Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available - Page 17 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1730Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #481 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,393
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1056 Post(s)
Liked: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
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 ... )
No, actually I like a little frame interpolation to cut down on judder. What I'm referring to is the unnaturalness of a 2D image that is not longer what you are used to see when watching a movie at a theater. I have a 160" dalite highpower screen, so I see things on a grander scale, I guess..
3DBob is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #482 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 02:27 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 Frank714 View Post
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 ... )
I thought he was talking about the smoothed out analog look from the image upscaling, not in terms of motion.

I don't particularly care if other people like FI or not, it's just to me 3D in 24p is very hard to watch, harder than 24p in 2D.

And for good reason, the eyes are out of sync for longer (since they are shown one after the other but the actual frames are meant to be shown simultaneously).

3D Blurays are really meant to be watched on dual projection, if you look at the frame timestamps vs when they are actually shown.

This desync is 2.5x less pronounced at 60hz per eye than 24hz per eye.

I find smoothed 3D way more believable and immersive than jerky 3D which is why it's a real shame that the best FI in the industry on the UHD65 can't be seen in 3D (yet). Doug Trumbull was talking about 3D frame timestamps vs projector setup, making them appropriate for time-sequential 3D (left eye then right eye then left again, etc), like how single projector 3D works. I'd love to see a 3D SBS encoded movie at 60hz, through interpolation, where the left and right frames were properly time-aligned. I.e. the frame shown second was interpolated to 1/2 a timestamp later. Apparently that alone is a reason why some people find 3D irritating and why passive 3D is considered superior. Of course you could do that with dual UHD65s And you could also do active 3D with a single UHD60/65 if they would accept a 2.7K120 input signal.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #483 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 03:11 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 Pete View Post
I'll put the matter to rest with this final word on the subject:
I appreciate the effort, but I always find it interesting when somebody essentially posts that they are going to get the last word on a subject matter and everybody else better just shut up.

I already moved to a dedicated thread for lens issues, but since people are posting here instead I will put my responses in the same thread they posted in, for now. I would be happy if people moved to the other thread, butt I won't keep moving things over there if people insist on responding here.

Is it your position that the lens requirements would be different if both eShift images passed through the lens at the same time instead of different times? That is what some people are claiming.
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?
While the fact you posted is true, it is an irrelevant fact to the question of what is required of the lens. I know you don't understand the science of light and glass very well, but the claim you are making that the resolution requirements would be different if the two sub-frames went through the glass at the same time is false. The eye integrates the light that the lens has sent to places it wasn't supposed to, but whether the registration of that stray light goes to the brain at exactly the same time or at 2 times that are so close that the brain registers them as the same time, does not matter. As I said in the other thread a year and a half ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I view this as like test questions in school where the teacher would put irrelevant information and part of the class would change their answer based on it. In this case the irrelevant information is whether the left and right side are shown at the same time or at different times when each is being shown at higher frequency than the viewing system can perceive.

If people don't want to consider human vision they can consider what a camera would capture when taking a picture with a long exposure and how much smearing of the E and the 3 are allowed before a picture taken in such a way would show them as one object instead of 2, then how that amount of smearing compares with how much the E can be smeared when shown by itself and still be recognized as an E.
The minimum strength of glasses an optometrist needs to give a person to see the E3 does not depend on whether the E and the 3 go though the glasses in the same millisecond or different milliseconds. I know you don't understand that. I'm not sure what it would take for you to understand that basic thing about glass, lenses and light. You still don't seem to get that the E can be a lot more obscured when by itself than when next to the 3 and still have the human be able to identify the E and have somehow come to the rather crazy (IMO) position that you need to know when the E and 3 went through the lens before you can figure out how much the E can be obscured before it isn't identifiable as an E to the viewer.

If an optometrist put just the E up so small that no human could read it, then zoomed it slowly until the patient identified it as an E, then repeated the same thing starting with a super small E3, the size of the E in the first part where the patient could identify it would be smaller than the size of the E in the E3 part of the test. And again, it wouldn't matter whether those things were put up so the whole set was going through the glasses at the same time, or if only part of the images was going through the glasses in each instant (but so fast a human wouldn't know how the display was actually creating the images).

You still haven't explained why the amount of obscuring of the E allowed before the E is not identifiable in the E3 case would make the E unidentifiable at the same size when the E is all by itself. I believe I already showed that if you put a gray boundary around the E (simulating the obscuring a lens does, which is something every lens in the world does, but just to different degrees) then the E is easy to identify by itself, but makes the E disappear (and become half of a blocky 8) when right next to the 3.

