EPSON 5040 vs Sony VPLHW45ES - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 65Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 170 Old 09-12-2016, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jasonsong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbandit View Post
Here is a pic of my theater room 18'X22' I think the screen would be two close, I would lose that two feet.
Perfect setup for a bigger AT screen there.
jasonsong is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 170 Old 11-06-2016, 01:34 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by southpaw85 View Post
I own the 45es. It has great black levels. It has unbeatable lag time for gaming as far a projectors are concerned. There is no screen door effect (The space between pixels is nearly non-existent). It is a great projector and every review says the same thing. I'm sure the 5040 is great as well, but you'll pay a $1,000 more for a gimmick (faux-k), and an auto iris. I'm very confident in my estimate that the native contrast for the 5040 is at or below the 45es, which can do over 7,000:1 in most modes, and 9,000:1 in gaming mode.

I don't care about HDR at all. Projectors are a niche market, and the people in that niche who demand HDR are the niche of the niche market.

The choice is yours, obviously, but I think you get so much more in real terms and comparative terms with 45es.

Epson has placed them selves in a weird part of the market with their pricing. Because once you're thinking of spending 3k, why not make the jump to the king, a JVC? Or, why not save a $1,000 and get an equally good (IMO) Sony?
South paw can I ask you a few question on the Sony pr0jector being that young even one?
Jabril77 is offline  
post #63 of 170 Old 11-06-2016, 01:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabril77 View Post
South paw can I ask you a few question on the Sony pr0jector being that young even one?
Bring that you have one I meant.
Jabril77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 170 Old 11-06-2016, 01:39 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by *UFO* View Post
As tested on cine4home, the 5040ub has a slightly better native contrast ratio than the hw45, however it will be imperceivable to anything but a light meter. The 5040ub however is able to achieve an iris assisted contrast ratio of about 30k:1 which may sound impressive, but remember any white highlights will be very dim when achieving that level of on/off contrast with an iris. My pick would no doubt be the hw45. Why? Because for one, its a Sony. You just can't beat the picture processing and out-of-the-box color accuracy. Second, I have never been comfortable with LCD projectors since all the units I have ever owned (Epsons) developed burned/discolored polarizers over time. Not sure why this is not a more discussed issue as it is still happening. The SXRD panels are much more resistant to heat and I have only seen early generation SXRD light engines fail from this. Then there is brightness. On paper it looks as though the Epson is brighter, however when calibrated the Sony is much, much brighter. The Epson sits at around 500 calibrated lumens, while the Sony has no problem putting out over 1200 calibrated lumens. The Epson also looks cheap with its white case (personal preference).

As far as black level goes, I have owned JVC projectors, and yes, they produce unbeatable black levels. However, there is a catch. There always is. For as long as I can remember JVC's have had a major problem with gray scale calibration and shadow details. This is ultimately the reason I got rid of mine. If you think the hw45 has poor black level, you need room treatment. The hw45 is capable of a deep enough black level that it doesnt matter anymore. By that I mean, even the darkest space movie will be convincing. Of course you will need a blacked out room, with black carpet, and black furniture, to take advantage of it.
UFO my room is small I want to get a Sony but was wondering could I get a screen possibly 120 diagonal if I mount it on the ceiling 9 to 11 feet from screen ?
Jabril77 is offline  
post #65 of 170 Old 11-06-2016, 04:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,340
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3781 Post(s)
Liked: 2994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabril77 View Post
UFO my room is small I want to get a Sony but was wondering could I get a screen possibly 120 diagonal if I mount it on the ceiling 9 to 11 feet from screen ?
I just answered this in your other thread.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #66 of 170 Old 11-07-2016, 08:29 AM
Member
 
southpaw85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabril77 View Post
South paw can I ask you a few question on the Sony pr0jector being that young even one?
Ask away.

