69 4.15Mpixel chip pixel size 2X
.69 8.30Mpixel chip pixel size X

Add to that a moving image and I would think the larger pixel chip could get by with a less costly lens than the smaller pixel chip.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #120 of 2104 Old 06-20-2017, 04:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,848
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2636 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
Would it not be a step or two above 1080p e-shift as is currently available from JVC?

They 'could' have the improved e-shift line with the 4Mpix chip and the native 4k line. From my viewing distance improved e-shift should do just fine!
Not to mention the panel alignment errors in Ekki's pictures of the Acer V9800 XPR vs the Sony VW665ES native 4k, the Acer V9800 actually had less artifacts and crisper picture in the 2nd comparison due to panel alignment artifacts on the native 4k Sony. So DLP XPR definitely can beat native 4k LCD/LCOS on certain material - and vice versa of course. They are pretty much on par with each other sharpness wise, so I am okay with DLP being called 4K UHD even if its not native. JVC/Epson eShift is not really comparable as they both start at a much lower native resolution and on top of that also have the panel alignment issues.

While it is true the native is not 4k on the DLPs, by eliminating the panel alignment errors and combining that with a 3K native w/ pixelshifting, it is essentially the approximate video resolution equivalent of LCD/LCOS native 4k due to those techs panel alignment negatively impacting resolution.

The only 4K UHD tech that's going to be definitively sharper across the board than DLP XPR in all cases is single chip DLP native 4k, which isn't going to be a thing for consumers in the near future... though we could see an 0.95" native 4k DMD at some point.
Highjinx and longhornsk57 like this.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-20-2017 at 04:36 PM.
Ruined 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