BenQ W1700 : 4K HDR 3D DLP projector - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 498Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 07:19 AM
Member
 
xpostal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Some complain about everything. If we only bought things that no one complained about we'd all save a lot of money.
Exactly

This brings me back to, if it looks better than what I have now and price is right, I will buy it.
Ruined and sage11x like this.
xpostal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 08:42 AM
Member
 
Peterpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 35
We need to wait until it comes out and see some reviews first !
xpostal likes this.
Peterpack is offline  
post #63 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,427
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 3031
In a way this is like the old specifications vs. actual performance debate. In fact it is possible that a well-implemented non-native 4K projector could produce superior performance to our eyes than a less-well-implemented native 4K projector. In a case like that someone insisting on only considering a native 4K model would be sacrificing better performance in the pursuit of better specs. However, when comparing projectors of otherwise equal quality that are equally well implemented a native 4K model should have at least a slight edge over a non-native 4K model that uses secondary technologies to try to replicate native 4K performance.
xpostal likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Or another example you could have a projector with native 4k panel and lens is junk with artifacts galore , is it fair to harp on xpr projectors when they might produce a sharper output than this example? A projectors on screen resolution is more than just panel/dmd native pixel count.
It is, but you know that when you say a projector is, "4k UHD" that many readers will think it actually has 4k chips, right?

It think Dave In Green's leather example is relevant here. People can make chairs that feel like better leather than a specific real leather chair, even though they use 0 leather, but that doesn't make the first chairs leather chairs.

People should be educated that having 4k worth of pixels on a chip doesn't automatically mean that everything in the chain is up to 4k, but I still think you are fooling people when you purposely refuse to mention that these XPR DLPs are using eShift and instead insist on calling them 4k.

A 720p projector can look better than a 1080p projector, but that doesn't make the first one 720p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
But, you can't sell a format with only $35k+ projectors, so 4k uhd is a good way to describe projectors that are 90% there.
With you it seems to be about selling a format more than properly informing readers on this forum. I don't think price should be relevant at all to whether you tell people that a projector is 4k when it only has 4 million mirrors and all pixels (except for the edges) overlap with 4 other pixels. Basically, "Real 4k is too expensive, so I'll tell people these other projectors are 4k" seems like a pretty lame approach to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
JVC and Epson already coined e-shift and 4ke which produce significantly less precise output than xpr so there should be some go between native 4k and 4k eshift - hence 4k uhd term.
I think you know that the 4k uhd term misinforms people and I get the feeling that is what you want to do. 2.7k+eShift is pretty clear, but yet you come up with excuse after excuse for telling people these are 4k uhd instead. 2.7k+eshift pretty clearly differentiates the XPR projectors from 1080p+eShift.

As far as somebody "coining" a term, I don't think that should matter to us. It isn't like JVC is going to sue us for using eShift to apply to shifting technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Similar to HD term where HDTVs were 1080p, 1080i, or 720p.
That is very different. The "HD" term doesn't have a number. By that logic you can call these "UHD" to be like "HD", but here you want to use a number higher than the projector can really do, which would be more like calling a projector 720p projector by a higher number than 720 because it looks as good as a projector with higher resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
This 0.47 xpr chip will likely quite a bit worse than 0.67 xpr due to the increased pixel size and overlap. But I am willing to give it a chance to see what the final 4 way shift output is like with real content.
I believe I asked you this before TI ever announced it, but are you going to call projectors that use 1080p chips and flash them 4 times with lots of overlap by the "4k UHD" name? By what the marketing organization you like to site says I think those would qualify.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #65 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 12:38 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,084
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2457 Post(s)
Liked: 1325
I think s4k or 4ks would be good, as in shifted 4k.
If they added the S at the end, would make sense.

It is kind of an overpush for the marketing to call everything 4k these days, we didn't see 720p TV's advertising as 1080p (or even TV's that were only 1080i). They may have said "1080p inputs accepted"), but they didn't call themselves 1080p TV's.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #66 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 01:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
thunderbird1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verge2 View Post
Lag is overblown for 99% of the population. If you aren't a pro gamer an extra 20ms is nothing(but people on AVS will gripe endlessly about it). If it's insane that's one thing, but most of the dlps are pretty respectable in game mode. Keep in mind though this isn't actually 4k, if you are using it as a PC monitor, I bet text looks a bit funky.

