Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available - Page 16 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1730Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 03:21 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
It is called a thought experiment....
Spoiler!


...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
Yet what I am looking for is a "scientific experiment" based on fact and truth......and links, and what I posted about CRT and its persistence is fact and truth and has to be factored in to your so called example, due to said persistence, which we all agreed the lenses themselves do not have.

So what you're saying, is that even though the native resolution is all that is ever going through the lens at any one given point in time
Spoiler!
, that it magically needs to resolve more than that for our human eyes and brains, which don't see said images until AFTER they leave the lens, one frame at a time, then bounce off a screen and into said eyes which is then, and only then, processed by said "human brain"?.....Gotcha!

Doesn't sound like real science, at least to me anyway. Any studies, tests, links, white papers, double blind peer reviews that can back up that claim?

Like I've said numerous times, I am not saying you are wrong, just that I would like some links and science to prove what you're claiming, which your crude examples do not to me, truthfully. Just as I said you were not wrong as far as we know now, please don't call us wrong, until you can prove your point scientifically, which you haven't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheronB View Post
Our eyes are pixel shifting sensors, and if they are to capture the added resolution XPR provides, the lens must be able to resolve it. If the lens isn't good enough, the artifacts from each "pass" of the XPR flashes will blend together, in our brain like you have been saying, and negate the resolution gain.

The point you're arguing discredits your argument.
Your eyes are ONLY ever seeing one half of the XPR frame at a time, but they're flashed fast enough that your brain merges them later. This happens AFTER the image, containing one frame at a time, goes through the lens sequentially, NOT simultaneously. Therefore, you only need the lens to resolve fully the detail of that one native resolution frame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
No, it does not.

It's actually very simple.

The DMD can only ever project 2716x1528. No more, no less. The lens, thus, only ever has this limited 2716x1528 resolution projected through it in the projector example. Unlike your camera example where the lens has unlimited resolution being captured through it.

If the lens can fully resolve 2716x1528, then the lens does not limit the DMD. Fully resolve means the lens can perfectly or near-perfectly display the resolution from edge to edge of the frame. If there are significant artifacts in the picture it is not fully resolving the resolution.

That's all there is to it. The rest of the argument is meaningless as the lens' only job in the DLP XPR projector is to display 2716x1528 as perfectly as possible - no more, no less, regardless of whether XPR is enabled or not; even if XPR is disabled I am sure you don't want artifacts and blurry resolution, and if it is enabled all you are doing is the same 2716x1528 resolution with an offset modulation. In your camera example the lens needs to deliver as much of real life's unlimited resolution to the sensor as possible, which is a monumentally more difficult job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheronB View Post
In that said lens there will be artifacts that wouldn't affect 2716x1528 but would affect 4K. The point at which things like spherical aberration affect real resolution is undeniably different. Those interpixel/blended spaces must be up to the 4K task.

That's all there is to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
If there are artifacts that are causing pixels to bleed into the space between pixels, you will be able to see this when testing a lens for quality at 2716x1528. And it will be visible at 2716x1528 and thus adversely impact the quality of both the native resolution and XPR. The Sony 4K 665ES LCOS projectors are a great example of seeing this type of between-pixel artifact (in that case caused by panel alignment instead of lens) impact the native resolution negatively.

That is the whole point, all you need is a lens that can fully resolve the native resolution and you are set. If you get a subpar lens that has significant artifacts, then yeah it will be a problem both for the native resolution and XPR 4k. But for the last 5 pages using a mediocre lens was never the argument. The argument was using a lens that could fully resolve the native resolution for the 0.67" XPR DMD.
Exactly!


Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
The fact that a lens is analog doesn't mean it's perfectly smooth, or smooth enough to not smear fine detail above a certain spatial frequency....
Spoiler!
The spatial resolution here is happening in space, outside the projector and the lens, in our eyes and brains as everyone has already said. Therefore, the lens has nothing to do with that. If it can fully and clearly resolve what is being passed through it at any given time, then that is all you need as far as the lens is concerned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
TheronB and RLBURNSIDE,

I am curious what you think of the example I posted earlier about eye charts and reading glasses:
I didn't think I could make things much simpler than that, yet Ruined continues posting his nonsense about being right because lenses are analog. So are reading glasses. I doubt he'll understand this example either.