In the E3 example the smallest detail is the vertical black lines between the E and the 3. A "good enough" lens for that image has to retain enough of that detail for the user to see it. Yet detail that small may have never passed through any lens (the one in the projector, the ones in a pair of glasses, and the lenses in human vision). Despite the fact that the finest detail in the composite image never passes through any glass is irrelevant, those pieces of glass still need to retain that fine detail. To do otherwise is to not be good enough, even if they were plenty fine for the low detail E and low detail 3.

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 06-16-2017 at 03:24 PM.
darinp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #484 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 05:07 PM
 
rocklee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,032
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
I appreciate the effort, but I always find it interesting when somebody essentially posts that they are going to get the last word on a subject matter and everybody else better just shut up.
--Darin
Happens a lot here Darin. Can you give your final perspective on e-Shift and whether it has a place in future projection given the numerous requirements for visual effect preferences such as 3D, FI etc. My apologies for going a bit off tangent but I use DSLRs and while I'm no expert in the field I've never seen such technology put to use to compensate for lack of resolution. To me it's not so much about the lenses but the sensors (the bottleneck IMO) that these cameras use to resolve whatever they can capture from the lenses in terms of lighting and resolution. My point is that I'm not sold on technology (ie. e-Shift) that attaches itself onto a project image that is already compromised by so many other things during the course of the projection. By centering the bottleneck on the lenses would mean that the industry will need to look at developing high end lenses for projectors to rival DSLR lenses, that is becoming a bit too absurd to me.
rocklee is offline  
post #485 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 05:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Read the link I posted before in the thread. It seems the pixel shifting sensors require very good lenses, or at least the sweet spot, and will surely surpass them in a short time. That will be nice when the resolution war ends because no one can afford to produce or buy better lenses.
TheronB is offline  
post #486 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 06:25 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 Pete View Post
The point is you need an optical resolution of 93 lp/mm to fully resolve those sub-frames


Exactly!!! So the lens used only needs to be able to fully resolve, without artifacts/aberrations, the 1920x1080 or 2.7K sub-frame resolution, NOT the composite of those images nor a native 4K image resolution! Thanks Pete!





Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
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.....


That seems to be contradictory to what Pete just posted.



Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
.....Is it your position that the lens requirements would be different if both eShift images passed through the lens at the same time instead of different times? That is what some people are claiming...


Yes, because then the spatial resolution of the composite image is going through the lens at the same moment in time, therefore basically needing the same resolving power of the lens as a native 4K resolution chip, more or less. It needs to be better than the lens that is only sending native 1080p or 1080p eShift anyway. But since eShift sub-frames travel through the lens at different points in time and the spatial resolution and merging of the pixels to form the composite "pseudo 4K" XPR image happen AFTER the lens and in the human being watching's eyeballs and brains, then the lens needs only to resolve the native resolution of said sub-frame, in this case 1920x1080 for LCD/DiLA eShift or 2.7K for DLP XPR, just as Pete said above.



I have just had a long text exchange with someone from UH Hilo (where a lot of the telescopes on Mauna Kea have labs, researchers and professors) and whom is assisting in the design of the UH 88" Telescope and the NASA Infrared Telescope. He has confirmed what I and Ruined have been saying. I will send some snapshots of the texts when I can.





Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
...While the fact you posted is true, it is an irrelevant fact to the question of what is required of the lens. I know you don't understand the science of light and glass very well.......



--Darin


But he does, and he works and puts this knowledge into practice every day in real world situations (not just what he learned in school years ago), and he confirmed what I and Ruined thought to be true as well, so apparently that statement applies to you as well.

Last edited by Dave Harper; 06-16-2017 at 06:57 PM.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #487 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 07:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
He said he will post more later.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong here...this means much cheaper designs can be employed to push resolution boundaries higher as the tech develops without significant added costs to the lens.

LCoS with 4 shifts would give great native contrast and perfect 4K or better resolution with moving video.

Last edited by TheronB; 06-16-2017 at 08:01 PM.
TheronB is offline  
post #488 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 08:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2578
Optoma UHD60 & UHD65 4K/UHD HDR DLP Projectors Now Available

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Is the lens improved over the HT2050 (which is actually quite good for the money)?