If you are a pro gamer, you don't need to be using a projector.
x 2

Pains me when causal gamers get all antsy about a set that has 25ms vs. 40ms input lag. There is no chance almost any human notices a difference in that.

It's one thing if it's like 100+ms lag vs. 20-40. But complaining about 20-40ish ms input lag is petty. I've never met an actual competitive gamer who games on a projector anyways. They use ultra fast response gaming monitors that blow away any tv or projector.
thunderbird1100 is offline  
post #67 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,084
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2457 Post(s)
Liked: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100 View Post
x 2

Pains me when causal gamers get all antsy about a set that has 25ms vs. 40ms input lag. There is no chance almost any human notices a difference in that.

It's one thing if it's like 100+ms lag vs. 20-40. But complaining about 20-40ish ms input lag is petty. I've never met an actual competitive gamer who games on a projector anyways. They use ultra fast response gaming monitors that blow away any tv or projector.
Yah, somewhere around 70-100+ is where it's real annoying, but I don't play FPS games so I can even "stand" 80ms for a while, but then eventually you realize something just doesn't feel quite right.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #68 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 01:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post
I think s4k or 4ks would be good, as in shifted 4k.
If they added the S at the end, would make sense.

It is kind of an overpush for the marketing to call everything 4k these days, we didn't see 720p TV's advertising as 1080p (or even TV's that were only 1080i). They may have said "1080p inputs accepted"), but they didn't call themselves 1080p TV's.
Remember though 720p 1080i and 1080p were all called "HD". "4k UHD" is the equivalent of "HD" in that it covers a broader scope of resolutions than just native 4k.

Problem is Epson and JVC already coined e-shift and 4ke/4k enhancement and they only put 4mil composite pixels on the screen post shift - which is more like 3k even virtually.

4k uhd covers both native and non native 4k as long as the tech paints 8+mil composite pixels on screen (4k worth of pixels essentially). So that is the term to describe that. On the other hand the term to describe native 4k is just that, native 4k.
dreamer likes this.

Last edited by Ruined; 11-02-2017 at 01:40 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #69 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 01:32 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,084
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2457 Post(s)
Liked: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Remember though 720p 1080i and 1080p were all called "HD". "4k UHD" is the equivalent of "HD" in that it covers a broader scope of resolutions than just native 4k.
"4k UHD" should BE the equivalent of saying "1080p HD" in my opinion, but as it stands now, 4k UHD means any trickery that can add extra pixels to a 1080p grid.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #70 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 02:03 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
Remember though 720p 1080i and 1080p were all called "HD". "4k UHD" is the equivalent of "HD" in that it covers a broader scope of resolutions than just native 4k.
Why do you keep repeating this? Should be pretty simple. HD with a number meant you had to match the number. As coderguy said, "4k UHD" would be like "1080 HD", not like "HD". It's like one of those simple tests in school.

1080 HD is like 4k UHD
HD is like UHD
HD is not like 4k UHD.

Again, I think you and I both know that when you use "4k UHD" you know that many readers will think they are native 4K. It seems pretty clear to me that you want people to think these are something they are not. Using the same tired excuse over and over again that some marketing organization allows them to use "4K UHD" and so that is what you will use on the AVS forum doesn't fly, IMO. This isn't supposed to be a marketing forum, it is supposed to be a forum where people get good, solid information, not somebody trying to skew things to make a product seem like something it is not.

I would be less bothered by what you have been doing here if I didn't see a pattern with you. You also tried to spin the contrast ratio thing as if 2.7k+eShift is what people should want, and anybody who cares about CR shouldn't want native 4k, all while you ignored that one of the main reasons these 0.67" XPR projectors have such low native on/off CR is because they went with 2.7k+eShift instead of 1080p+eShift, and it is likely that marketing was their main reason for going to native 2.7k, so they and some other people could make them seem like something they are not.

Do you not even realize yourself that you are coming up with excuse after excuse to misinform people on this forum? I find it hard to believe that you don't see how "4k UHD" is unlike "HD" with no number.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 11-02-2017 at 02:10 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #71 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Why do you keep repeating this? Should be pretty simple. HD with a number meant you had to match the number. As coderguy said, "4k UHD" would be like "1080 HD", not like "HD". It's like one of those simple tests in school.