This discussion was never about whether a lens that is perfect for the native resolution will be good enough for eShift on. It was about whether it matters whether the 2 images go through the lens at the same time or at different times. Just like with the glasses example, it doesn't for real world lenses.

It seems to me that Ruined has changed his argument a little bit to something more like if a lens scores a 10 out of 10 for sharpness with the native resolution it will score at least an 8 for eShift on, and that will be good enough, or maybe not. Real world lenses will obscure the native images and scored by how well they deliver those images to human viewers (which is their job) they will do worse delivering the images with eShift on than eShift off, even though both scores might be perfectly adequate. Whether the eShifted elements go through the lenses at the same time or different times is basically irrelevant to those scores just like with the reading glasses example where it is irrelevant whether the E and the 3 go through the glasses together or separate.

--Darin
OK, no reason to make it personal by calling his posts "nonsense". Especially since to us and maybe some others, what you are saying so far is "nonsense", especially since you haven't provided any links, facts, experiments, tests, etc. of any real scientific value, yet everything Ruined has said is common knowledge and fact where lenses are concerned, i.e.- being analog in nature and how they pass the image/light through them.

OK, so you're telling me, that given the eye chart below (represents native rez of the panel), if I can read the very bottom line with the very best possible lenses that the optometrist can give me and that human technology has created and allows for that sized letter/number(which is the key point here where lenses are concerned!), that if I then flash each of the letters alternately odd then even, as eShift is doing, then all of the sudden that lens isn't adequate to still resolve each letter independently or together? If so, hogwash! Once the Dr found the best lenses for me to see the "P F C D T Z L E" clearly and without artifact (another key fact being lost by you) on the bottom line, it then wouldn't matter one iota whether he flashed each odd letter once, then each even letter sequentially, or at the same time. It is the size of the letter that matters to a lens, NOT whether it's flashing on and off in time. This is why the native resolution of the imager/chip is all that matters where the lens is concerned. Need a lens for a 1080p or 2.7K .69" XPR chip...OK here's the lens for that (eShift doesn't matter!). Need one for .74" native 4K imager (Sony 4K) with smaller pixels per inch, then here's the higher resolution lens for that! If they happened to want to eShift that 4K chip to 8K using the same technique, then the same 4K lens would work for that too, since only 4K ever goes through the lens at any one given point in time. Now if they made an 8K native chip, then...........you know.



I am curious. What is everyone's background here that they can speak so technically and scientifically about optics and lenses? We could all be way off the mark here, honestly. So far it's just a bunch of hearsay and what each of us believes to be facts, based on the experiences we've had thus far in life and in this arena. I have made the acquaintance of a few of the Optical Engineers who work on the famed and world renowned WM Keck Telescopes on top of Mauna Kea which can resolve planets and star systems extremely far away with incredible detail, so I will maybe try to get their take on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Of course in projection, only a small portion of the lens is used--check out a shifted lens and you will see what I mean. Because of the speed of light, a wobbled light source will never go through the lens at the same time, but our eyes are so slow that it appears that it does. Doesn't really matter about the hz either. Lighted pixels do not hold and release all the light from the chip at one time, so light of each pixel is going through the lens at different times (we are talking at the speed of light here). The lens offers no confusion to the light--our eyes do.
You actually just agreed with Ruined and I with that statement, thanks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Our eyes confuse things, but the amount the lenses obscure the images (which any real lens does) affects whether are eyes will be able to see the intended detail....
Spoiler!
--Darin
Yes, and this all happens after the lens, not before it, so therefore the lens needs only to resolve what goes through it at any one given point in time, in this case, the native rez of the imager chip, since we have all agreed that lenses do not have any persistence.

You keep harping on this "lenses obscure things", but we have already established that the proper lens to fully, clearly and without artifact, been chosen and used for the native resolution of the imager, so therefore your argument that these "obscurities" prove your claim are totally moot, because they just aren't there because we used a lens that already fully, clearly and without artifact, resolves that chip's native resolution!


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
If people want to move this discussion to the thread I created for it about a year and a half ago, I am okay with that. That thread is here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...l#post39064946

I went through all this before. To begin with it was mostly me arguing against a big crowd. There are some pretty technically savvy people on the >$3.5k forum and in the end I think most of them saw that I had been right the whole time. The composite image is what matters.

