Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available - Page 14 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1730Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 12:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBrandon View Post
I am almost wishing we were back on the video game conversation lol. This thread has been a ride. Going back to placing blame on ProjectorCentral for their terrible preliminary assessment! In all seriousness, I was told the UHD60 ships next week. I sent a list of questions to Optoma I have however their engineers or techs are @ InfoComm so I may not hear back until next week I was told.
Ha! I know I am tired of the toxic responses as well. Going to bow out, I believe I made my point.

Projector Central did at least let us know this pj delivers on fine detail.
Ruined is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 12:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Nice. By next year I could see 4K lasers being 3K easily. Let's see what Epson and others can bring to the table in terms of affordable 4K + laser. Competition is great. (for us).
Would love to see Epson come out with a higher resolution panel (even if only 2560x1600) and use an even better lens than the ls10500 uses. It's tough to pay $8000 for a machine that doesn't even quite achieve 3k when projectors under $2000 are now hitting 4k. Obviously still a great looking machine just from a depreciation standpoint not looking good.
Ruined is offline  
post #393 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 12:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomiy1 View Post
I might buy this if the dynamic contrast is decent. Really want to dump my lamp projector for solid state.
tomiy1 likes this.
Ruined is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #394 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 12:58 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
Dave,

Sorry that I don't have links for you, but I think we can work out this question about whether what matters for projectors lens quality requirements is the whole composite frame your eye's see or just what a super high frame camera would see coming off your screen.

I'll go back to my example of 3 different images.





Still meaningless to me, sorry. So far I agree with what Ruined just posted^^^^.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...Ruined is so far off the rails that he thought this example required persistence within the lens...
He didn't say that at all. In fact he said the opposite. He said it happens in your eyes, which it does, and you state just below that.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...It only requires persistence within human vision, which is a fact...
Exactly, which is exactly why the lens only needs to resolve the resolution of the imager's native resolution at any one given time, as it's native resolution is all that's actually passing through the lens.

All you have to do is design the lens to resolve the E and/or the 3 to the best of the lens' ability, so that when they're each flashed through the lens separately at different times, so when your eyes combine them, they each appear sharp, defined and delineated properly for your brain to merge them together to create the illusion of a single image.



Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
....I'll start without the persistence though. Please imagine these 3 images being displayed slowly one at a time through a lens that obscures them. Do you agree that the 3rd image requires a better lens for a human viewer to see that there is a 1/4 square spot that is brighter than the rest than the lens quality required for a person to see that there is a square on in the first and second pictures?

Thanks,
Darin

See, no one is saying it's going through a "lens that obscures them". He is saying the exact opposite, that you use a lens that "clearly resolves" each E, 3, or grey box, just as if that was the normal panel without eShift. Just because you're flashing that panel twice really fast with separate frames, each one is still only whatever the native imaging chip's resolution is, so that's all that has to be resolved by the lens at any given point in time.

Here's my thought on this:

If I had a soda fountain and had to mix the Coke syrup with the seltzer. I could either A, pass 8oz of syrup (resolution) through the feed tube (lens), then 8oz of seltzer, meaning my feed tubes only have to handle 8oz of pressure at any one given point in time. They mix themselves in the cup. (eShift)

Or I could B, push 8oz of syrup and 8oz of seltzer out simultaneously, hence needing a larger feed tube (lens) that requires 16oz of pressure rating. They are already mixed out of the spigot. (Native 4K)

End result is basically the same though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...I'll leave your ridiculous argument that shifting the image 0.02% requires a better lens as that is so far into the noise that it is ridiculous to include it when you can't even understand factors that dwarf that...



--Darin

I don't believe that's what he said at all. At least that's not how I read it anyway. Not sure where you're getting that, from what he actually did write?



Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
For those trying to understand lens requirements with eShift models, here is a thought experiment.



Let's say there are 3 projectors that are each required to display one of the images. Projector A needs to display the E in image A, projector B needs to display the 3 in image B, and projector C needs to display the E3 in image C.







Do any of the projectors A, B, or C require a better lens in order to display those required images to humans and have the humans be able to properly make out what the image is displaying?



People can think of it like an eye chart at a doctors office if they want to. People with 20/20 vision are supposed to be able to respond "E" to the image from the first projector, "3" to the image from the second projector, and "E3" to the image from the third projector.



People can also think of it in reverse if they want. Think of those 3 images as eye chart values on a piece of paper at the doctor's office. Does the third image require better vision to make out properly than the first 2 images?



--Darin

This doesn't seem to be applicable at all to the question at hand. It isn't the number of Es and 3s (native pixels) that are on screen, it's the size of the Es and 3s that are in question, and whether they can be resolved clearly. Smaller Es and 3s need a better lens to show them clearly and without artifact (native 4K). Larger Es and 3s (1080 eShift, XPR), whether flashed once or many times in succession, need a lesser lens than the one for smaller Es and 3s.