This is now the post heard 'round the forum. Or, at the very least, the shot that derailed the thread. Lol!

Bet you had no idea what you were going to start wth this little comment did ya David?
DavidHir and RLBURNSIDE like 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.

Last edited by sage11x; 06-16-2017 at 08:19 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #489 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 10:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
It is a darn shame this projector wasn't unveiled at E3. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Ruined is offline  
post #490 of 2008 Old 06-16-2017, 11:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheronB View Post
LCoS with 4 shifts would give great native contrast and perfect 4K or better resolution with moving video.
We are talking a lot about high resolution lenses here, but with LCOS you have 3 panels to align and it is rare you have pixel-perfect alignment. Could have the best lens in the world, but without perfect panel alignment the lens output is no longer perfect.

I think DLP is really the better technology to use pixel shifting with since there is no alignment of panels needed and thus there is no chance of panel alignment artifacts spoiling the effect.

On one of Ekki's closeup photos of the Sony 4K 665 vs Acer V9800 XPR, the XPR actually looked sharper than the native 4k because the panel alignment artifacts were interfering with a pattern in the image on the Sony. So that will be an big barrier for LCOS going forward IMO, especially with 4 shifts.
RLBURNSIDE and Frank714 like this.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-16-2017 at 11:29 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #491 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 04:03 AM
 
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
UHD60 showing for preorder at Best Buy:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/optoma-u...?skuId=5912304
RLBURNSIDE likes this.
Dave Harper is offline  
post #492 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 05:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Both models are up on the online shopping sites here in Taiwan.

3K for the 65, 2.8K for the 60.

Sad they charge more in the home country, but they don't get much volume here in sure.

Dave - Please reconsider posting their explanations. I'd like to fully get my head around it.
TheronB is offline  
post #493 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 07:29 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 TheronB View Post
He said he will post more later.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong here...this means much cheaper designs can be employed to push resolution boundaries higher as the tech develops without significant added costs to the lens.

LCoS with 4 shifts would give great native contrast and perfect 4K or better resolution with moving video.
The best about AVS is having a curious mind and having ideas that you thought were solid be challenged. Being proved wrong is just another way of saying "I learned something today".

If anyone wants to do a bit more reading on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

So a lens' angular resolution depends inversely on the diameter of the lens, which makes sense. But there are other effects to consider, like the lateral resolution, and diffraction.

My original thinking that XPR == 4K optically was considering light only as particles (rays) rather than waves, treating two sets of 4M pixels overlaid in space as being equivalent to in time, and that's obviously (in retrospect) incorrect / incomplete. More pixels side-by-side in space at the same time does have a higher chance of diffraction, than siloed off into distinct times, due to parallel light interacting with itself (wavelike property) making it harder for the lens.

I do agree with those who say that these chips can't resolve 1-pixel wide 4K content thus shouldn't be considered true 4K, but that's not necessary for UHD Bluray content to be shown as well as it could be, considering the only competitors to TI's DLP schemes are 3-chip designs and those likely are less sharp due to imperfect panel alignment. In that case I'd argue that perfecting panel alignment is pretty much a requirement for true 4K before it tries to compete here. I do want a 1:1 mode for data and graphics but for movies and games I'd definitely use the 4K60 mode for 2X greater overall resolution.

All this said, my w1070 is freaking out on me and shutting down randomly now, so I might have to upgrade sooner rather than later. I got a couple price quotes for the UHD65 locally that seemed pretty decent. I do want laser but that'll double the price in the fall when it comes out.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #494 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 08:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
The next 3 years will be a bad time to buy a projector as 4k standards and solid state light source mature. The difference with this one is that you can still experience 4k UHD right now without spending a bunch of cash on a more expensive projector that will massively depreciate.
Ruined is offline  
post #495 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 08:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
BondDonBond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: US
Posts: 801
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
The next 3 years will be a bad time to buy a projector. The difference with this one you can still experience 4k without spending a bunch of cash on a more expensive projector that will massively depreciate.
I agree, I keep coming back the the UHD65 for that reason. Things are going to change a lot and $2500 though good amount of money is not going to make me sad when I replace within 2 years or so....