southpaw85 is offline  
post #67 of 170 Old 11-07-2016, 09:48 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
How would the benq 4050 compare to the Sony 45e
Jabril77 is offline  
post #68 of 170 Old 11-11-2016, 08:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 61
This is fatiguing. I was slowly settling on the 5040/6040 line, and you all put up some legit reasons not to bother. I always liked the Sony 45ES better due to price and quality, but I'd never heard of the LCD degradation before. Are there any DLPs that can hold a candle to the Sony HW45ES? Every time you go into a higher price point the bulb life gets shorter and more expensive at the same time.
Morames is offline  
post #69 of 170 Old 11-11-2016, 03:59 PM
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,750
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2166 Post(s)
Liked: 1150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morames View Post
This is fatiguing. I was slowly settling on the 5040/6040 line, and you all put up some legit reasons not to bother. I always liked the Sony 45ES better due to price and quality, but I'd never heard of the LCD degradation before. Are there any DLPs that can hold a candle to the Sony HW45ES? Every time you go into a higher price point the bulb life gets shorter and more expensive at the same time.
I'm sure someone will chime in with some obscure model I've never heard of that is the exception but generally DLP is going to have at best roughly half the contrast of the 45ES.

Last edited by AMartin56; 11-11-2016 at 04:08 PM.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #70 of 170 Old 11-13-2016, 02:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morames View Post
This is fatiguing. I was slowly settling on the 5040/6040 line, and you all put up some legit reasons not to bother. I always liked the Sony 45ES better due to price and quality, but I'd never heard of the LCD degradation before. Are there any DLPs that can hold a candle to the Sony HW45ES? Every time you go into a higher price point the bulb life gets shorter and more expensive at the same time.
The $500 bulbs really puts me off as well, but I don't think there is a better projector than the 45ES in less than perfect rooms where a dynamic iris wouldn't be a benefit for movie watching. For sports or 3D, something brighter like the Epson 3700 or 5040UB would probably be better though.

If you have a batcave and will be watching Blu-ray movies, the 45ES is probably the best choice under 2K for sure.
TheronB is offline  
post #71 of 170 Old 11-14-2016, 05:18 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I did see a review yesterday for the hw40es that was giving realistic contrast ratings and while the 5030 was marginally higher, the BenQ HT2050 was less than half. So this gives me hope in my choice.

The only projector I've ever seen was the LG PF1500 and it really put me off. The colors were so washed out and the contrast was tear inducing. I had started giving up hope till I saw the hw45es playing on a white screen...there IS contrast in the world.
Morames is offline  
post #72 of 170 Old 11-15-2016, 05:55 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
I was in the same boat. Wanted either a 5040 epson or sony E45. In the end i decided on the Sony. First it saved me $1k, which i used to get better speakers for my new theater room. Second the 5040 isnt a true 4k. I think in a few more years we will have true 4k projectors for under $3k. The Epson likely has a better picture and it should at the higher price pojnt but i am happy with my sony at 1080p. It looks every bit as good as my 65 inch 4k sony in the living room and i love my sony 4k tv if that helps. Here is a screen shot on my projector with the sony e45. Looks good to me:-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image_1479261183249.jpg
Views:	991
Size:	120.2 KB
ID:	1772201  
kwok lau likes this.
46stang is offline  
post #73 of 170 Old 11-16-2016, 07:31 AM
Senior Member
 
avsBuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 88
I'm deciding between the same two projectors and leaning towards Epson 5040. Projector will be used in a dedicated movie/music room - and as such, majority of content will be movies. I would really like to be able to watch movies in the 2.35 aspect ratio (Cinemascope) but also have the ability to switch to 16:9 content such as animated feature films, big TV events etc. With powered lens, Epson will allow me to create two presets: 2.35 aspect ratio, where top and bottom black bars are overshooting the screen and a 16:9 ratio, with projector putting its entire image on the screen with left and right sides completely black. Sony only has manual lens controls, making shifting between two aspect ratios impractical once projector is mounted.

I've had the opportunity to compare Sony HW40ES, HW45ES and Epson 5040 at the same dealer. HW40ES was on an incredible clearance price, but after seeing HW45ES, I couldn't go with HW40ES even at a much lower price. Epson 5040 has slightly better blacks than HW45ES, but otherwise both project a great picture. Again, for 2.35 content Epson has another slight advantage is that being a 2k projector, it puts out a higher resolution within the usable area of Cinemascope picture, whereas Sony would show a crop of 1080p - so usable resolution probably closer to 800p.