Think of an eye chart in your optometrist's office. If reading the bottom line required a certain lens rolled in front of your eyes to see it clearly, it wouldn't matter if the doctor showed all the even letters of the bottom line 1st and then the odd letters of the bottom line 2nd, and they flashed super fast so your eyes saw them as one line, you would still only need the same lenses in your glasses to see them all clearly, based on the size of the letters, not the amount or frequency in time they're flashed, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
....Despite some ignorance around here, whether the 2 eShift images go through the lens at the same time or at different times, as long as the human vision system integrates them into one, it basically makes no difference for lenses of the type we are discussing.



--Darin

But think of the image's light path in time. It doesn't reach your eyes until AFTER it goes through the lens (one flash of its native resolution at a time, in super fast sequence), bounces off the screen and back into your eyes, which then allows your brain to merge the images due to persistence of human vision.

I wish you had links as scientific proof. I'll see what I can find myself if I have time. I'm done with this off topic discussion also, until I can find or am given more scientific proof and actual facts.
Ruined likes this.

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-14-2017 at 01:05 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #395 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:02 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1408
Problem with those prices is, however appealing the product is, they are in JVC territory but can't compete in any way except for lumens. So for the corporate model that makes sense, but not sure the HT model.

Of course we'll see what 2018 JVCs have in terms of price vs laser + lumens (assuming of course they fix CMD, which is not a given, note how people's objections to this malfunctioning feature are roundly mocked in the JVC threads, like someone buying a car expecting the AC to work properly).
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #396 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Problem with those prices is, however appealing the product is, they are in JVC territory but can't compete in any way except for lumens. So for the corporate model that makes sense, but not sure the HT model.

Of course we'll see what 2018 JVCs have in terms of price vs laser + lumens (assuming of course they fix CMD, which is not a given, note how people's objections to this malfunctioning feature are roundly mocked in the JVC threads, like someone buying a car expecting the AC to work properly).
JVC has no solid state HT projector in this price range to compete.

Closest competition is Epson Ls10500 and BenQ x12000.

For some like myself I'll even take a hit in image quality for solid state light source.
Dave Harper likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #397 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:10 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 RLBURNSIDE View Post
Problem with those prices is, however appealing the product is, they are in JVC territory but can't compete in any way except for lumens. So for the corporate model that makes sense, but not sure the HT model.



Of course we'll see what 2018 JVCs have in terms of price vs laser + lumens (assuming of course they fix CMD, which is not a given, note how people's objections to this malfunctioning feature are roundly mocked in the JVC threads, like someone buying a car expecting the AC to work properly).

But don't you think the laser can bring the contrast into acceptable levels using laser modulation?
Dave Harper is offline  
post #398 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
But don't you think the laser can bring the contrast into acceptable levels using laser modulation?
Depends how noticeable the modulation algorithm is. DLP LEDs historically can pump up the contrast with dimming but artifacts were visible. Going to be interesting if laser brings any improvement in this area.

Moreso if it's a high powered laser you can more aggressively optimize the lens/light path for contrast (which costs a lot of lumens).

Last edited by Ruined; 06-14-2017 at 01:31 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #399 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:40 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1408
I've read in a few places that the light source's etendue affects the light path considerably. Mostly with regards to HLD LEDs offering more lumens per square mm. So presumably with a blue laser + yellow phosphor colour wheel it should still be rather smaller than a lamp + focusing mirrors, meaning less light spillage and thus better contrast.

You guys would be shocked (or perhaps not) with all internal reflections from the lamp's light bouncing around inside the optical chamber inside a cheap DLP. During rebuilds I often pondered whether strategically placed black tape might double the native contrast. It's entirely possible. Of course then the tape would melt / welt due to the heat but with some of that new nano black material I'm sure there could be some DIY potential there. Of course that's very off topic for this, although if I ended up buying one of these units and they didn't in fact do P3, I would certainly add my own WCG filter somehow and do the tone mapping / processing of UHD Blurays myself from my PC (assuming I can rip them, eventually). Colour space or EOTF convertions are a matter of a 3D LUT lookup at worst, or a simple formula at best.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #400 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:41 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 Ruined View Post
Where did you read that? Curious as DPI uses same DMD in E-Vision 4k laser and it supports 3d.
https://www.amazon.com/ask/questions...sAnswered=true
TheBrandon is offline  
post #401 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 01:55 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
Dave,

You may be done with it, but I think that would be unfortunate for you to be left with a poor understanding of this subject matter, like Ruined has.