Home Theater: JVC NX7, Stewart 120" 2:35 StudioTech 130, Panamorph DCR Lens, B&W 802 Nautilus, HTM1, 4-B&W 805's for surround, 4-Martin Logan 22's ceiling speakers ATMOS, 2- 18" Velodyn Subs, Marantz 8802A, MacIntosh 8207 AMP and Proceed AMP 5, Oppo 203, Panasonic 820, Apple TV, XBox One
BondDonBond is offline  
post #496 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 08:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
The best about AVS is having a curious mind and having ideas that you thought were solid be challenged. Being proved wrong is just another way of saying "I learned something today".
Yes. It is important also to do this without condescension, name-calling, and smugness, however, when debating a concept (not that you did this).

As when this occurs I will no longer waste time debating someone.

Quote:
All this said, my w1070 is freaking out on me and shutting down randomly now, so I might have to upgrade sooner rather than later. I got a couple price quotes for the UHD65 locally that seemed pretty decent. I do want laser but that'll double the price in the fall when it comes out.
You may want to see how the Vivitek HK2288 compares as well. End of June release and about 30-50% more expensive (MSRP 3000-3999 range). But may be several notches higher in performance. Vivitek used awesome lenses in the past and I could see them doing so here for best sharpness and contrast.

Also don't forget dynamic contrast/iris. As these pj's will likely have a native on/off in 1250:1 - 2500:1 range, the quality of their dynamic contrast algorithm/hardware will be of paramount importance.
Dave Harper likes this.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-17-2017 at 08:47 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #497 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 09:17 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
I asked a follow up question to Optoma about Silent mode / XPR off i.e. whether 1:1 input could be supported. Also what, if any, resolutions support 120hz refresh rate, since 120hz is in fact mentioned as the max refresh in the PJ specs. It could be disabled or a hidden res which can be re-added via custom resolution on a PC. I have to do this on my w1070 to add 1280 x 720 x 120 since by default only 1280 x 800 x 120 is listed, and that's not at the right aspect ratio.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #498 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 09:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I asked a follow up question to Optoma about Silent mode / XPR off i.e. whether 1:1 input could be supported. Also what, if any, resolutions support 120hz refresh rate, since 120hz is in fact mentioned as the max refresh in the PJ specs. It could be disabled or a hidden res which can be re-added via custom resolution on a PC. I have to do this on my w1070 to add 1280 x 720 x 120 since by default only 1280 x 800 x 120 is listed, and that's not at the right aspect ratio.
When they initially announced the UHD65 you couldn't disable XPR but that may have changed. The more expensive XPRs like BenQ, Vivitek, etc allow it to be disabled.
Ruined is offline  
post #499 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 09:42 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
My thinking is that it makes no sense to even allow XPR to be disabled unless a 1:1 input mapping is also exposed. Because without 1:1, a 2.7K chip showing either 1080p or 2160p would look much less clear than a 1080p native projector costing 1/6 or even 1/10 of the price. Everyone who's ever owned an LCD and tried any resolution other than its native resolution knows this. And hopefully these manufacturers realize it as well.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #500 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 10:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
My thinking is that it makes no sense to even allow XPR to be disabled unless a 1:1 input mapping is also exposed. Because without 1:1, a 2.7K chip showing either 1080p or 2160p would look much less clear than a 1080p native projector costing 1/6 or even 1/10 of the price. Everyone who's ever owned an LCD and tried any resolution other than its native resolution knows this. And hopefully these manufacturers realize it as well.
Yeah, although these are Optoma's xpr projector that seems more aimed towards gaming/family rooms (UHD60) and home theater (UHD65). In both if these cases there isn't much advantage to disabling XPR, as in all three of those use cases xpr will look superior.

The Uhd550x is the one aimed toward business which would be more likely to be used with windows desktop by the consumer, there it would be more useful. On the other hand, the pixels are so small in the first place it might not be needed for clarity.

It may be more costly to have to support 2716x1528 instead of just upscaling everything to 3840x2160 so this may be a corner that was cut to hit the price points Optoma did. If that were the case I bet most would appreciate the tradeoff to get the lower price.

The good thing is the Vivitek HK2288 is not that much more expensive and if the UHD65 doesn't meet you needs the Vivitek probably will, coming out in 2wks.

Last edited by Ruined; 06-17-2017 at 10:19 AM.
Ruined is offline  
post #501 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 10:24 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
I don't know of a single TV or display that won't allow a 1:1 input mapping mode, though, so this would be the first instance I could think of, since perhaps those first plasma TVs with non-square pixels. Even then, I believe they could accept their native res and let the source electronics do the scaling.