1080 HD is like 4k UHD
HD is like UHD
HD is not like 4k UHD.

Again, I think you and I both know that when you use "4k UHD" you know that many readers will think they are native 4K. It seems pretty clear to me that you want people to think these are something they are not. Using the same tired excuse over and over again that some marketing organization allows them to use "4K UHD" and so that is what you will use on the AVS forum doesn't fly, IMO. This isn't supposed to be a marketing forum, it is supposed to be a forum where people get good, solid information, not somebody trying to skew things to make a product seem like something it is not.

I would be less bothered by what you have been doing here if I didn't see a pattern with you. You also tried to spin the contrast ratio thing as if 2.7k+eShift is what people should want, and anybody who cares about CR shouldn't want native 4k, all while you ignored that one of the main reasons these 0.67" XPR projectors have such low native on/off CR is because they went with 2.7k+eShift instead of 1080p+eShift, and it is likely that marketing was their main reason for going to native 2.7k, so they and some other people could make them seem like something they are not.

Do you not even realize yourself that you are coming up with excuse after excuse to misinform people on this forum? I find it hard to believe that you don't see how "4k UHD" is unlike "HD" with no number.

--Darin
The same organization that defined HD,.Full HD etc and what counts as HD also defined 4K UHD and what counts as 4K UHD. It's literally the same group and the same situation. 4k likely added since uhd too close sounding to HD.

4k UHD means nothing on its own because "ultra HD" is a made up term! So cta defines what this made up term means, which per their definition is essentially 4k worth of pixels (8m+) per frame but not necessarily simultaneously. XPR meets this while JVC/Epson eShift does not due to half as many total pixels displayed per frame after shift(s) .

Native 4k means something on its own, a native resolution of 4k. Which is different than 4k UHD. Maybe some day there will be 4K FullUHD as was done with FullHD to describe 1080p HD.

For now though this is the score:
Native 4k/uhd = native 4096x2160/3840x2160 panel/dmd
4K UHD = native or non native 4k via 8M+ pixels displayed per frame
4Ke/eshift = higher shifted definition than 1080p but not high enough to meet 4k UHD requirements.

These 3 classes of definition make it very easy to define how "4k" a product is.

JVC is actually the most misleading of all as they can't even attain remotely close to 8M composite pixels with their current eshift yet at Cedia this year they had 4k plastered all over everything.
dreamer likes this.

Last edited by Ruined; 11-02-2017 at 04:24 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #72 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,427
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
Remember though 720p 1080i and 1080p were all called "HD". ...
FHD (full HD) is the correct term to separate 1080p from the lesser HDs. But it was convenient for marketing folks to blur the lines when they wanted to push lesser 720p/1080i models just as it is convenient to blur the lines between native and non-native 4K when pushing non-native 4K. Using F4K for full 4K might not work because some might interpret F4K as faux 4K.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #73 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:26 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
As I've said before Ruined, you know that when you say a projector is "4k UHD" that many readers here will think it is native 4k.

Are you going to deny that?

I guess we know one person other than those getting paid to spin who will claim that native 1080p projectors with 4 shifted sub-frames are 4k.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #74 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
As I've said before Ruined, you know that when you say a projector is "4k UHD" that many readers here will think it is native 4k.

Are you going to deny that?

I guess we know one person other than those getting paid to spin who will claim that native 1080p projectors with 4 shifted sub-frames are 4k.

--Darin
I frequently educate people on what 4k uhd means but that is actually cta's job. It's a made up term they defined and created logos for etc.

Shouldnt these "misleading" charges more be levied at JVC who advertises their native 1080p projectors as 4k, when JVC can't even create 4k definition in virtual resolution nevermind native since their shift only accomplishes 4M pixels?

At least TI's solution creates 8M+ virtual pixels to meet the 4k uhd standard, JVC does half that and called it 4k anyway this past Cedia!
Troy LaMont, dreamer and Kris404 like this.

Last edited by Ruined; 11-02-2017 at 04:49 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #75 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:38 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
Interesting you don't hammer jvc all the time who advertises their native 1080p projectors as 4k ...
Show me where.

I recall that they got trashed for saying it in one place and there was no need for me to chime in when everybody here agrees that they should not be called 4k and it had already been pointed out. That is very different than this situation where you keep finding excuse after excuse to call these XPR DLPs "4k UHD" on this forum.

Can you show me even one person who has defended JVC using just "4k"? I definitely haven't and wouldn't. If some troll kept pushing them as that I would definitely say something and I would continue saying something. But nobody here is doing that from what I've seen.

You don't work for one of these companies, right? So, why are you so set on using a term that you know misleads readers on this forum? It seems to me like you have looked for any spin you can find to defend these DLPs, even when it isn't logical.