I completely discounted Epson's 5040 HDR feature because its chipset is under powered to a point where it cannot accept most common 4k HDR and 1080p HDR signals. However, I view its faux-4k output as a benefit for 1080p content because of a sharper image since it allows to upscale 1080p to its native resolution.

I might still change my mind towards Sony HW45ES, but for now I'm leaning towards paying $1k extra for the Epson 5040.

Epson 5040
Pros: Powered lens with memory presets allowing 2.35 to 16:9 switch, 2k resolution, powered lens cap, lower priced OEM bulb.
Cons: Higher price, white casing, apparently fan is nosier than Sony even in low bulb mode, pricier OEM 3D glasses, 2 year warranty.

Sony HW45ES
Pros: Sony color, cheaper by $1k, low fan noise, beautiful black case, cheaper OEM 3D glasses, 3 year warranty.
Cons: Manual lens, lower resolution than Epson, slightly worse black levels and no Iris (still a great picture), pricier bulb (but how many times will I change it?).

Last edited by avsBuddy; 11-16-2016 at 09:32 AM.
avsBuddy is offline  
post #74 of 170 Old 01-20-2017, 01:43 PM
Member
 
JOMV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsBuddy View Post
I'm deciding between the same two projectors and leaning towards Epson 5040. Projector will be used in a dedicated movie/music room - and as such, majority of content will be movies. I would really like to be able to watch movies in the 2.35 aspect ratio (Cinemascope) but also have the ability to switch to 16:9 content such as animated feature films, big TV events etc. With powered lens, Epson will allow me to create two presets: 2.35 aspect ratio, where top and bottom black bars are overshooting the screen and a 16:9 ratio, with projector putting its entire image on the screen with left and right sides completely black. Sony only has manual lens controls, making shifting between two aspect ratios impractical once projector is mounted.

I've had the opportunity to compare Sony HW40ES, HW45ES and Epson 5040 at the same dealer. HW40ES was on an incredible clearance price, but after seeing HW45ES, I couldn't go with HW40ES even at a much lower price. Epson 5040 has slightly better blacks than HW45ES, but otherwise both project a great picture. Again, for 2.35 content Epson has another slight advantage is that being a 2k projector, it puts out a higher resolution within the usable area of Cinemascope picture, whereas Sony would show a crop of 1080p - so usable resolution probably closer to 800p.

I completely discounted Epson's 5040 HDR feature because its chipset is under powered to a point where it cannot accept most common 4k HDR and 1080p HDR signals. However, I view its faux-4k output as a benefit for 1080p content because of a sharper image since it allows to upscale 1080p to its native resolution.

I might still change my mind towards Sony HW45ES, but for now I'm leaning towards paying $1k extra for the Epson 5040.

Epson 5040
Pros: Powered lens with memory presets allowing 2.35 to 16:9 switch, 2k resolution, powered lens cap, lower priced OEM bulb.
Cons: Higher price, white casing, apparently fan is nosier than Sony even in low bulb mode, pricier OEM 3D glasses, 2 year warranty.

Sony HW45ES
Pros: Sony color, cheaper by $1k, low fan noise, beautiful black case, cheaper OEM 3D glasses, 3 year warranty.
Cons: Manual lens, lower resolution than Epson, slightly worse black levels and no Iris (still a great picture), pricier bulb (but how many times will I change it?).
So, which one did you decide to buy and what is your feedback? I'm still debating over these two PJ's.
JOMV is offline  
post #75 of 170 Old 01-20-2017, 01:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ladeback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 2,550
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1377 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Send a message via MSN to Ladeback
I haven't purchased one yet, but am leaning towards the one of the Epson's. Paying for the holidays and medical bills has gotten in the way. I also am still finishing the HT. I hope to get one this summer, I am leaning towards the Epson, because it appears my PS3 is shoot and I will want to upgrade to the new Xbox Scorpio that will be out in the fall.
Ladeback is online now  
post #76 of 170 Old 01-25-2017, 08:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
Actually, the pixel shifting feature does not improve resolution. The resolution is determined by the number of pixels and the size of the pixels. There are only 1080P pixels in the 5040 LCD and the size is fixed based on the size of the panel and the number of pixels. It doesn't matter if the pixels are shifted and projected over the top of themselves, it is still only 1080P resolution.
Actually it does improve resolution because you are throwing more pixels. In the case of the 5040 you are throwing 4 million pixels vs 2 million that 1080p produces. A "true" 4k image has 8 million pixels. Also, pixel shifting does not project over the top of the themselves entirely. They shift the pixels up and to the right. There is some overlap, but there is pixel being put on top of the area that would normally be the mask area.