I'll ask you one quick one since I think you were familiar with CRTs. If you want to display 1080p images with a super fast phosphor CRT that only displays one horizontal line at a time, do you need a lens that can resolve 1080p, or just one that resolves what goes through the lens at an instant in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
He didn't say that at all. In fact he said the opposite.
He did say that this example required persistence in the lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Poor example as this implies image persistence in a lens, and lenses have no persistence.
That example most definitely does not require image persistence in the lens. Image persistence in human vision is enough for the example when discussing lens requirements for human viewers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
All you have to do is design the lens to resolve the E and/or the 3 to the best of the lens' ability, so that when they're each flashed through the lens separately at different times, so when your eyes combine them, they each appear sharp, defined and delineated properly for your brain to merge them together to create the illusion of a single image.
That is all your have to do, but that is a higher requirement than clearly showing the E to a person when it is by itself.

If you move just far enough from your display that the E and the 3 are still just clear to you in the following image, what do you think you would see from the same distance if those images were flashed at 120Hz?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
See, no one is saying it's going through a "lens that obscures them".
That is what every real lens does. It is just a matter of how much it obscures them it can obscure them a small enough amount that a person can claim that they made something "clear", but it is a matter of degrees. Whatever threshold you decide for how much the lens can obscure the light passing through it as still be said to "clearly resolve" the items, the E by itself has lower requirements than if the E and 3 are displayed right next to each other. Do you at least agree with that?

What is it your think happens if the lens obscures the E by putting gray just outside the edges like I showed just above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
If I had a soda fountain and had to mix the Coke syrup with the seltzer. I could either A, pass 8oz of syrup (resolution) through the feed tube (lens), then 8oz of seltzer, meaning my feed tubes only have to handle 8oz of pressure at any one given point in time. They mix themselves in the cup. (eShift)

Or I could B, push 8oz of syrup and 8oz of seltzer out simultaneously, hence needing a larger feed tube (lens) that requires 16oz of pressure rating. They are already mixed out of the spigot. (Native 4K)
That would be a good example if light was just solid particles, but the wave properties of light are more appropriate to this discussion. Passing the light through it at the same time or different times makes very little difference.

I'll save the rest for later.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #402 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 02:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I've read in a few places that the light source's etendue affects the light path considerably. Mostly with regards to HLD LEDs offering more lumens per square mm. So presumably with a blue laser + yellow phosphor colour wheel it should still be rather smaller than a lamp + focusing mirrors, meaning less light spillage and thus better contrast.

You guys would be shocked (or perhaps not) with all internal reflections from the lamp's light bouncing around inside the optical chamber inside a cheap DLP. During rebuilds I often pondered whether strategically placed black tape might double the native contrast. It's entirely possible. Of course then the tape would melt / welt due to the heat but with some of that new nano black material I'm sure there could be some DIY potential there. Of course that's very off topic for this, although if I ended up buying one of these units and they didn't in fact do P3, I would certainly add my own WCG filter somehow and do the tone mapping / processing of UHD Blurays myself from my PC (assuming I can rip them, eventually). Colour space or EOTF convertions are a matter of a 3D LUT lookup at worst, or a simple formula at best.
Based on the fake contrast specs it looks like the uhz65 has a bit over 20% more contrast than the UHD65.

Even though the number is fake often the relative difference between models of same family is real.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was like 2000:1 native vs 2500:1 native.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-14-2017 at 02:17 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #403 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 02:15 PM
Member
 
tomiy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Based on the fake contrast specs it looks like the uhz65 has a bit over 20% more contrast than the UHD65.

Even though the number is fake often the relative difference is real.
So you're thinking the contrast spec below is fake? hmmmm....
It seems like this would kill the UHD65 in brightness and video quality... am i right in saying that?

Optoma UHZ65
The UHZ65 from Optoma combines the latest advances in imaging, light source and color space in one incredible projector. With 3840x2160 resolution delivering 8.3 million pixels, approximately 2,800 lumens, a 1,500,000:1 contrast ratio, a powerful laser phosphor light engine, high dynamic range in the form of HDR10, and wide color gamut (REC.2020), the UHZ65 has been engineered to deliver the ultimate 4K UHD viewing experience. A generous 15 percent vertical lens shift and a massive 1.6x optical zoom offer a great deal of flexibility in terms of installation. HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 deliver a full 18Gbps for the best 4K UHD video bandwidth, image quality and device compatibility.

Available in the fall, the Optoma UHZ65 will be on the market through distributors for an estimated street price of $4,999. With an impressive 20,000-hour life cycle and vibrant colors, it is the ideal choice for home and corporate applications.
tomiy1 is offline  
post #404 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 02:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomiy1 View Post
So you're thinking the contrast spec below is fake? hmmmm....
It seems like this would kill the UHD65 in brightness and video quality... am i right in saying that?

