Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available - Page 12 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1730Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #331 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 12:10 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 RLBURNSIDE View Post
From the Gt1080Darbee (DLP):
I should have said that after calibration higher on/off CR can be achieved by lowering the lumens with an iris.

If the native color balance is far from D65 then using a native color mode is likely to give higher on/off CR than a calibrated to D65 mode. A color filter can be used to try to get close to D65 without hurting on/off CR too much, but that reduces lumens too.

Lower or higher lumens from just a lamp mode change should have little to no effect on on/off CR.

It would be fair to say that the reason for the higher or lower lumens needs to be known before it can be determined whether this should affect on/off CR.

The old Sharp and Marantz single chip DLP projectors could go to in the ballpark of 3x the on/off CR by closing down 2 irises, but with a resulting lumens loss to around 1/3.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #332 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nexgen76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,143
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 732 Post(s)
Liked: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number05 View Post
I realize that. My inquiry with BB Canada (at the store level) was if they would be stocking this unit at all. The guys had no idea.

Just curious to know if somebody else had better information from BB.
Good lucky getting any knowledgeable info from BB. Majority of the time they won't know anything until it shows up at the store. Hell my BB just got Epson 5040 installed in their demo room & it's almost been out a year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

JVC NX5 Panasonic UB820 PC Madvr
Sliver Ticket 120' Cinema white screen
Aggressive 1299 L/C/R/, Volt 10XL x 2 surround, MKII Atmos Modules x 4(Jav's build)
Pioneer Elite SC-LX801 Acurus A125x5
Ported Primate SI 18" HST subs x 2(DIY) V.B.S.S.x 4(MBM)
Nexgen76 is offline  
post #333 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
T-Bone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,263
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexgen76 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number05 View Post
I realize that. My inquiry with BB Canada (at the store level) was if they would be stocking this unit at all. The guys had no idea.

Just curious to know if somebody else had better information from BB.
Good lucky getting any knowledgeable info from BB. Majority of the time they won't know anything until it shows up at the store. Hell my BB just got Epson 5040 installed in their demo room & it's almost been out a year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Went to BB last weekend. They had a Sony 4K projector on display. Powered on... could not demo it. Apparently it had not been properly connected to their wall if Receivers, etc.

Ugh.

-T
T-Bone is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #334 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 02:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,393
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1056 Post(s)
Liked: 566
Regarding the ProjectorCentral.com review of the Optoma 65. I note that they said watching 1080p content on the Optoma 65 was no better than watching on an 1080p projector. I do not find that the case with my 60" 4K LG TV. 1080p content looks much better to me based on the smaller pixel size. So my point is, since I had the 5040UB and found that 3D on that thing was awful, and 1080p was no better than my 1080p projector, and I have watched a 4K movie on it, and thought it was really not worth the extra cost--I decided to return the 5040UB and stick with a good 1080p 3D projector. Since there isn't much 4K content, and I will watch 1080p 3D over watching the same as a 4K 2D movie any day, then I think I will stick with my 1080p projector until 4K is the standard resolution of my cable service--yawn, maybe 10 years from now, but not soon, just too much infrastructure cost involved to change cable to 4K and the bandwidth problem is beyond any capability for years to come.
3DBob is offline  
post #335 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 03:02 PM
Member
 
BushMackel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
Went to BB last weekend. They had a Sony 4K projector on display. Powered on... could not demo it. Apparently it had not been properly connected to their wall if Receivers, etc.

Ugh.

-T
Haha that happened to me at BBY when I wanted to check out their Epson 5040ub. It was ceiling mounted and connected yet when I check it out, no signal. So I spent the next 2 weeks visiting that location on 3 separate instances hoping it would be working as everytime I checked they just said, "Yeah... It doesn't look like it's working".