I'm glad Dave Harper brought up the eyeglasses thing. I think that explains things very well. If anybody thinks that with eShift images the eyeglasses only need to be good enough for the native resolution of the projector, since that is all that goes through the eyeglasses at one time, then they need to keep thinking.

--Darin
I am glad I brought it up too, because it shows that you clearly still don't get the facts about lenses and what we are trying to convey. See my eye chart example above. I will gladly move this to that thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
While that seems logical, I think I proved that isn't the case with all 3 of these images:

1:


2:


3:


In the first image the small white square is detail that can be 1/4th the area of the 2 overlapping pixels that were used to create it (like eShift). Or the same image could be made with 7 pixels. It doesn't matter which method is used to create it, the lens requirements are essentially the same (assuming idealized 100% fill ratio pixels).

In the third image the black between the E and the 3 is finer detail than either the E or the 3 contains. That image could be created with a single projector, or 2 projectors could be used to create it. That is, you could have one projector that can only display the large E and one that can only create the large 3. Each could be perfectly fine for displaying their character alone, but as soon as you want to put them together to show an E very close to a 3, the requirements for how sharp they need to be have humans see what is intended go up. That E can be smeared and still look like an E, but have that much smearing when both projectors are going and you get an 8 instead of an E3.

I know it might surprise some that detail that is smaller than what ever goes though the lens at a moment of time is possible, but that is what eShift is all about.

--Darin
What you said for image 1 would be true, but only if it were projected using 7 smaller, discrete pixels. That is not what is happening with eShift, it is just two larger pixels overlapping by 1/4, where each of those grey boxes are projected through the lens at separate times, then the resolution of the lens only needs to be able to have the resolving power of one of those larger boxes at a time (not 7 smaller boxes/pixels all together, which would need a better lens to be delineated properly). The overlap happens after the lens, after it bounces off the screen and into our eyes, allowing our brains to subconsciously merge them together to create that two box, overlapped image that you show in Image 1.
Ruined likes this.

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-15-2017 at 03:30 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 03:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,807
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
I am curious. What is everyone's background here that they can speak so technically and scientifically about optics and lenses?
I used to be a professional photographer and am very much into the lens design & technology.
Dave Harper likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #453 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 03:45 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
This was a good thread until it went off the rails talking about lenses, etc.

-T
Marc Yu, xiaNaix, rkabir and 6 others like this.
T-Bone is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #454 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 04:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,807
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
This was a good thread until it went off the rails talking about lenses, etc.

-T
I'm willing to drop it and agree to disagree. Though I fear we are in for more animated GIFs, grey squares, and block white text on black background

Edit: and there's the bait right on schedule a few posts down. Not going to take it lol.
Dave Harper and ttn333 like this.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-15-2017 at 05:00 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #455 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 04:28 PM
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
It looks like Art from Projectorreviews.com has an Optoma UHD65 and will be doing a first look soon, followed by a full review.

He posted a first look of the HT8050, another 4K DLP PJ, a few days ago.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/the-...ter-projector/

Last edited by rkabir; 06-15-2017 at 05:18 PM.
rkabir is offline  
post #456 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 04:43 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 T-Bone View Post
This was a good thread until it went off the rails talking about lenses, etc.

-T
Yes I agree and I apologize for my part and am certainly willing to go to the original thread, but some posted that they enjoyed and wanted the info here, but they can easily go to that thread as well for their info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
I'm willing to drop it and agree to disagree. Though I fear we are in for more animated GIFs, grey squares, and block white text on black background


Same here.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #457 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 04:49 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 used to be a professional photographer and am very much into the lens design & technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
I'm willing to drop it and agree to disagree. Though I fear we are in for more animated GIFs, grey squares, and block white text on black background
I think it is kind of sad that your used to be a professional photographer and have such a poor understanding of the subject matter, especially that you don't seem to care how little you understand it.

How about answering the questions I asked Dave Harper about the E3 on an eye chart and glasses at an optometrist?