Optoma UHZ65
The UHZ65 from Optoma combines the latest advances in imaging, light source and color space in one incredible projector. With 3840x2160 resolution delivering 8.3 million pixels, approximately 2,800 lumens, a 1,500,000:1 contrast ratio, a powerful laser phosphor light engine, high dynamic range in the form of HDR10, and wide color gamut (REC.2020), the UHZ65 has been engineered to deliver the ultimate 4K UHD viewing experience. A generous 15 percent vertical lens shift and a massive 1.6x optical zoom offer a great deal of flexibility in terms of installation. HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 deliver a full 18Gbps for the best 4K UHD video bandwidth, image quality and device compatibility.

Available in the fall, the Optoma UHZ65 will be on the market through distributors for an estimated street price of $4,999. With an impressive 20,000-hour life cycle and vibrant colors, it is the ideal choice for home and corporate applications.
Optoma lists uhd65 as 1200000:1 contrast and 2200 lumens.

So this laser is rated a bit over 20% more contrast and 30% more brightness.

Would not be surprised if native contrast is like 2500:1 uhz65 vs 2000:1 uhd65 and lumens calibrated like 1800 uhz65 vs 1300 UHD65.

Really boils down to how good the dynamic contrast is in each.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-14-2017 at 02:41 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #405 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,347
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3784 Post(s)
Liked: 2998
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomiy1 View Post
... With an impressive 20,000-hour life cycle ...
Actually I don't find a 20,000-hour life cycle that impressive given that Epson is currently selling projectors with lamps rated for up to 10,000 hours and offering replacement lamps for less than $100. How much do you figure one of those 20,000-hour light engines would cost to replace if it's even replaceable?

Now, if you say that most people don't use a projector for more than 20,000 hours, fine. That would mean you would only need to spend less than $100 for one replacement lamp over the useful lifespan of the projector with the UHP lamp vs. the much higher up front cost of the one with the solid state light source.

Now, after the projector is out of warranty and the light source prematurely fails, which one has the advantage: the one with the expensive solid state light engine or the one with replacement lamps selling for less than $100?

Not so clear cut, is it?
Dave in Green is offline  
post #406 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 02:54 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Based on the fake contrast specs it looks like the uhz65 has a bit over 20% more contrast than the UHD65.

Even though the number is fake often the relative difference between models of same family is real.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was like 2000:1 native vs 2500:1 native.
Even if that fake number has no bearing on on/off or native CR, dynamic contrast does in fact matter (I mean, the actual values, not the marketing values).

I would never operate my w1070 without SmartEco activated, it is waaaay better with it on. Like a dynamic, quiet DI. (dynamic iris). Leaving it off would be like running my standard car in 4th gear all the time: on freeway, city, parking. It's ludicrous, come to think of it, but then again, people are buying and riding "fixies" these days (fixed-gear bikes). It's the latest anti-science craze (by the hipster crowd), that ignores basic engineering principles.

A thought just occurred to me while watching a show on my 1000:1 IPS G-Sync monitor: it looks good.

I mean, my w1070 has nearly double the on/off CR, but it looks good. Why?

Because it's running at 144hz with FI (SVP).

Now I'm wondering what the internal framerate of the pixelworks FI engine is.

With XPR running at 120hz, is the FI bringing 24p / 30p to 60p and that's it? Or can it bring 60p to 120p with XPR activated? Or 24p to 120p. Meaning, can it take a single 24p frame and split it into two for XPR, but interpolate the time stamp for the second sub-frame to more closely match its actual elapsed time when the viewer sees it? Of course the Pixelworks FI is apparently the best, but what is the refresh rate that it actually targets?

I emailed Optoma with some inquiries about reducing the lag on the 65, if it's possible via firmware ever, and also about WCG specifically P3 vs 709.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #407 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 03:21 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
Even if that fake number has no bearing on on/off or native CR, dynamic contrast does in fact matter (I mean, the actual values, not the marketing values).
Yep. I wonder what kind of multiplier your BenQ has from native to dynamic on/off CR and what these projectors will have. With the natives I expect for these I would think anything beyond about 3x-4x would actually cause more harm than good.

I think we can pretty much ignore the 20% difference in marketing numbers here. Even if one ends up with 20% higher native on/off CR than the other it could be just coincidence. When usable dynamic on/off CRs are likely to be under 10k:1 numbers of 1 million:1 and higher are pretty much worthless.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #408 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 03:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,317
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2572 Post(s)
Liked: 2253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
JVC has no solid state HT projector in this price range to compete.

Closest competition is Epson Ls10500 and BenQ x12000.