Quote:
If there were actually 2160P pixels on the LCD panel then the pixel size would be smaller and the resolution would actually be improved.
The size of the pixel isn't a standard nor is the size of the mask area. Do not conflate size of with number of.

Quote:
Pixel shifting will help with SDE. Normally Epson LCD panels exhibit a lot of SDE. But Pixel shifting helps to smear the pixel outlines thereby reducing SDE.
True because as I said the shifted pixels are in the mask area. The article below explains it in the comparing picture section.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/comp...arison-review/

Quote:
Since the Sony 45ES has identical resolution compared to the 5040, and since the Sony 45ES doesn't have a problem with SDE due to the LCoS technology, pixel shifting really isn't going to have a benefit over the Sony. The only thing that the Epson has over the Sony is that it can take 4K input and HDR input to start from a cleaner and better source than the Sony.
Demonstratively false if you have read any reviews. Check out the one below. They have picture comparisons of 1080p and the 4k enhanced mode. There is clearly more detail presented in 4k enhanced.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/epso...jector-review/

Quote:
Your comment about the Epson being a 2K projector is false. It is still only 1K. You can't turn a 1K image with pixels of fixed size into a 2K image with pixels that are half the size, by projecting the image twice. Resolution doesn't change. All that changes is a smoothing of the pixel outline boundaries because they are smeared.
Incorrect. See the rest of my comments.

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||
Despoiler is offline  
post #77 of 170 Old 01-25-2017, 11:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
You are just plain wrong.

There is no enhancement to resolution with pixel shifting. Make all the claims you want but the physics do not support you.

There are not twice as many pixels because there are always the same number of pixels in any one frame. Also the pixels are all the exact same size. Resolution is indeed determined by the number (and therefore the size of the pixels in a defined area). Higher res screens have smaller pixels because there are more in a fixed area.

Pixel shifting is a processing enhancement only. It does nothing to enhance true resolution. Reality Creation is also an image enhancement process, yet like pixel shifting it never improves the display resolution of the image above 1080p.

You need to really learn what the term resolution means. If you were to carry your idea of resolution to an extreme it would mean that you could make the image size 1 big pixel and then flash it 1 million times a second and match the resolution of a one million pixel display. That is complete bull crap.

Now if you made the 1 pixel, one millionth the size of the screen and moved it one pixel at a time, 1 million times to fill the screen you might have something close to the 1 million pixel resolution screen. But you can't have 1 pixel the size of the entire screen flash multiple times with a shifted image and obtain the same thing. The resolution is fixed by the LCD panel and it cannot be changed just because you flash it with slightly shifted images. All this does is smooth the image to the eye but it doesn't actually improve resolution.

Do all the screen grabs you want. You will only have 1080p resolution because that is all that the LCD panel can display. That is a fact.
You've reiterated your argument with the addition of strawman story telling. Well done. I understand what resolution is. It's painfully clear that you don't understand pixel shifting at all. The source is 4k, 8 million pixels. In regards to the 5040, the first pixel state is 2 million of the 8 million source pixels. The second pixel state is a different 2 million of the 8 million source pixels. You are getting 4 million pixels worth of source data. Is 4 million pixels 1080p? I thought you understood resolution.

You can ignore the screen grabs that show a better, more detailed image if you like. It's an objective reality. Technology and evidence aside, your argument that pixel shifting 4k projectors are no better than 1080p projectors entirely ignores the fact that several manufacturers are doing it. Do you really think all of these companies are producing products that have zero additional benefit?