So on the last time I left with it not working, I tweeted BBY voicing my disappointment and taking a pic of the sign below the projector that said something to the effect of "Just get Best Buy to install your projector to ensure everything works right!" Then they asked me if I had talked to a manager blah blah blah

TL DR: I got somebody in Mobile who who actually cared about the store to help in Home Theater and me and her fixed the wires and input on the projector to get it working after climbing on a ladder and her given me permission to mess with the wires behind the receiver haha
BushMackel is offline  
post #336 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 03:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,377
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Regarding the ProjectorCentral.com review of the Optoma 65. I note that they said watching 1080p content on the Optoma 65 was no better than watching on an 1080p projector. I do not find that the case with my 60" 4K LG TV. 1080p content looks much better to me based on the smaller pixel size.
Although I could have told that myself, another poster reminded me to rely on the upscaling of a UHD player like the Oppo UDP-203 for better results. Unless my FullHD Blu-rays don't look noticably better on my 2.35:1 screen in that combination (and - of course - the upscaled UHD resolution needs to be frame interpolated, something the UHD 65 supposedly does excellently), I'd be having second thoughts.

"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
Frank714 is offline  
post #337 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 03:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available

I don't want to sound like a jerk-- and for the record I own a DLP and love it-- but does anyone realistically expect the contrast on either of these to measure up to price competitive 3LCD and LCoS models? This is a rhetorical question as I see contrast is a hot topic of recent debate.

I feel like in the areas of native contrast and black level DLP has long since ceded ground to the competition. I'd still love to see a DLP with an auto iris that could enhance dynamic contrast but I'm not expecting DLP to gain ground with native contrast on this new chip. I'm more concerned that they don't LOSE ground as some impressions of the high end BenQ/Acer seem to indicate.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Last edited by sage11x; 06-12-2017 at 03:33 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #338 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 03:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Mr Ian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin/Cedar Park, Texas
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Does anyone know date when they truly go on sale? Is AVS Forum gonna be selling them?


Ian B
Mr Ian B is offline  
post #339 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 03:54 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 sage11x View Post
I feel like in the areas of native contrast and black level DLP has long since ceded ground to the competition.
Which is one reason these products are interesting in the sense that they have better resolution than 1080p DLP projectors (double the number of mirrors plus eShift), but doubling the number of mirrors in the same space likely reduced on/off CR a fair amount. That is, if all else was held equal a 1080p DLP plus eShift would likely have a good bit better on/off CR than these XPR projectors.

Extra mirror angle might help compared to older 1080p chips, but if they had made 1080p chips with extra mirror angle and any other advantages the XPR chips got, then on/off CR would have likely been quite a bit better.

For the uneducated public this was likely a good move because TI can claim these are 4k projectors (even though they only have half as many mirrors as pixels required and use eShift technology to qualify as 4K by the CTA standard) and with their inflated on/off CR specs much of the public won't know that TI cost them native on/off CR by going with 4 million mirrors instead of 2 million mirrors.

For people around here, I wonder if the lower on/off CR (or more of the effect where it looks like somebody is shining a light at your screen while you watch dark scenes) will be worth it for the extra resolution. Unfortunately, there may never be any 1080p plus eShift DLP projectors in this price range, where people could choose a darker black pedestal instead of extra resolution.

--Darin
nowknown likes this.
darinp is offline  
post #340 of 2008 Old 06-12-2017, 09:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I don't want to sound like a jerk-- and for the record I own a DLP and love it-- but does anyone realistically expect the contrast on either of these to measure up to price competitive 3LCD and LCoS models? This is a rhetorical question as I see contrast is a hot topic of recent debate.

I feel like in the areas of native contrast and black level DLP has long since ceded ground to the competition. I'd still love to see a DLP with an auto iris that could enhance dynamic contrast but I'm not expecting DLP to gain ground with native contrast on this new chip. I'm more concerned that they don't LOSE ground as some impressions of the high end BenQ/Acer seem to indicate.
For on/off contrast I think being in the same ballpark as 3LCD is possible, LCOS not so much. For ANSI contrast, it will likely exceed both - and this can actually be useful for many HDR sequences.

If on/off contrast dwarfs other traits in importance for you, DLP is probably not the best technology to buy. Where DLP excels is sharpness, no alignment artifacts (1chip), brightness (3chip), motion resolution, 3D (when supported), ANSI contrast, and value.
sage11x likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #341 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 05:12 AM
Newbie
 
ercreador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I own a Optoma HD90 (which I like a lot), and looking to update with the already old optoma HD92, which is LED and 3D capable. I do not see reason to update with a non 3D capable projector, using olds mercure lamps . If it is about contrast, 4K capability, price and life duration... is better an 65 inch oled LG? well...
ercreador is offline  
post #342 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 07:52 AM
Member
 
rkabir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Ian B View Post
Does anyone know date when they truly go on sale? Is AVS Forum gonna be selling them?