For some like myself I'll even take a hit in image quality for solid state light source.
I'm going to believe JVC will have e-shift models with laser for similar price to Optoma in 2018. Cedia should be very interesting.
Dave Harper and RLBURNSIDE like this.
DavidHir is offline  
post #409 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 03:40 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
Dave,

I made a picture to go with this question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
If you want to display 1080p images with a super fast phosphor CRT that only displays one horizontal line at a time, do you need a lens that can resolve 1080p, or just one that resolves what goes through the lens at an instant in time.
Here is a simulated zoomed in picture of a horizontal single white line from a super fast phosphor CRT that only displays one horizontal line at an instant of time.



Does that projector resolve that line well enough that a person looking from a distance would be able to tell that the projector is trying to display a single white line? What would happen if the CRT tried to display 1080i with as much smearing into the area between vertical pixels as shown by the gray? If the white represents where the white is supposed to go and the gray represents where light was not supposed to go when displaying that single white line, would this projector be able to properly display a 1080i sequence that was 540 horizontal white lines alternating with 540 black lines? What would the final image look like to human vision with this much smearing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
Think of an eye chart in your optometrist's office. If reading the bottom line required a certain lens rolled in front of your eyes to see it clearly, it wouldn't matter if the doctor showed all the even letters of the bottom line 1st and then the odd letters of the bottom line 2nd, and they flashed super fast so your eyes saw them as one line, you would still only need the same lenses in your glasses to see them all clearly, based on the size of the letters, not the amount or frequency in time they're flashed, no?
No. To use a similar layout, if the bottom 3 lines were an E, a 3, and an E3, all the same size, with the E and the 3 very close like I put them, a person who needed glasses would need stronger glasses to make out the E3 than they needed for either the E by itself or the 3 by itself. If your glasses were just good enough for the E and the 3 by themselves (or when flashed very slowly) then the E3 would likely look like a blocky 8. Having the E and 3 very close spatially when flashed too fast to see would mean better glasses would be required for them. Whether they are shown at exactly the same time or toggled so fast that you thought they were shown at the same time, the glasses required to read the E3 would be the same.

For example, the glasses required when a person with poor vision views DLP images don't change just because the DLP has a colorwheel or LEDs flashed in sequence.

You can try the 3 lines yourself with this image. Move back until the E3 looks like a blocky 8. Can you still make out the E and the 3 on the first 2 lines?



I don't need reading glasses to see the standalone E or the standalone 3, but I do for the E3.

Remember, the question was never whether a lens that is perfect for 2716x1528 is good enough for the same thing with eShift, it was whether the fact that only half the images go through the lens at an instant of time is relevant to the lens requirements.

--Darin
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	line.jpg
Views:	672
Size:	12.4 KB
ID:	2188481  
Attached Images
 

Last edited by darinp; 06-14-2017 at 04:42 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #410 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 03:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16,310
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6961 Post(s)
Liked: 8223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Actually I don't find a 20,000-hour life cycle that impressive given that Epson is currently selling projectors with lamps rated for up to 10,000 hours and offering replacement lamps for less than $100. How much do you figure one of those 20,000-hour light engines would cost to replace if it's even replaceable?

Now, if you say that most people don't use a projector for more than 20,000 hours, fine. That would mean you would only need to spend less than $100 for one replacement lamp over the useful lifespan of the projector with the UHP lamp vs. the much higher up front cost of the one with the solid state light source.

Now, after the projector is out of warranty and the light source prematurely fails, which one has the advantage: the one with the expensive solid state light engine or the one with replacement lamps selling for less than $100?

Not so clear cut, is it?
Epson's lamps are $275.00, and I've never gotten over 1000 hours out of a lamp. Just FYI. I'd bet money nobody will ever get 10,000 hours out of a lamp and have a watchable picture. That would be " one dim bulb " if it didn't explode first. So laser could be said to be worth $ 5500.00, at least in my theater. The bigger question is whether a laser projector is still bright enough at 15,000 hours, let alone 20,000 hours - they dim too. I'm doing a slow test on one - I'll get back to you in about 27 years ( at the rate I'm going ). I'll be 89 by then....
RLBURNSIDE likes 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 offline  
post #411 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 04:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,347
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3784 Post(s)
Liked: 2998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Epson's lamps are $275.00, and I've never gotten over 1000 hours out of a lamp. ...
Oh, sure, Epson still has some pricey replacement lamps with short lifespans. But with each new generation they're slowly ramping down price and ramping up lifespan. Epson's new line of bright room light cannons like the 5,500 lumen PowerLite 2265U have a new replacement lamp design that sells for $99 and is rated for up to 10,000 hours in eco mode -- much longer than previous models with an older design lamp. And while Epson didn't raise the lifespan of replacement lamps for the new 3000 series they did just lower cost from $299 to $99.

