Originally Posted by Dave Harper
The issue is, as had been noted before, each pixel is not 100% addressable on its own. You can see the very slight effect of this when you put up a single pixel checkerboard pattern. Each alternating pixel isn’t distinctly black or white as it should be. Some are white, some are black, some are light grey, some are dark grey. But when you step back and go sit down and watch it, it’s virtually indistinguishable from a native 4K display with fully addressable pixels.
Here is where I personally like it better on the LK970 (and to some extent the UHZ65) over even so called “native 4K” projectors like the Sony SXRDs whereas with the XPR DLP, the image is razor sharp especially if it has a lens as good as the LK970/990 has and being single chip there is no convergence or misalignment issues that plague 3 chippers like the Sonys, Epsons and JVCs of the world. So in the end, an XPR DLP with a great lens like the LK970 actually looks more “4K” to me than the so called “native 4K” machines do, and yes it’s very noticeable in content as well!
The LK970s I’ve had here have an image that is SO much more sharp, deep, detailed and almost 3D than ANY other SXRD, LCoS or LCD I’ve had through here, if that means anything or helps anyone decide if they want to get an XPR “pixel shifter” true 4K DLP (a good lens with no CA is required of course) or a native 4K projector of another technology.
This is the bottom line that I've hammered home for a while - while the panel in the 0.66 single chip XPR DLPs is not native 4K, it meets the CTA 4K UHD requirements & is capable of looking as sharp with real world content (and frankly less artifacts) than Native 4K LCOS panels that have unavoidable panel alignment issues. It puts the DLP manufs in a tricky spot since it looks just as good as native 4K LCOS but technically isn't a native 4K panel, and the shifting final result is head and shoulder far superior than any 1080p LCOS shifters. Speaking of which, JVC recently did some marketing claiming the NX9 does "8K" when: A) it only has ~6K of pixels onscreen, not 8K; B) it doesn't accept 8k; C) users report 8K mode looks worse than native 4K - seems far more misleading than any claims DLP manufs are making IMO. The BenQ product page is actually 100% upfront on how the HT9060 gets to 4K with pixel diagrams and everything.
, if TI at some points releases a consumer native 4K DMD, such as an 0.95" native 4K, that will be even sharper
(and noticeably so) than the 0.66 XPR. So while the 0.66 XPR 4K UHD looks comparable to native 4K LCOS in sharpness, if TI puts out a consumer native 4K DMD that will be far sharper than anything else available today for consumers - as you know the 1.38" native 4K pro DMD is already out but too expensive to use with any consumer stuff.