They have real attributes that can be mentioned in a non-misinforming way. You shouldn't have to mislead people about what they really are.

Seriously, if the CTA changed their rules and decided that the JVCs qualified as "4k UHD", would you start calling them "4k UHD" with absolutely no qualifier? I sure wouldn't. I have my doubts that you would given how I've seen you spin things.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #76 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 04:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Show me where.

I recall that they got trashed for saying it in one place and there was no need for me to chime in when everybody here agrees that they should not be called 4k and it had already been pointed out. That is very different than this situation where you keep finding excuse after excuse to call these XPR DLPs "4k UHD" on this forum.

Can you show me even one person who has defended JVC using just "4k"? I definitely haven't and wouldn't. If some troll kept pushing them as that I would definitely say something and I would continue saying something. But nobody here is doing that from what I've seen.

You don't work for one of these companies, right? So, why are you so set on using a term that you know misleads readers on this forum? It seems to me like you have looked for any spin you can find to defend these DLPs, even when it isn't logical.

They have real attributes that can be mentioned in a non-misinforming way. You shouldn't have to mislead people about what they really are.

Seriously, if the CTA changed their rules and decided that the JVCs qualified as "4k UHD", would you start calling them "4k UHD" with absolutely no qualifier? I sure wouldn't. I have my doubts that you would given how I've seen you spin things.

--Darin
I have moved on and accept the industry definitions for what they are, and use them as such. When JVC releases an under 10k projector that meets 4K UHD spec ill refer to it as 4K UHD, yes.
dreamer and xpostal like this.
Ruined is offline  
post #77 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 06:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
ZenithPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 81
So tired of the same fake 4k debate that goes in every thread these days. Would like more specific info about this projector but I don't expect much more to come for a while.
ZenithPete is offline  
post #78 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 06:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenithPete View Post
So tired of the same fake 4k debate that goes in every thread these days. Would like more specific info about this projector but I don't expect much more to come for a while.
Yep me too. Time for people to move on, as it details the thread unnecessarily.

We won't have detail for some time but I expect worse detail performance than the UHD65 due to the smaller DMD.

But it's cheap for 4k, has 3d, and is the first 4-way xpr unit. Seems like it could be a good value at $1500-$1800 street.

Last edited by Ruined; 11-02-2017 at 09:49 PM.
Ruined is offline  
post #79 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 06:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,065
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Liked: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
We won't have detail for some time but I expect worse performance than the UHD65 both in detail and contrast with this unit due to the smaller DMD.
That would be disappointing. Also disappointing is the note that the zoom lens is only 1.2x which means it is not using the same optics as the HT2050/3050. I didn't see any mention of the base throw, but the 1.2x is the the same as the HT1070A zoom which may mean it is in that similar longer throw range than the HT2050 and won't fit in some of our (existing Benq owners) smaller rooms.
sage11x likes this.

*********************
Kirk Ellis
BenQ TK800 VuTec 122" Screen, Harmon Kardon AVR 247
Psycoustic Mark III L&R Towers, Boston Center, Energy Take 5 Surrounds
dreamer is online now  
post #80 of 946 Old 11-02-2017, 09:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
That would be disappointing. Also disappointing is the note that the zoom lens is only 1.2x which means it is not using the same optics as the HT2050/3050. I didn't see any mention of the base throw, but the 1.2x is the the same as the HT1070A zoom which may mean it is in that similar longer throw range than the HT2050 and won't fit in some of our (existing Benq owners) smaller rooms.
Actually just edited my post I momentarily forgot the 0.47 xpr has a lower native resolution, meaning it's possible contrast could be similar to the UHD65 as mirror density would be similar to the 0.67.

Detail likely will suffer though since the pixels are larger with significantly more overlap using the 0.47 xpr dmd. How much of a difference will be noticeable with content is another story, though.
sage11x likes this.
Ruined is offline  
post #81 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 12:21 AM
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
When JVC releases an under 10k projector that meets 4K UHD spec ill refer to it as 4K UHD, yes.
So, if JVC decides to use the same 1080p chips, but do 4 eShift sub-frames, even if it makes the images worse overall, we know one person who will push them as being 4K projectors (if you keep your word).