I put my response to Dave in my thread for this:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...l#post53671009

--Darin
rocklee likes this.
darinp is offline  
post #458 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 05:26 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
I think it is kind of sad that your used to be a professional photographer and have such a poor understanding of the subject matter, especially that you don't seem to care how little you understand it.



How about answering the questions I asked Dave Harper about the E3 on an eye chart and glasses at an optometrist?



I put my response to Dave in my thread for this:



https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...l#post53671009



--Darin

I already answered that question. See you over there. I can't wait to see the links to the science behind this.

Spoiler!
Dave Harper is offline  
post #459 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 05:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Dave, I'd be really iterated to hear what those telescope guys say. Please see if you can get them to chime in.

I don't have any background in optics...just going by what makes sense in my mind.

A definitive answer from some experts would be awesome.
Dave Harper likes this.
TheronB is offline  
post #460 of 2008 Old 06-15-2017, 08:22 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 TheronB View Post
Dave, I'd be really iterated to hear what those telescope guys say. Please see if you can get them to chime in.

I don't have any background in optics...just going by what makes sense in my mind.

A definitive answer from some experts would be awesome.
I am sure @Scott Wilkinson , who started this thread, knows some good optical engineer type people that could chime in on the other thread maybe too? (hint, hint!)
Dave Harper is offline  
post #461 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 01:19 AM
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 rkabir View Post
It looks like Art from Projectorreviews.com has an Optoma UHD65 and will be doing a first look soon, followed by a full review.

He posted a first look of the HT8050, another 4K DLP PJ, a few days ago.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/the-...ter-projector/

"The Optoma UHD65 – with the same 2718×1528 chip – is in house, but I haven’t played with it but for a few minutes, so not prepared to compare them in terms of blacks. I will have logged significant time on the Optoma by the time the HT8050 full online review goes live, so I’ll have more info comparing the two."



Mr. Feierman, we are dying here to read your in-depth reviews.


(Just asked him to examine lens shift and ceiling mounting options. And of course to examine Frame Interpolation performance to reduce motion blur and judder because, IIRC, that doesn't concern Mr. Feierman as much as other users like myself...)


P.S.
Here is a devoted thread to lens resolution, it would be nice, IMHO, if the corresponding discussions could continue there: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-dig...-lenses-2.html

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 06-16-2017 at 01:31 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #462 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 03:24 AM
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 rkabir View Post
It looks like Art from Projectorreviews.com has an Optoma UHD65 and will be doing a first look soon, followed by a full review.

He posted a first look of the HT8050, another 4K DLP PJ, a few days ago.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/the-...ter-projector/
I don't know how these guys sleep. I wouldn't be stopping examining these! It's like telling a kid he cant play with his toys after opening them Christmas Day!
Frank714 and am2model3 like this.
TheBrandon is offline  
post #463 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 06:06 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Here are the answers I received to my questions to Optoma, regarding UHD65 input lag vs UHD60's, and if it does actually achieve DCI P3:

“Nothing can be done about the UHD65 input lag as the MEMC can only be disabled but not removed from the architecture. The customer will need to decide what is the most important for their viewing pleasure. If frame rate matters (racing games, first person shooter), they will need to purchase the UHD60. The UHD60 performance is very good and color performance is solid.

As for wide color gamut. If the signal is HDR we use REC.2020. With support for REC.2020, coverage of DCI-P3 is "automatic" as REC.2020 is the superior color gamut. You can only support one color gamut when decoding HDR metadata.

Epson, for instance, actually uses DCI-P3 when the signal is HDR and uses REC.709 for Xbox One S HDR and Samsung K8500 4K HDR Blu-ray player.

We only use REC.709 for non-HDR content. “

The first is rather disappointing but I'm not surprised. I can't buy the 65 no matter how good the FI is, if it has 80ms undefeatable input lag all the time. No. Do better, Optoma! Many enthusiasts and gamers also enjoy smooth video.

The second is a non-answer answer. Meaning they're just telling me that P3 fits within rec 2020 (duh, I know this) and then they start talking about other projectors, not the actual gamut of colours coming out of the projector.

Processing is not the same as actually reproducing them. I guess the actual answer then, is NO WCG. Their use of the term "coverage" is simply relating to processing, which is irrelevant if there isn't the proper colour wheel or colour filters which can reproduce those colours.