A big problem with those other models is they don't have an RGBRGB colour wheel, even the UHD60. So it's a real quandary. I'll report back what they say.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #502 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 10:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I don't know of a single TV or display that won't allow a 1:1 input mapping mode, though, so this would be the first instance I could think of, since perhaps those first plasma TVs with non-square pixels. Even then, I believe they could accept their native res and let the source electronics do the scaling.

A big problem with those other models is they don't have an RGBRGB colour wheel, even the UHD60. So it's a real quandary. I'll report back what they say.
Also keep in mind it's rare to have a consumer display with a native res that is nowhere near the resolution of the major consumer standards (1920x1080, 3840x2160). These XPR are unique in that manner, and I bet 99.9% of Optoma's market for these two would never use 2716x1528 as a result of that.

Again if it doesn't turn out to work keep an eye on that Vivitek coming out shortly. I have a hunch it will be significantly ahead of the UHD65 in performance and it will have a native mode.
RLBURNSIDE likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #503 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 10:39 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
It's not rare at all, there are tons of PC monitors and even some projectors with non 16:9 aspect ratios thus weird resolutions, and they all have a 1:1 mode + additional modes with scaling obviously. (some also can be presented as is, like a 16:9 resolution on a 21:9 monitor, with black pillarbox).

There are many 16:10 projectors for example.

I think it's stupid, personally, since it's so close to 16:9, but some people like the extra vertical real estate. Not to mention all the 17:9 projectors coming out now with true 4K (4096 x 2160) which I find completely absurd. They also have 1:1 input modes, every single one. 17:9, talk about a non-standard aspect ratio for a consumer display. But lots of companies are pushing that it seems, for projection. They actually cost you performance (either losing out on lumens or losing out on sharpness due to extra scaling).
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #504 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 11:33 AM
Member
 
rkabir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 85
I see that the JVC DLA-RS400U is on sale for $2900.

Not sure I know which one to pickup the RS400U or the UHD65. I already have 20+ 4K UHD movies in my collection...
rkabir is offline  
post #505 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 01:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkabir View Post
I see that the JVC DLA-RS400U is on sale for $2900.

Not sure I know which one to pickup the RS400U or the UHD65. I already have 20+ 4K UHD movies in my collection...
UHD65 will be sharp 4k, JVC a lot more contrast. Depends if you prefer sharpness or contrast.

Also if you can afford 3k may want to look at the Vivitek HK2288 coming out in 2 weeks, will likely perform significantly better than the UHD65.
Ruined is offline  
post #506 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 02:04 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,475
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3411 Post(s)
Liked: 1860
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkabir View Post
I see that the JVC DLA-RS400U is on sale for $2900.

Not sure I know which one to pickup the RS400U or the UHD65. I already have 20+ 4K UHD movies in my collection...
Is that from Mike or Craig at AVscience?

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #507 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 02:12 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 darinp View Post
I appreciate the effort, but I always find it interesting when somebody essentially posts that they are going to get the last word on a subject matter and everybody else better just shut up
Actually that was not my thought pattern. There had been complaints about the direction of the thread and I merely wanted to get one last point across on the subject before discourse moved on. I can see how my choice of words might have given you a negative impression about the size of my ego. Apologies...
Pete is offline  
post #508 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 02:19 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
Exactly!!! So the lens used only needs to be able to fully resolve, without artifacts/aberrations, the 1920x1080 or 2.7K sub-frame resolution, NOT the composite of those images nor a native 4K image resolution
Perhaps my syntax was poorly phrased. You need a lens that will resolve 93 line pairs per millimeter for each of the two subframes
Dave Harper likes this.
Pete is offline  
post #509 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 03:05 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
UHD65 will be sharp 4k, JVC a lot more contrast. Depends if you prefer sharpness or contrast.

Also if you can afford 3k may want to look at the Vivitek HK2288 coming out in 2 weeks, will likely perform significantly better than the UHD65.
Why are you thinking the HK2288 will outperform the UHD65?
TheBrandon is offline  
post #510 of 2008 Old 06-17-2017, 04:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,806
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBrandon View Post
Why are you thinking the HK2288 will outperform the UHD65?
It won't definitely outperform the UHD65 but it is $750-$1000 more MSRP and Vivitek's track record is better than Optoma's; not that Optoma's is bad, but Vivitek has put out some really fantastic projectors that Optoma hasn't quite matched. I think that extra cost could go towards better parts like lens quality or dynamic iris quality.
TheBrandon likes this.
Ruined 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