Originally Posted by hagsi
The misinformation about these DLPs seems to be never ending. One more reviewer who doesn't understand how things work given that they said:
You could be forgiven at this stage for calling the W1700 another ?pixel shifter,? however, that?s not quite correct either. Due to the speed of the mirrors, it?s able to flash four distinct images, negating the need for diagonal offset or overlapping of the pixels.
Of course they use offset (and likely diagonal for at least 1 of the sub-frames) and of course the pixels overlap. They don't have to overlap in time, just like they don't have to overlap in time with JVC projectors. Anybody who has taken video at 1000 fps with a JVC, like I have, would see that they can change their pixel levels pretty quickly. The JVCs can flash 2 distinct images for eShift. Faster doesn't mean you don't have to shift pixels or overlap pixels.
The DLP pixels overlap spatially, which is all that really matters as long as human vision doesn't see temporal separation. Just think about it. The native (1080p) pixels are 4 times the size of 4K pixels on screen, like they said. So, if you don't shift pixels how do you get to 8 million pixels on screen? Pixels that aren't shifted don't count as new pixels, so you would only have 2 million pixels that count.
If a person wants to argue that pixels don't overlap to a high speed camera they would have to admit that the JVC pixels don't overlap either using that criteria, and if you go by what a high speed camera sees then an RGB color wheel DLP could only show 3 colors. We say that they can produce many colors because we go by what a human or slow speed sensor sees. That is what counts and by that those 4 flashes also overlap.
Funny how a reviewer can take something that just shifts 4 times instead of 2 and make it out like it isn't a pixel shifter, like the JVCs. It is very much like them, just with 4 sub-frames instead of 2 sub-frames.
I wonder if they purposely said "diagonal offset" to trick people into thinking that they aren't pixel shifters. Horizontal offset for 1 sub-frame and then vertical for another would still be pixel shifting and would mean overlapping pixels. I wonder if these guys fell for some cleverly worded deception from TI or BenQ.