Ian B
I have the UHD65 preordered from a dealer and they are saying they expect the first shipment at the end of this month. Hopefully that info is accurate.
rkabir is offline  
post #343 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 11:33 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I was told at the end of the month as well for both the UHD60 and 65.
urcha is offline  
post #344 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
For on/off contrast I think being in the same ballpark as 3LCD is possible, LCOS not so much. For ANSI contrast, it will likely exceed both - and this can actually be useful for many HDR sequences.



If on/off contrast dwarfs other traits in importance for you, DLP is probably not the best technology to buy. Where DLP excels is sharpness, no alignment artifacts (1chip), brightness (3chip), motion resolution, 3D (when supported), ANSI contrast, and value.


I only said that because people are posting to the effect that they hope these models are going to make some quantum leap in terms of contrast performance for a DLP and I'm just not seeing it. As I said, I own an HT2050 and I think the overall contrast is quite good-- especially for the price! But I just want everyone to take a deep breath and understand that neither of these units are going to move the tech forward for this particular aspect of image quality. My hope is the contrast is 'as good as' as opposed to 'not quite there' vs the better single chip DLPs on the market.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is offline  
post #345 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 11:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I only said that because people are posting to the effect that they hope these models are going to make some quantum leap in terms of contrast performance for a DLP and I'm just not seeing it. As I said, I own an HT2050 and I think the overall contrast is quite good-- especially for the price! But I just want everyone to take a deep breath and understand that neither of these units are going to move the tech forward for this particular aspect of image quality. My hope is the contrast is 'as good as' as opposed to 'not quite there' vs the better single chip DLPs on the market.
Yup, the contrast will be similar to ht2050.

The improvement gained over ht2050 is in 4k uhd resolution and hdr, not native contrast.
sage11x likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #346 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 12:40 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Is the lens improved over the HT2050 (which is actually quite good for the money)?
DavidHir is offline  
post #347 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 01:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Is the lens improved over the HT2050 (which is actually quite good for the money)?


I would suspect so. The BenQ's get a lot of credit for the glass lens but they have a reputation of suffering some (mild) chromatic aberration. I've yet to see one that is objectionable but it's there. My guess is the lens on the Optoma models would need to be pretty damn good to successfully display a 4k image. When you consider the features vs the price It looks as though most of the budget went towards the light path.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is offline  
post #348 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 02:03 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 UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I would suspect so. The BenQ's get a lot of credit for the glass lens but they have a reputation of suffering some (mild) chromatic aberration. I've yet to see one that is objectionable but it's there. My guess is the lens on the Optoma models would need to be pretty damn good to successfully display a 4k image. When you consider the features vs the price It looks as though most of the budget went towards the light path.

But consider this, and I don't think I've really researched it yet, but it popped into my head as I read this, so I'm bringing it up.......

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. I'm sure it's more than half really, due to the speed of the switching, but that's the idea I'm thinking anyway. Maybe 2/3rds?

I think @Javs knows lenses pretty well since he is really into pro type cameras, MTF, etc. Maybe he can comment or knows?
Dave Harper is offline  
post #349 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 02:39 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
But consider this, and I don't think I've really researched it yet, but it popped into my head as I read this, so I'm bringing it up.......

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. I'm sure it's more than half really, due to the speed of the switching, but that's the idea I'm thinking anyway. Maybe 2/3rds?
This one gets a lot of people.

In reality it doesn't matter how many pixels go through the lens at one time. The lens requirements are built around the final composite image, not the image at an instant in time that a human cannot detect.

I tried to explain this in a thread here.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...l#post39018834

BTW: You are in good company. The vast majority around here thought that the JVC lenses only needed to be good enough for 1080p since that is all that goes through them at one time, but I am confident I am right that it is the full composite image that determines the lens requirements. Hopefully the examples I gave there help explain why that is.

--Darin
Dave Harper likes this.
darinp is offline  
post #350 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 02:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Is the lens improved over the HT2050 (which is actually quite good for the money)?
Since it needs to resolve a higher resolution, I would imagine do.
Ruined is offline  
post #351 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 02:58 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 UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
This one gets a lot of people.



In reality it doesn't matter how many pixels go through the lens at one time. The lens requirements are built around the final composite image, not the image at an instant in time that a human cannot detect.