I hope for 2018 they can reduce the input lag for models with that awesome FI chip in it, such that when it's disactivated it's comparable to other projectors. And FFS stop lying about WCG support using marketing jargon like "coverage" which is for the rubes. I hope at least that reviewers can take the time and actually *measure* the gamut coming out, to confirm it once and for all.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #464 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 06:24 AM
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 RLBURNSIDE View Post
And FFS stop lying about WCG support using marketing jargon like "coverage" which is for the rubes. I hope at least that reviewers can take the time and actually *measure* the gamut coming out, to confirm it once and for all.
Well, they are like lawyers... making their client appear in the best possible light ?

-T
T-Bone is offline  
post #465 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 06:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
It's a poor time to buy one of these units IMO. They are all half baked. I bet the used market will be full of them in a year or so.
xiaNaix likes this.
TheronB is offline  
post #466 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 06:59 AM
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 TheronB View Post
It's a poor time to buy one of these units IMO. They are all half baked. I bet the used market will be full of them in a year or so.

Surprise, there is never a "good" time to buy a new projector because there'll always be some improvements or added features later.


TBPH I'm really interested how sharp my standard Blu-rays will look on these UHD projectors as for the foreseeable time these are likely to make up 90% of my program content collection (witnessed how sharp these looked on the JVC X5500, now I'm curious how the UHD 65 will perform in this category).


Hardware reviewers please note: UHD Blu-rays are nice and great, but please bear in mind that a lot of folks like myself will rather often watch standard Blu-rays on a UHD projector like the ones mentioned here, so please tell us about FullHD Blu-ray performance, too - and not just about UHD performance. Thanx!
longhornsk57 and BondDonBond like this.

"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 #467 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 07:30 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,717
Mentioned: 159 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5238 Post(s)
Liked: 5492
the elephant in the room will be the native contrast. no review will be worth reading that doesn't at least include this basic info.

poor native sucks the life right out of a movie in low APL scenes.
zombie10k is online now  
post #468 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 07:42 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Surprise, there is never a "good" time to buy a new projector because there'll always be some improvements or added features later.


TBPH I'm really interested how sharp my standard Blu-rays will look on these UHD projectors as for the foreseeable time these are likely to make up 90% of my program content collection (witnessed how sharp these looked on the JVC X5500, now I'm curious how the UHD 65 will perform in this category).


Hardware reviewers please note: UHD Blu-rays are nice and great, but please bear in mind that a lot of folks like myself will rather often watch standard Blu-rays on a UHD projector like the ones mentioned here, so please tell us about FullHD Blu-ray performance, too - and not just about UHD performance. Thanx!
With SDR to HDR conversion and FI, I'd be very happy to re-watch my entire Bluray collection on these. 2K to 4K upscaling quality isn't the only thing to check out, either. Chroma upscaling matters too.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #469 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 08:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Since many here are tired of talking about lenses -- even though it is very germane to the performance potential of the particular Optoma UHD projector under discussion -- I'll put the matter to rest with this final word on the subject: Line pairs in optics consist of a white line followed by a black line. In terms of pixels in a row, the same concept applies...pixel on followed by pixel off. If all the rows in a panel are made the same way, vertical line pairs appear. In the case of the TI .66 DMD TRP16:9 chip, with 2716 pix per row, the needed-optical resolution is exactly 93 lp/mm. Were there 3860 pix/row in the same DMD size, a considerably higher lp/mm would be required.

The spec, then, on a lens with an MTF of 93 lp/[email protected]% for this chip would look like this:

DLP TRP 4K diag, full size.........0.67 16:10
DLP TRP 4K diag, video size......0.66 16:09
DLP TRP 4K diag. video size.......16.7640mm
Px per line......................................2716px
Number of lines.............................1528 lines
Aspect ration..................................1.7775:1
Tot number of Px...........................4150048px
base.............................................. ..14.6111mm
height............................................ ..8.2201mm
pixel size.........................................0.005 4mm
1 line-pair size................................0.0108mm (1px on - 1px off)
Line-pairs/mm................................92.94 lp/mm (horizontal resolution)
Vertical Resolution.........................92.94 lp/mm (same as horizontal resolution)