Point is that UHP lamp technology is continuing to improve and Epson is proving that replacement lamp cost can be lowered. It's not a static equation. I have no doubt that solid state will eventually take over. But right now the advertised usable lifespan of 20,000 hours for solid state engines is just as much an estimate as the 10,000 hour lifespan of the newest Epson UHP replacement lamps.

I was an early implementer of solid state home lighting and bought a bunch of LEDs that advertised 10,000-hour lifespans. Many of them failed long before 10,000 hours.
dreamer and RLBURNSIDE like this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #412 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 04:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,845
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2633 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Also laser/led do not explode and spew mercury vapor around your home theater like lamp can.
Craig Peer and tomiy1 like this.
Ruined is offline  
post #413 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 05:45 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1408
I'm much more interested in laser for wider gamut and the stability of the brightness, rather than the overall duration since bulbs aren't that expensive (about the cost of a couple tanks of gas...that lasts three years of constant use).

Also quietness.

I'm definitely waiting for september now with all this talk of JVC. If they offer a laser model with 3k+ lumens and working CMD they just might have a sale on their hands. If not, I just might have to consider one of the 4K DLPs. Although if I'm considering spending this amount it has to represent a big leap in picture quality, and on/off contrast is pretty darn important (although FI quality is a close second)
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #414 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 05:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Anyone know how good is object moving in 60 and 65 compared to Epson EH-TW7300? I tried in this Epson Fifa 17 and I was not satisfied with the smoothess of the players movement. If 60 and 65 are even wors in that department then this two projectors are big no go for me.
peterbund is offline  
post #415 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 07:31 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 darinp View Post
Dave,

You may be done with it, but I think that would be unfortunate for you to be left with a poor understanding of this subject matter, like Ruined has.

I'll ask you one quick one since I think you were familiar with CRTs. If you want to display 1080p images with a super fast phosphor CRT that only displays one horizontal line at a time, do you need a lens that can resolve 1080p, or just one that resolves what goes through the lens at an instant in time...
It seems there's some poor understanding here as well. CRT is not analogous to this discussion because it does have persistence within the projector (not just based on it being in our eyes/brain, although that is used for interlacing when there)....it's on the CRT's phosphor face, so that when the beam strikes it as it moves across the face, the phosphors remain lit just long enough so that once it has painted the entire screen, the whole image is still lit up and going through the lens. This CRT's face that has this retention/persistence is before the lens. This isn't happening with eShift DLP which is 1/2 frame flashed through the lens (which has no persistence, which we all seem to agree on.), then the other 1/2 frame shifted up and to the right, being two separate images in time, going through the lens, relying on our eyes, brains and persistence of human vision, as we are all saying here. See the difference?

Also, CRT isn't doing one line at a time. It is doing one small electron beam spot at a time, which travels across the CRT's face which is coated with phosphor, causing it to glow. Projector's CRTs don't even have a slot mask like tube TVs do either, which only have one tube and then a slot mask for the electron beam to light up either the red, green or blue phosphor element.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
That is what every real lens does. It is just a matter of how much it obscures them it can obscure them a small enough amount that a person can claim that they made something "clear", but it is a matter of degrees. Whatever threshold you decide for how much the lens can obscure the light passing through it as still be said to "clearly resolve" the items, the E by itself has lower requirements than if the E and 3 are displayed right next to each other. Do you at least agree with that?...
Exactly, sort of, but if the lens is made well enough to resolve your "E" fully and with minimal halos, then it will also do the "3" on the next pass just as clearly, so when they combine in your eyes and brain, they will be just as clear. So the lens only needs to be able to resolve the "E" and/or "3" clearly and without artifacts in each's successive pass through the lens, not as if they were together at the same time going through the lens. But it isn't about the number of "E"s and "3"s there, it's about the size of them and whether the lens can resolve them. The smaller they are, the better the lens needs to be to resolve it fully. That's what a lens is measured by, its lines/mm, right? With eShift, each pixel is larger on essentially the same sized chip (.69" DLP), as compared to a native 4K (Sony SXRD .74").


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
....What is it your think happens if the lens obscures the E by putting gray just outside the edges like I showed just above?
That would be a good example if light was just solid particles, but the wave properties of light are more appropriate to this discussion. Passing the light through it at the same time or different times makes very little difference.....