I tried to explain this in a thread here.



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...l#post39018834



BTW: You are in good company. The vast majority around here thought that the JVC lenses only needed to be good enough for 1080p since that is all that goes through them at one time, but I am confident I am right that it is the full composite image that determines the lens requirements. Hopefully the examples I gave there help explain why that is.



--Darin

Thanks for the info, I'll check it out and do some research! I haven't really checked into lenses since the old CRT days. It's high time to check up on them again!

My mind still thinks it shouldn't be quite as high as what's needed for a full true 4K native solution though.

A human may not be able to detect it, but can't a lens?

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-13-2017 at 03:04 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #352 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 03:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
But consider this, and I don't think I've really researched it yet, but it popped into my head as I read this, so I'm bringing it up.......

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. I'm sure it's more than half really, due to the speed of the switching, but that's the idea I'm thinking anyway. Maybe 2/3rds?

I think @Javs knows lenses pretty well since he is really into pro type cameras, MTF, etc. Maybe he can comment or knows?
The native resolution of this projector is 2716x1528 (4M pixels) , so even though it uses a form of pixel shifting to achieve 4k uhd / 8M pixels, the native is still substantially higher than a 1920x1080 (2M pixels) projector whether it is an eshift one or not.
Troy LaMont likes this.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-13-2017 at 03:03 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #353 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 03:03 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 Ruined View Post
The native resolution of this projector is 2716x1528, so even though it uses a form shifting to achieve 4k uhd, the native is still substantially higher than 1920x1080.

Yes true, but what I was saying is that it still shouldn't need as high a quality lens as one for a native 4K unit like the Sonys. darinp2 says it does though. So I guess it's all moot anyway, unless a lens or video engineer cares to weigh in.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #354 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 03:14 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
Yes true, but what I was saying is that it still shouldn't need as high a quality lens as one for a native 4K unit like the Sonys. darinp2 says it does though.
"Need" is relative and there are a lot of factors that go into how high a quality lens you need. I would say that with the JVCs they don't really "need" as good a lens with 1080p plus eShift as native 4k, but they need more with eShift on than eShift off to really let the eShift advantage through.

The XPR DLPs may "need" as good a lens as the Sony's if the Sony's aren't really processing things at truly independent 4k (8 million pixels) even though they do have 8 million pixels.

My point is mostly that if you built a 2 chip XPR DLP where both 2716x1528 images went through the lens at the same time (offset by 1/2 a pixel diagonally) you would need the same quality lens as 1 chip XPR DLP that provides both 2716x1528 images. The fact that the two images go through the lens at the same time in one case and different times in the other case doesn't matter as far as the lens quality required.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #355 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 03:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
Yes true, but what I was saying is that it still shouldn't need as high a quality lens as one for a native 4K unit like the Sonys. darinp2 says it does though. So I guess it's all moot anyway, unless a lens or video engineer cares to weigh in.
I don't buy the argument made by darinp2 for dlp projectors for a couple of reasons.

Camera lenses are spec'd based on size and density of the sensor. Thus, a bigger sensor would require a bigger lens of otherwise same specifications while a smaller sensor would require a smaller lens of otherwise same specifications.

And, if the sensor is the same size but more dense (I. E. more pixels per inch) then it requires a lens with higher resolving power.

In this case, if you had two dlp projectors, one 2716x1528 0. 67" without XPR and one 2716x1528 0.67" with XPR, I don't believe you would need a more spec'd lens as:

1. There is no significant image persistence from one frame to next with DLP. It is a mechanical process of mirrors shifting in position. There is no organic component unlike other techs. This is also why DLPs motion resolution is so good.

2. There would be no difference in density of projected pixels off the DMD, as it is a mechanical process. There is no bleed from one frame to next and the size of the pixels remains the same regardless if shifted or not. The overlap happens on the screen. The same density of pixels just happen to be projected 2x as fast. If the lens can fully resolve 2716x1528 at 1x speed with dlp, l see no reason it couldn't at 2x speed.