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||
Despoiler is offline  
post #78 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 07:32 AM
Member
 
m-fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
By your logic, 1080i is only 540 lines, a single chip DLP can only produce single color images, and an old scanning CRT is only a single pixel display. A shifting projector is capable of taking an 8 million pixel frame and displaying 4 million pixels. No matter what tech is behind it, if you look at a shifting projector next to a 1080p projector, the difference is clearly visible from close distances. The assertion that the faux k image is no better than 1080p is absurd.
Marc Yu, Despoiler and jladner like this.
m-fine is offline  
post #79 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 10:44 AM
Member
 
m-fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
Not the same thing at all. With 1080i there are still 1080 discrete sampled lines of resolution. It is just that every other line is displayed on alternating frames.

In the case of the Epson, there are 2 million discrete sampled points projected and then another 2 million discrete points projected directly on top of on another. Only the image is shifted in alternate frames.

To be the equivalent of 1080i, the Epson would have to sample with 4 million discrete pixels, display every other pixel on alternating frames. It doesn't do this and it is not the same. Projecting two small pixel elements side by side on alternating frames is not the same as projecting two large pixel elements on top of each other every alternating frame.

It is difficult to explain but it has to do with the size on the sampling element and the way it is displayed.

I used the example of a 1 large pixel projector as a example.

If the projector, had 1 pixel that was 1/2,000,00 the size of the screen and it sampled 1/2,000,00th of the image, then rapidly displayed it, moved one one pixel and displayed it again, repeating for the entire image, then you would have roughly the equivalent of a 1080p display.

However, if it worked like the Epson, the pixel would be the size of the entire screen, not 1/2,000,000 of the image. Then the picture would shift 1/2,000,000 the size of the pixel, be sampled by the one large pixel and displayed directly over the top of the original one pixel image, this would be repeated 2,000,000 times. In this case the, one pixel element would be a blurry mess because the sample size is too large. It doesn't matter how many times you sample the image and repeatedly display the result on top of each other. It will never improve the resolution.

There is a big difference between sampling 1/2,000,000 of the picture and sampling 1/4,000,000 of the picture. In the latter case, the pixel element is much smaller, and resolution is much improved for the final image.

All the Epson is doing is displaying two 1080p images on top of one another, dithering back and forth between the two to create the illusion of a smoother image. However it never increases resolution.

Look, I know that pixel shifting makes the final image look better. So do many other image processing techniques. All I am saying that technically it doesn't improve resolution. It is simply an image processing technique similar to dithering to get a smoother image.
Your understanding of how pixel shifting works is not correct, but I can see there is no way anyone will change your mind.
m-fine is offline  
post #80 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 12:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregCh View Post
I could make the same comment back to you.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I base my opinion on facts that I have received from JVC engineers and how they implemented pixel shifting in their projectors. I assume Epson is using the same design. If you know different then please enlighten me.

It really doesn't matter because pixel shifting will be a thing of the past in a few years when native 4K projectors are reduced in cost.
JVC engineers? Facts? LOL Here is the technical explanation of e-shift from JVC. Bold by me.

http://usjvc.com/faq/index.php?actio...268&artlang=en

Quote:
JVC e-shift was originally designed as a unique way to project images with 3840x2160 (4K) precision from a 2D HD video source. The latest projectors models now utilize the e-shift process to also project native 4K video sources. For this particular question we'll focus on the basic elements of e-shift as it relates to up-scaling 2K HD video sources. Please find the FAQ that explains of how e-shift functions to project native 4K video sources.

The e-Shift process does not simply double up the same 1920x1080 frame to create a 3840x2160 frame. It’s got impressive sophistication and intelligence to the upscaling. The process involves evaluating each 1920x1080 video frame using a correlation detection algorithm and then creating a new 3840x2160 video frame internally. During this process it enhances edge transitions, increases contrast in detailed areas, and nearly eliminates aliasing and stair-stepping. This enhanced 3840x2160 frame is then separated into two new 1920x1080 sub-frames, which are then alternately projected to the screen at 120Hz. The e-Shift device shifts the two unique sub-frames ½ pixel diagonally from each and the result is an image that has 3840x2160 (4K) precision. JVC e-Shift technology was co-developed with NHK Engineering Services. See the diagram below.