--Darin
OK, with that I am starting to get where you're coming from, but I don't like the "obscure" part. It seems as if you're saying the lens isn't even good enough to resolve the "E" (i.e. - the native rez of the eShift projector's imager), but myself and Ruined are contending that the lens should already be spec'd to that, just as if that is all it is resolving, such as a 1080p only non-eShift JVC/Epson, or a 2716x1528 XPR DLP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
......For example, the glasses required when a person with poor vision views DLP images don't change just because the DLP has a colorwheel or LEDs flashed in sequence...
You just contradicted yourself above and said and proved what Ruined and I have been saying. This is what we have been saying all along. The lens doesn't need to change just because there is eShift (or colorwheels, or sequentially flashing LEDs) going on. It just needs to be good enough to resolve and pass the native resolution of the eShift projector's imaging chip. (1920x1080 for JVC and Epson; 2716x1528 for XPR DLP)



Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...You can try the 3 lines yourself with this image. Move back until the E3 looks like a blocky 8. Can you still make out the E and the 3 on the first 2 lines?



I don't need reading glasses to see the standalone E or the standalone 3, but I do for the E3...
This isn't even relevant to how eShift works since your "E" and "3" are on totally separate lines, above and below one another. eShift is much more similar to the bottom image "E3", except they're each flashed separately through the lens very fast, hence only needing the native resolution of the panel's lens resolving capabilities. Of course I can make out the E and 3 better in your scenario because of this fact, but this fact isn't what eShift is and does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...Remember, the question was never whether a lens that is perfect for 2716x1528 is good enough for the same thing with eShift, it was whether the fact that only half the images go through the lens at an instant of time is relevant to the lens requirements.

--Darin
I'm not sure what questions you were answering, but that was the exact thing I commented on here and questioned, which started this whole mess!

I am not saying you're wrong...at all, but it seems your perception of what Ruined and I are contending is. I am really done this time until I can learn more or am shown more factual science. There is a lot of misinterpretation going on, me thinks.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #416 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 07:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,782
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3580 Post(s)
Liked: 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I've read in a few places that the light source's etendue affects the light path considerably. Mostly with regards to HLD LEDs offering more lumens per square mm. So presumably with a blue laser + yellow phosphor colour wheel it should still be rather smaller than a lamp + focusing mirrors, meaning less light spillage and thus better contrast.
We were told by JVC two years ago that the difference between lamp and laser/led was noticeable but not great. IIRC around 10% better on/off cr. I may be remembering the numbers incorrectly, but it wasn't going to be a big difference.
RLBURNSIDE likes this.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #417 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 08:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,347
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3784 Post(s)
Liked: 2998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Also laser/led do not explode and spew mercury vapor around your home theater like lamp can.
Yeah, maybe they will just catch fire and burn your house down.

But, seriously, here's what Philips, the inventor of the UHP lamp used in projectors, has to say about the issue of UHP lamp safety:

Quote:
No adverse effects are expected from occasional exposure to broken lamps. As a matter of good practice, avoid prolonged or frequent exposure to broken lamps unless there is adequate ventilation. The major hazard from broken lamps is the possibility of sustaining glass cuts.
No one should lose sleep worrying about the unlikely possibility of being exposed frequently enough or for sufficently prolonged periods to the tiny amount of mercury vapor contained in projector lamps that quickly dissipates when released into the air causing any health issues.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #418 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 08:34 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
It seems there's some poor understanding here as well. CRT is not analogous to this discussion because it does have persistence within the projector ...
It is called a thought experiment. I was very clear in stating that it was a super fast phosphor CRT and how this particular example worked. If you cannot imagine such a thing and what that would require then of course the analogy doesn't work. If you could imagine such a thing then the analogy would work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
Exactly, sort of, but if the lens is made well enough to resolve your "E" fully and with minimal halos, then it will also do the "3" on the next pass just as clearly, so when they combine in your eyes and brain, they will be just as clear.
If by "minimal halos" you mean low enough for the E3, then of course that would be minimal enough for the E3, but halos that are low enough for an E by itself do not mean they are minimal enough for E right next to 3. If you didn't dismiss my example of the 3 lines and glasses just because I used 3 lines for the different examples (one for the E by itself, one for the 3 by itself, and one for the E3) then I think you would understand how that works with glasses and is analogous to lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
So the lens only needs to be able to resolve the "E" and/or "3" clearly and without artifacts in each's successive pass through the lens, not as if they were together at the same time going through the lens.
No. It is just like the reading glasses have to be better to make out the "E3" than they have to be for the "E" or the "3" by themselves in my example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
OK, with that I am starting to get where you're coming from, but I don't like the "obscure" part. It seems as if you're saying the lens isn't even good enough to resolve the "E" (i.e. - the native rez of the eShift projector's imager) ...
No, the lenses in these projectors could be awesome. It would affect the discussion about whether lenses only have the resolve what goes through them in an instant or what goes through them in a frame of video. A lens that is just good enough for the "E" by itself is likely not good enough for the "E3", just like reading glasses. Whether the E and the 3 go through the reading glasses at the same time or different times is irrelevant to how good those reading glasses need to be for a person to see an "E3" instead of a big "8".