3. In our example the sensor does not change in size.

Finally, for DLP, the only DMD that is native 4k is 1.38", four times the surface area of the XPR 0.67" DMD. The 0.67" DMD is too small for native 4k due to dlp mirror density and contrast limitations. Thus a native 4k DLP projector would most definitely require a bigger and more expensive lens than an 0.67" XPR DMD, just like full frame vs crop sensor camera lenses.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-13-2017 at 04:33 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #356 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 04:19 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
I don't buy the argument made by darinp2 for dlp projectors for a couple of reasons.
Fortunately, you don't have to buy it for it to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
In this case, if you had two dlp projectors, one 2716x1528 0. 67" without XPR and one 2716x1528 0.67" with XPR, I don't believe you would need a more spec'd lens as:

1. There is no significant image persistence from one frame to next with DLP. It is a mechanical process of mirrors shifting in position. There is no organic component unlike other techs.
The fact that the DLP doesn't have persistence doesn't matter since the persistence is in our eyes, just like it is with primary colors where the single chip DLP puts them up at different times, but our eyes see them as put up at the same time (except when people see the RBE artifact).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
2. There would be no difference in density of projected pixels, as it is a mechanical process. There is no bleed from one frame to next and the size of the pixels remains the same regardless if shifted or not.
With 2716x1528 only pixels it is the size of the pixels that needs to be resolved. With the two 2716x1528 it is the smaller "pixels" that your eye sees that matter. Interesting that you push these as 4k over and over, then seem to think they don't need to be able to resolve those 2k sub-pixels (which is what 4k pixels can be thought of as) they are trying to display.

You seem to agree that these XPR pixels are trying to show detail smaller than a single flash of 2716x1528 is capable of. Showing that detail requires a lens that can show it, not just one that can resolve 2716x1528.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
The overlap happens on the screen.
Again, it doesn't matter. It is what ends up on the screen that your eyes are supposed to see that matters.

I demonstrated this in post #14 of the thread I linked to. That is here.

I'll include the 3 images from there to make this easier.

Would you say that all 3 of these pictures require the same lens resolution to show by themselves?









It doesn't matter if the 3rd image is displayed all at once or displayed by putting up the 1st image and then the 2nd image, as long as it happens fast enough that a human doesn't know it is happening, just like with red, then green, then blue.

If anybody thinks that a lens only has to be good enough to show the E and then show the 3 because they are put up at different times (although fast enough that humans see one image) in the following example, they should rethink their position. A bad lens will show an 8 to humans when the image they were supposed to see is E3. That lens could have been perfectly fine for showing a large E and perfectly fine for showing a 3, but not fine for showing an E that close to a 3.



With a good lens that E and 3 in fast sequence should look like the following after persistence of vision, not like a blocky 8:


That means the lens needs to be able to resolve the black between the E and the 3, even when that fine detail only came from low resolution images that were displayed at different times.

--Darin
Mrjmc99 likes this.

Last edited by darinp; 06-13-2017 at 05:06 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #357 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 05:55 PM
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 Ruined View Post
I don't buy the argument made by darinp2 for dlp projectors for a couple of reasons.

Camera lenses are spec'd based on size and density of the sensor. Thus, a bigger sensor would require a bigger lens of otherwise same specifications while a smaller sensor would require a smaller lens of otherwise same specifications.

And, if the sensor is the same size but more dense (I. E. more pixels per inch) then it requires a lens with higher resolving power.

In this case, if you had two dlp projectors, one 2716x1528 0. 67" without XPR and one 2716x1528 0.67" with XPR, I don't believe you would need a more spec'd lens as:

1. There is no significant image persistence from one frame to next with DLP. It is a mechanical process of mirrors shifting in position. There is no organic component unlike other techs. This is also why DLPs motion resolution is so good.

2. There would be no difference in density of projected pixels off the DMD, as it is a mechanical process. There is no bleed from one frame to next and the size of the pixels remains the same regardless if shifted or not. The overlap happens on the screen. The same density of pixels just happen to be projected 2x as fast. If the lens can fully resolve 2716x1528 at 1x speed with dlp, l see no reason it couldn't at 2x speed.

3. In our example the sensor does not change in size.

Finally, for DLP, the only DMD that is native 4k is 1.38", four times the surface area of the XPR 0.67" DMD. The 0.67" DMD is too small for native 4k due to dlp mirror density and contrast limitations. Thus a native 4k DLP projector would most definitely require a bigger and more expensive lens than an 0.67" XPR DMD, just like full frame vs crop sensor camera lenses.
You can't have it both ways...