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||

Last edited by Despoiler; 01-27-2017 at 12:42 PM.
Despoiler is offline  
post #81 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 01:00 PM
Senior Member
 
BMac1203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NoVA
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despoiler View Post
This enhanced 3840x2160 frame is then separated into two new 1920x1080 sub-frames, which are then alternately projected to the screen at 120Hz. The e-Shift device shifts the two unique sub-frames ½ pixel diagonally from each and the result is an image that has 3840x2160 (4K) precision.
This would still mean that the projector was only ever displaying 1080p at any single moment in time, thus not increasing the actual resolution, no?

It says the image has "4k precision" (i.e. looks better).

I assume this gives a "perceived" increase in resolution, but it's still only a 1080p image.

That being said, I'm looking at HW45ES vs 6040UB and coming up stuck.

Media Room: JVC DLA-RS420, ST 125" 2.35:1 screen, Denon AVR-x4300h, Outlaw Audio 7125, Sony UBP-X800, Klipsch RF-7ii fronts, RC-64ii center, RS-62ii x2 surrounds && RS-41ii x2 backs, HSU VTF-3 MK5 x2 subs, Micca M-8C heights, ATV 4K

Living Room: 65" Sony XBR65X900E; Sonos Playbase
BMac1203 is offline  
post #82 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMac1203 View Post
This would still mean that the projector was only ever displaying 1080p at any single moment in time, thus not increasing the actual resolution, no?

It says the image has "4k precision" (i.e. looks better).

I assume this gives a "perceived" increase in resolution, but it's still only a 1080p image.

That being said, I'm looking at HW45ES vs 6040UB and coming up stuck.
The time domain e-shifting operates in means your eyes/brain sees it as one frame. Same concept being used as interlacing. The below link shows visually what you see. Notice how the first 1080p image has big gaps between pixels. The last is almost a completely solid and clearly more detailed.

http://alienryderflex.com/e-shift/

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||
Despoiler is offline  
post #83 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 01:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1923 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despoiler View Post
The time domain e-shifting operates in means your eyes/brain sees it as one frame. Same concept being used as interlacing. The below link shows visually what you see. Notice how the first 1080p image has big gaps between pixels. The last is almost a completely solid and clearly more detailed.

http://alienryderflex.com/e-shift/
There is a good explanation of the e-shift implementation by Rod Sterling, Chief Engineer of JVC in the latest Home Theater Geeks podcast. After having seen his presentation, I agree that there is some enhancement of resolution even though the pixel structures overlap for the two 1080p projected images.

His modulation, resolution graph, won me over, because it explains the temporal aspect of resolution where the 1080p pixels overlap.

I was equating this to dithering two 1080p images with a slightly shifted reference for sampling. It is in fact, a dithering process but the pixel structure is also shifted, not just the image. This is different than I was originally told by another JVC engineer.

This still isn't as high resolution as a native display but it is a real enhancement of resolution over 1080p.
GregCh is online now  
post #84 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 02:43 PM
Member
 
m-fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
It is actually a bigger improvement on the LCD Epson because they have a larger interpixel gap (screen door) so there is less pixel overlap and the screen door is dramatically reduced.
Marc Yu and Despoiler like this.
m-fine is offline  
post #85 of 170 Old 01-27-2017, 02:57 PM
Member
 
m-fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMac1203 View Post
This would still mean that the projector was only ever displaying 1080p at any single moment in time, thus not increasing the actual resolution, no?

It says the image has "4k precision" (i.e. looks better).

I assume this gives a "perceived" increase in resolution, but it's still only a 1080p image.

That being said, I'm looking at HW45ES vs 6040UB and coming up stuck.
It is like a single chip DLP that can only display one color at a time, but it happens so fast it looks like one blended image. There really are 4 million distinct pixels shown, with partial overlap. That is certainly not as good as 8 million pixels with no overlap, but it looks darn good from any reasonable distance.