I think you and Ruined made your views very clear that the lens requirements are less if the two 2716x1528 images go through the lens in series instead of at the same time. You are both wrong on that. It doesn't matter whether the lenses the current DLPs have are perfect. The question I was addressing is whether a lens can be lower quality just because the images go through at different times. They can't since whether the images go through the lens at the same time or at different times is irrelevant to the lens just like it is irrelevant to whether multiple images go through glasses in series or a whole composite image goes through the glasses at one instance. Either way the glasses need to be good enough for the composite image that the human visual system sees. That is what glasses are for. Not for resolving sub-frames, but for resolving frames, which is a different task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
You just contradicted yourself above and said and proved what Ruined and I have been saying.
No, I did not. The glasses are just like the lenses. The glasses need to be good enough for the whole composite image even if the whole composite image doesn't go through the glasses at the same time. If eShift is used to make a different composite image then the glasses still need to be good enough for the composite image, not just the individual sub-frames.

If we follow what you and Ruined where saying then the fact that DLP colors only come one at a time would mean that your glasses don't need to be as good as when all 3 colors come at the same time. It is irrelevant whether they come at different times just like it is irrelevant whether an eShift projector puts up both sub-frames at the same time or different times. The requirements for your glasses are the same either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
This is what we have been saying all along. The lens doesn't need to change just because there is eShift (or colorwheels, or sequentially flashing LEDs) going on.
I think you have both been very clear that all that is needed for the quality of pieces of glass is what goes through them in an instant, not the whole composite frame. If that were true then the fact that only 1/3rd of the color goes through your glasses at one instant would mean that they don't need to be good enough to pass the whole composite colors. They do though. If they were not good enough to pass the whole composite image (color and resolution) then your brain would not be able to see that composite image properly. We are not talking about active lenses or glasses that you plug in and sync to a colorwheel, we are talking about static lenses and glasses that don't know what light is going to go through them at any instant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
It just needs to be good enough to resolve and pass the native resolution of the eShift projector's imaging chip. (1920x1080 for JVC and Epson; 2716x1528 for XPR DLP)
Still not true. In all cases it is the composite image that matters. That applies to both colors and resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
This isn't even relevant to how eShift works since your "E" and "3" are on totally separate lines, above and below one another.
That is what is called an irrelevant fact. It goes to the question of whether lenses and glasses that are good enough for just what is going through them in an instant of time must then be good enough for the composite image of what your brain thinks went through them in an instant of time. If we were talking about 120Hz eShift and a 1000 FPS camera then all the glass would only need to be good enough for the individual subframes. We aren't talking about that though. We are talking about human vision that thought everything went through the glass at the same time.

Do you honestly believe that the requirements for reading glasses to focus the E3 for human vision are different depending on whether the E and 3 are displayed at the exact same time or alternate 120 times per second such that your brain thinks they were displayed at the same time?

If people can't understand this simple reading glasses example then I'm not sure what to say. I hope other readers can understand that and are not misled by Ruined and your positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
I'm not sure what questions you were answering, but that was the exact thing I commented on here and questioned, which started this whole mess!
Yes, you did start this. I think your original position was very clear (wrong, but clear ):
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
I am not saying you're wrong...at all, but it seems your perception of what Ruined and I are contending is.
I think I understand perfectly well what you are both claiming. You guys just happen to be wrong. Just like the optometrist example. If the optometrist put up a single E then found you the least powerful glasses that allowed you to make out the E, then the optometrist put up the exact same sized E with a 3 very close to it (like my example), it would be very hard for you to realize that the image was an E3 using those same glasses. And it wouldn't matter whether the display they used to display the E and the E3 showed them at the exact same instance or whether they put them up so fast in sequence that you thought they were up at the same time.

I'll try to put it close to as simply as somebody else did. The whole point of the eShift part of XPR projectors is to show details that are smaller than those in 2.7k space (closer to 4k space) to humans, and if you want to show details smaller than the pixels in 2.7k space to a human it takes a better lens that what is required to shows details in 2.7k space to a human even if it takes multiple flashes to make the whole composite image. Same thing with glasses.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 06-14-2017 at 08:57 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #419 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 09:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,594
Mentioned: 198 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2750 Post(s)
Liked: 2733
So... I think all you guys are great... just fantastic human beings... but maybe we need to give the lens talk a break. Just a time out. Reconvene at a later date. You know, let the air out of the room a bit.
tomiy1 likes this.

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 #420 of 2010 Old 06-14-2017, 09:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
This is AVscience...we must search for the truth .

IMO all the sensor shifting camera tests prove without a doubt the lens must be better.

Last edited by TheronB; 06-14-2017 at 10:04 PM.
TheronB 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