Does it resolve 4K as you've been claiming? Then it needs to have a lens that can, too.
TheronB is offline  
post #358 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 06:01 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 TheronB View Post
You can't have it both ways...

Does it resolve 4K as you've been claiming? Then it needs to have a lens that can, too.
Thank you for putting it so much more succinctly than I did.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #359 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 06:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Fortunately, you don't have to buy it for it to be true.
Fortunately, your proclamation of it being true does not mean it actually is.

Quote:
The fact that the DLP doesn't have persistence doesn't matter since the persistence is in our eyes, just like it is with primary colors where the single chip DLP puts them up at different times, but our eyes see them as put up at the same time (except when people see the RBE artifact).
It would matter if you wanted to capture motion between subframes/frames that could organically occur in LCD/LCOS, as you mentioned "long exposure" in your previous post on this issue. That "long exposure" you referred to is a function of the way a sensor captures light over time vs shutter speed, not a function of the lens' resolving power. And it is the only time exposure would be relevant to this case.

Quote:
With 2716x1528 only pixels it is the size of the pixels that needs to be resolved.
This is correct. And regardless of pixel shift or not, the physical size of pixels being projected through the lens does not change given the same DMD size/native res.

Quote:
With the two 2716x1528 it is the smaller "pixels" that your eye sees that matter.
This is correct. It is your eyes/brain perceiving it is seeing the smaller pixels, not the lens actually physically projecting smaller pixels. It physically projects larger pixels at double the rate to virtually create smaller pixels in your mind's eye (not in the lens).

Quote:
Interesting that you push these as 4k over and over, then seem to think they don't need to be able to resolve those 2k sub-pixels (which is what 4k pixels can be thought of as) they are trying to display.
The subpixels are resolved by your eye/brain. They are not resolved by the analog lens. The lens in an 2716x1528 XPR projector needs to be able to resolve 4M pixels twice as fast as a lens in a 2716x1528 projector. Lenses have no image persistence issues, nor do they combine data like a camera sensor or your brain, nor do they operate on any digital pixel grid - they simply project whatever light is projected through them in analog fashion. In this case, that would be 4M pixels in both cases. And if it can fully resolve those 4M pixels (no blurring, loss of resolution, light spilling into adjacent pixels, etc), then that is all there is to it.

Quote:
You seem to agree that these XPR pixels are trying to show detail smaller than a single flash of 2716x1528 is capable of.
Nope, I have always argued they are projecting 2716x1528x2, creating a composite higher virtual resolution that your eyes/brain perceive on the screen - and that is exactly what is happening. There is not a higher physical native resolution. Your brain perceives more detail from the pixel offset, which your eye/brain perceives as a higher resolution image than is actually being projected at any one moment.

Quote:
It is what ends up on the screen that your eyes are supposed to see that matters.
What ends up on the screen is 2716x1528 projected twice as fast as a non-XPR projector. Your eye/brain perceives this as a higher physical resolution, but it is not actually a higher physical native resolution.

Quote:
I demonstrated this in post #14 of the thread I linked to. That is here.

I'll include the 3 images from there to make this easier.

Would you say that all 3 of these pictures require the same lens resolution to show by themselves?







Poor example as this implies image persistence in a lens, and lenses have no persistence. The same resolution lens could display all 3 images if the 3rd image is rapidly alternated. Your eye/brain then combines these lower resolution images for a perceived higher resolution in the 3rd image.

Quote:
It doesn't matter if the 3rd image is displayed all at once or displayed by putting up the 1st image and then the 2nd image, as long as it happens fast enough that a human doesn't know it is happening, just like with red, then green, then blue.
It definitely matters. The color wheel is an excellent example to disprove your theory, actually, so it is good your brought it up. If a lens existed that could only display one single color at a time, it would have absolutely no problem displaying a full color picture from DLP. Because it is not the lens that combines the colors, it is your eye/brain that combines the colors. Just like pixel-shifted resolution.

According to your argument you'd also need a lens that was capable of reproducing all colors simultaneously for DLP color wheel to work in reproducing a color picture, and that is also false. You'd just need a lens that could display 3 different colors, 1 color at a time, in rapid succession.