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #82 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 03:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
Samfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenithPete View Post
So tired of the same fake 4k debate that goes in every thread these days. Would like more specific info about this projector but I don't expect much more to come for a while.
Agreed! I fully-expect Michael Palin from Monty Python to pop up in one of these threads and exclaim, “No one expects the fauxK inquisition!”
xpostal likes this.
Samfield is online now  
post #83 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 04:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samfield View Post
Agreed! I fully-expect Michael Palin from Monty Python to pop up in one of these threads and exclaim, “No one expects the fauxK inquisition!”
"Every JVC's sacred, every JVC's great. If a JVC's wasted, God be quite irate."
Troy LaMont, coug7669 and xpostal like this.
Ruined is offline  
post #84 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 05:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Viper359's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Wow, another thread completely off the rails with this nonsense fighting. How about we try and stick to the topic, about the actual projector.
DavidK442 likes this.

Beamer: JVC RS420 || Screen: 120" SilverTicket 16:9 Frame || Fronts: Paradigm Monitor 7 || Center: Paradigm Monitor CC390 || Sub: Polk HTS 12 || Surrounds: Paradigm Monitor Bookshelf || Atmos Rear: Polk || AVR: Denon AVR S710 || Streamer: Nvidia Shield ||Control: Harmony Hub Ultimate ||Console: Xbox One X
Viper359 is offline  
post #85 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 07:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,849
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2637 Post(s)
Liked: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper359 View Post
Wow, another thread completely off the rails with this nonsense fighting. How about we try and stick to the topic, about the actual projector.
The details are admittedly slim, but this is what we have:

0.47" DMD, with 4-way XPR 4K UHD shift
3840x2160 input resolution
3840x2160 optical composite resolution (8M+ pixels)
1920x1080 native resolution
3D-enabled (WOOHOO!)
Limited lens shift
HDR10
rec709
RGBRGB color wheel

I think this projector is aimed at the person who:
1. Wants to spend under $2000 on a 4K UHD projector aimed at dark home theater environment (unlike the UHD60, for instance, which is designed for ambient light)
2. Is willing to give up some 4k definition in exchange for DLP's exclusively fantastic crosstalk-free, flicker-free 3D Support

The biggest question facing this projector is how well the 4-way XPR shift works. Essentially taking a 1080p native resolution and 4-way shifting it to create 8+million pixels, it would be really interesting to see how this fares against the UHD65's higher native and 2-way shift.

Beyond that not much else available yet.
Ruined is offline  
post #86 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 07:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,695
Mentioned: 206 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2808 Post(s)
Liked: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper359 View Post
Wow, another thread completely off the rails with this nonsense fighting. How about we try and stick to the topic, about the actual projector.
Yeah, we need to have a sticky where we can take the 4k/fauxK pissing match. Same thing happened in the Optoma UHD60/65 thread. I don't want this to happen every single time a manufacturer announces a new product but that looks to be the trend. Discussing the pros/cons of how a particular product creates it's image is one thing but this has been litigated and re-ligated to death.

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 #87 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 08:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,427
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3831 Post(s)
Liked: 3031
All it really takes to set the record straight in any discussion of a particular projector is for one person to simply point out the fact that the projector being discussed either is or isn't native 4K. That will allow everyone reading the thread to make a more informed decision as to whether or not the projector in question meets their personal requirements regarding native vs. non-native 4K.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #88 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 11:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 11,367
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1345 Post(s)
Liked: 1503
The 3D is nice for sure for those who have been holding out on a sub "4K" projector due to lack of 3D. I am curious about input lag and actual native contrast. I would love to see a 4K DLP projector that has much higher native contrast, better lens shift, and lower input lag for the same price as say an Epson 5040UB (or even slightly more).
ack_bk is offline  
post #89 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
ZenithPete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 81
I'd pay 2500-3000 USD (as opposed to 2000 or less) for a projector with better contrast and 3d. Hopefully there will be more options soon than the benq but otherwise decent chance I will buying it.
ZenithPete is offline  
post #90 of 946 Old 11-03-2017, 02:21 PM
Senior Member
 
MJ DOOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: COOK COUNTY, IL
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Looks like BenQ is calling this "light 4k". Also a second projector "W6000" is being released along side the W1700. The W6000 will have better color, lens shift and a larger optical zoom than the W17000. But like the W1700, the W6000 will use the .47 XPR chip.

http://m.pjtime.com/2017/10/m372552168651.shtml

I unfold the scroll, plant seeds to stampede the globe
When I'm deceased, by then the beast arise like yeast
to conquer peace leaving savages to roam in the streets.
MJ DOOM is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

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