The point I've been trying to make -- a point which seems to have been poo pooed or ignored by some who either don't get it or don't think it's particularly relevant -- is that a decent lens with this specification is very very expensive and is not, therefore, likely to be included in the bill of materials that comprise this projector. I'm not questioning the value of the projector relative to the selling price. I'm hoping only to disabuse some of the notion that this projector represents some kind of 'breakthrough' or 'disruptive' event. Think Chevy Sonic, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio, Ford Fiesta, Nissan Versa...decent transportation for the money, but not a challenge to costlier higher-performing alternatives. The subtext of all this: don't be so gaga over the '4Kness' of this projector unless it somehow fills a critical need relative to a limitation in seating distance. A 2K DLP projector with a less challenged lens might be a better choice in terms of image quality....counterintuitive though it may seem.
am2model3 likes this.
Pete is offline  
post #470 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 08:37 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Interesting post. However, that doesn't really address the fact that 2.7K + XPR does require a better lens than one without XPR, if you actually want to see that extra detail, since the lens sits between the DMD + wobulator and the screen, so it's not enough to want a 2.7K lens, IMO.

That said, I don't think the garbage optics in my w1070 are the limiting factor in its resolution, since when I walk up to my wall I can see the pixels and tiny gaps between the mirrors. No, it's not perfectly sharp, but it's quite good, and if I can see something which is 1/10th the size of a 1080p pixel (the aperture ratio on DLPs is 90%), then I can certainly see us getting some benefit from XPR even with non-super-super expensive lenses.

If these projectors didn't look razor sharp, I don't think virtually all the reviews would be unanimous in their praise of how sharp they are. That doesn't compute to me. So I'm not worried about the resolution, for video that is. I still want a 4K wobulated DLP for cheap, that can nevertheless accept a 1:1 input mapping in order to bypass additional scaling steps which does smear away some detail in high frequency content like windows desktop.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 06-16-2017 at 12:14 PM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #471 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:04 AM
Senior Member
 
bill1908's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi all!
Was considering picking one of these up and wanted to know if anyone could recommend a reasonable priced 50ft HDMI cable that would pass all I need for this projector.

Thanks, Bill
bill1908 is offline  
post #472 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
I'd get optical HDMI for that length.

There was a used one on here for $100,but it's probably gone now.
TheronB is offline  
post #473 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:22 AM
Senior Member
 
bill1908's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheronB View Post
I'd get optical HDMI for that length.

There was a used one on here for $100,but it's probably gone now.
Thanks! So you're saying optical is my best bet?
bill1908 is offline  
post #474 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill1908 View Post
Thanks! So you're saying optical is my best bet?
In my experience things go south after about 10m/30ft with standard cable. YMMV
TheronB is offline  
post #475 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,394
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1057 Post(s)
Liked: 566
I had an Epson 5040UB for two weeks and used the enhanced faux K all the time. All it did for 1080p was make it smoother looking and a little sharper, but no more detail. I watch some 4K movies and compared to 1080p, they were really not much better. Not enough for me to keep it. If anything, it made movies look artificial. Almost like watching a documentary vs. a movie. And for 3D, the 5040UB was awful because of crosstalk. I don't get the same effect on a smaller 4K TV as I don't get the theater feeling unless I watch on the big projector screen. You will see what I mean when you start watching your 4K projector TVs in the near future. It may blow you away, or it might make you feel like watching too much soap opera especially with motion control. I was surprised by my reaction to the 5040UB faux K, but I got rid of it mainly because the 3D sucked...
xiaNaix and RLBURNSIDE like this.
3DBob is offline  
post #476 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Interesting post. However, that doesn't really address the fact that 2.7K + XPR does require a better lens than one without XPR, if you actually want to see that extra detail, since the lens sits between the DMD + wobulator and the screen, so it's not enough to want a 2.7K lens, IMO.

That said, I don't think the garbage optics in my w1070 are the limiting factor in its resolution, since when I walk up to my wall I can see the pixels and tiny gaps between between the mirrors. No, it's not perfectly sharp, but it's quite good, and if I can see something which is 1/10th the size of a 1080p pixel (the aperture ratio on DLPs is 90%), then I can certainly see us getting some benefit from XPR even with non-super-super expensive lenses.