Quote:
If anybody thinks that a lens only has to be good enough to show the E and then show the 3 because they are put up at different times (although fast enough that humans see one image) in the following example, they should rethink their position. A bad lens will show an 8 to humans when the image they were supposed to see is E3. That lens could have been perfectly fine for showing a large E and perfectly fine for showing a 3, but not fine for showing an E that close to a 3.



With a good lens that E and 3 in fast sequence should look like the following after persistence of vision, not like a blocky 8:


That means the lens needs to be able to resolve the black between the E and the 3, even when that fine detail only came from low resolution images that were displayed at different times.

--Darin
This is also incorrect. If the lens showed a blocky 8 it would not be fully resolving the E or the 3 at their original resolutions. If there was a blocky 8 it means that the lens was unable to resolve the E or 3 without erroneously spilling light into the next row/column of pixels. Lenses are analog and thus are not bound by pixel grids like sensors or DMDs, so it can leak light by 0%, 0.5%, 1.5%, 2.5%, 10%, 25%, etc into adjacent rows/columns of pixels. You seem to be thinking in a manner where a lens is digital or bound by some pixel grid, and it is not as lenses are fully analog devices.

If the lens can fully resolve the E and the 3, in rapid succession it could also fully resolve the E3. If it can't fully resolve the E3 in rapid succession, the lens is not fully resolving the E or 3 separately.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-13-2017 at 06:37 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #360 of 2008 Old 06-13-2017, 08:17 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
Ruined,

Your understanding of this subject matter is so bad that it is hard to even know where to start, so for now I will address one thing where I think it will be easy for others to see that your claim is false, even if you won't admit it.

It should be obvious that we are talking about static lenses, not lenses that do things like rapidly change color based on what color is being projected through it at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
If there was a blocky 8 it means that the lens was unable to resolve the E or 3 without erroneously spilling light into the next row/column of pixels.
Every real lens erroneously spills some photons into the area around the pixels. It is not a matter of if, but how much.

Here is where you are flat out wrong. I demonstrated how in the other thread.
Quote:
If the lens can fully resolve the E and the 3, in rapid succession it could also fully resolve the E3. If it can't fully resolve the E3 in rapid succession, the lens is not fully resolving the E or 3 separately.
Nope. If the E is about 40 nits and the lens spills 20 nits around that such that it spills into what would be the black area between the E and the 3, then when only the E is displayed it will be very easy for a viewer to see that the display is showing an E. Same thing with the 3.

However, display that E and 3 very quickly and the E will be about 40 nits, the 3 will be about 40 nits and the "black" between them will also be about 40 nits. At this point it would be very difficult for a viewer to see that the image is E3 if those 2 images are shown in quick enough succession for the eye to integrate them even though the lens was good enough to fully resolve each by itself.

Fully resolving doesn't mean there is no spill outside where the light is supposed to be focused by the lens. Even 50% contamination between white pixels would be accepted as resolving by a lot of groups (like the CTA). The E and 3 individually can qualify as fully resolved with a much worse lens than it takes to fully resolve the E3 image.

Of course I've simplified the above, but if you can't (or just won't) see that your claim about the E and the 3 was wrong, then I'm not sure what to say.

BTW: I found it pretty amusing that you claim XPR projectors are not trying to show detail smaller than a single flash of 2716x1528 is capable of. Pretty funny after how you have pushed these as 4K over and over. These XPR projectors (and other eShift projectors) were most definitely designed to show humans detail smaller than what a single flash at the native resolution can do.

Note: I just noticed that you may have decided to play a trick by claiming if the E and 3 were resolved in rapid succession then a person could see both. If a person can see both individually when shown super fast then of course they can see both, since that is the same thing. I think I was very clear that it takes a better lens to show the E3 when shown so quickly that a person only sees one image than the lens required to show the E by itself to a human and to show the 3 by itself to a human. If you disagree with that then you still have a lot to learn about what it takes for lenses to resolve certain detail for human vision, which is what this is all about.

Even though the E and 3 never pass through the lens at the same time 50% spill means the E by itself is fully resolved, the 3 by itself is fully resolved, but the E3 is not. The amount of light spill the lens can do per photon before the E3 is not fully resolved is the same whether the E and 3 pass through the lens at the same time, or at different times.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 06-13-2017 at 08:43 PM.
darinp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

Tags
dlp , hdr , Optoma , uhd , uhd60

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