That said, after spending some time with a 5040, I decided to wait another gen for them (and everyone else) to sort out HDR and WCG a little better. The Sony and the Epson each have their benefits and both throw a darn good image. For my purposes and the big price difference, the Sony was the winner for now, and the new JVC 420 was my second choice (best by far but more $$$ and I want to upgrade other areas before I am 4K ready) and the Epson 5040 was third. If you have 6040 money in the budget, look into the new JVC's that are just hitting the street. Other than price and an untested new game mode it beats the Sony hands down. It is also a step up from the 5040/6040 and compared to the 6040 pricing it is a no brainer to me.
m-fine is offline  
post #86 of 170 Old 01-28-2017, 02:06 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 14
The Epson is also so damn ugly in design and available colours
Marc Yu likes this.
birdlover57 is offline  
post #87 of 170 Old 02-20-2017, 11:44 AM
Member
 
broomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOMV View Post
So, which one did you decide to buy and what is your feedback? I'm still debating over these two PJ's.
How about you JOMV, did you decide on one? I, like many others, am considering these 2 projectors as well. I just received a Dark Energy Abyss 0.9 screen and was initially set to purchase the 5040 primary because of the brighter lumen output. I'm concerned that too low of lumen output will make that screen lose some "pop". However, this comparison on the 2 on Projector Reviews has me thinking otherwise because of the commentary on lumen output after calibration.
broomet is offline  
post #88 of 170 Old 02-20-2017, 12:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by broomet View Post
How about you JOMV, did you decide on one? I, like many others, am considering these 2 projectors as well. I just received a Dark Energy Abyss 0.9 screen and was initially set to purchase the 5040 primary because of the brighter lumen output. I'm concerned that too low of lumen output will make that screen lose some "pop". However, this comparison on the 2 on Projector Reviews has me thinking otherwise because of the commentary on lumen output after calibration.
That's what I've read also. Calibrated lumen output is actually higher on the Sony despite the fact that it's lamp spec is lower.

BTW I went with the 45ES. I got it setup this last weekend. Boy what a gorgeous picture it throws. Sony color is stunning. I don't doubt the Epson would have thrown a sharper picture, but when I go 4k I want something that gives me the full 8 million pixels that 4k is supposed to be.

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||
Despoiler is offline  
post #89 of 170 Old 02-20-2017, 12:56 PM
Member
 
Marc Yu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Went to the Best Buy Magnolia store this past weekend and saw both an Epson PLHC 5040UB and a Sony VPL-VW365ES in action. Compared the two pictures, and the colors on both were quite impressive - noticeably better than my LG PF1500. I'd pick the Sony over the Epson because the SDE was not as pronounced with the LCoS than straight LCD. But it was still there - even the wife mentioned the lack of clarity and sharpness compared to our LED-DLP PF1500. Went home and we watched 10 straight hours of movies on the LG.

Caveat - for the source we only watched Blu-ray (non-4k) on the 2 projectors we saw.

Last edited by Marc Yu; 02-20-2017 at 01:00 PM.
Marc Yu is offline  
post #90 of 170 Old 02-20-2017, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Despoiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Yu View Post
Went to the Best Buy Magnolia store this past weekend and saw both an Epson PLHC 5040UB and a Sony VPL-VW365ES in action. Compared the two pictures, and the colors on both were quite impressive - noticeably better than my LG PF1500. I'd pick the Sony over the Epson because the SDE was not as pronounced with the LCoS than straight LCD. But it was still there - even the wife mentioned the lack of clarity and sharpness compared to our LED-DLP PF1500. Went home and we watched 10 straight hours of movies on the LG.

Caveat - for the source we only watched Blu-ray (non-4k) on the 2 projectors we saw.
SDE is a good point. I cannot comment on the 5040. My 45ES's panel convergence was absolutely perfect after I adjusted it. Very well done on Sony's part.

|| Samsung N8000 || Oppo Digital UDP-203 || Chromecast Ultra ||

|| Quad S-2 || Pass ACA Amp ||
Despoiler is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $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