If these projectors didn't look razor sharp, I don't think virtually all the reviews would be unanimous in their praise of how sharp they are. That doesn't compute to me. So I'm not worried about the resolution, for video that is. I still want a 4K wobulated DLP for cheap, that can nevertheless accept a 1:1 input mapping in order to bypass additional scaling steps which does smear away some detail in high frequency content like windows desktop.
Reviews notwithstanding, if you were to do an AB comparison between a 4K projector with a lens that's capable of resolving 93 line pairs per millimeter and a 4K projector with a lens that does 40 line pairs per millimeter (probably on the order of what the lens in the Optima is doing), you would immediately see what I'm talking about. It might be instructive to seek the lp/mm spec from Optima operatives...though I'd be surprised if they know...even more surprised if they knew and were willing to share it.
RLBURNSIDE likes this.
Pete is offline  
post #477 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 01:01 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 RLBURNSIDE View Post
Interesting post. However, that doesn't really address the fact that 2.7K + XPR does require a better lens than one without XPR, if you actually want to see that extra detail, since the lens sits between the DMD + wobulator and the screen, so it's not enough to want a 2.7K lens, IMO.....

And the merging of the two sub-frames, where each goes through the lens at different points in time, happens in your eyes and brains, AFTER the lens, so what's your point?

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-16-2017 at 01:22 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #478 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 01:35 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
I had an Epson 5040UB for two weeks and used the enhanced faux K all the time. All it did for 1080p was make it smoother looking and a little sharper, but no more detail. I watch some 4K movies and compared to 1080p, they were really not much better. ... If anything, it made movies look artificial. Almost like watching a documentary vs. a movie. .... . It may blow you away, or it might make you feel like watching too much soap opera especially with motion control.
I think comparing "fauxK" a la Epson and JVC with the "fauxK" the new TI DMD provides is like comparing apples and oranges. From everything I read thus far the 4K performance of the TI DMD is noticably better, and fortunately I don't have to rely on reviews of the new 4K DLP projectors but have it straight from a true JVC aficionado who watched the Acer 4K DLP and told me "Dang it, that projection image is incredibly sharp." (Too bad Sharp is no longer around...)

Regarding FullHD Blu-ray projection I'm looking less forward to improvement because of upscaling but rather forward to enhanced FullHD 1920 x 1080 image sharpness thanks to the lens requirements for 4K (put simply, if it's good for UHD it can't be bad for FullHD...).

As for the second part: what you are describing appears to be Epson's Frame Interpolation that has nothing to do with achieving 4K resolution. It reduces motion blur and judder, I prefer to refer to it as "Natural Motion Effect" (and @RLBURNSIDE now has to do some explaining why he liked your post where you obviously expressed your dislike for FI ... )

"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 #479 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 01:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 2,964
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 262 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
And the merging of the two sub-frames, where each goes through the lens at different points in time, happens in your eyes and brains, AFTER the lens, so what's your point?
The point is you need an optical resolution of 93 lp/mm to fully resolve those sub-frames
Pete is offline  
post #480 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 02:14 PM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
And the merging of the two sub-frames, where each goes through the lens at different points in time, happens in your eyes and brains, AFTER the lens, so what's your point?
My point is that whether these two sets of 4M independent pixels are travelling simultaneously, or in batches, is irrelevant when considering how good a lens you need.

It's the same exact thing for ocular microtremours, except in reverse. Our eyes darting around at 83hz are what allow a fixed number of rods and cones to pick out more spatial resolution than they otherwise would, over time.

But the cornea needs to be able to discern all the detail at once, AS IF the eyes weren't moving at all and inherently much higher resolution. This is sound engineering, because it allows you to see
way more detail at a minor cost (tiny muscle spasms plus some processing).

Increasing cellular density is hard, you know? Just like increasing DMD chip pixel density. There are only so many rods and cones you can cram onto a retina and be wide enough to pick up the wavelengths of visible light, just as there are only so many tiny mirrors you can stick onto a small die. The lenses used in between them are completely another story, you have to look at them as if the imagers or sensors are at their nominal value, including microtremours and/or XPR in this case. And that means that as a thought experiment, you need to consider the 8M pixels as if they were indeed laid out on the same grid i.e. a true 4K DMD.
RLBURNSIDE 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