Originally Posted by 3DBob
; As others have discussed, the .66 has better contrast because it does less eshifts. The additional eshifts on the .47 chip causes the decrease in contrast, not the chip itself or lack of masking, etc. Also, I didn't understand the 3D reference to get a .66 model to do 3D through use of 120hz. Even if that were possible, the image would be smaller since the .66 chip is bigger. If it doesn't eshift, sending 1920x1080 through it would mean you'd have to zoom in to see 3D. But as they say, "I'm willing to learn." So has anyone tried sending a 3D PC signal to an Optoma UHD60 or 65????
I would be very surprised if it were the additional eshifts causing the contrast drop. In any case, it's easy to confirm either way: set the projector to 1080p60, the XPR module will be off, and measure the contrast again to compare.
It is an interesting experiment, but I honestly doubt it's why the contrast sucks here.
You can also turn off XPR on the 0.66 models too (Silent Mode), but to my knowledge no one has measured contrast between Silent and XPR mode.
Your comment about the image being smaller since the 0.66 chip being bigger has no bearing on 3D or not. It's actually kind of a non sequitur actually, since there's no reason for the projected image to be any bigger or smaller due to the chip size alone, that depends on a variety of factors like the lenses and zoom factor. Sure, if you used the same exact optics on a 0.47 as on a 0.66 the active image would be bigger, but that's comparing apples to oranges and has no bearing on the fact that both the 0.47 and 0.66 projectors have the same pixel pitch. If you zoom them to the same final screen size you'll have more pixels on the 0.66 version hence more sharpness, but I don't see how that directly means it would have more contrast. If anything, it would have worse on/off than the 0.47 models, by the same argument posited by Kraine in the image. Think about it. You have more pixels per the same final screen size, and if those individual pixels have the same black floor, then the 0.66 models would have 1 / 1.4 the contrast of the 0.47 chips. Which isn't the case. The Acer VL 7860 and Optoma UHZ65 have three times more native on/off.
Any display that can do 120hz, a CRT, an LCD, or a projector can do 3D in frame sequential mode using synced 3D glasses. This has been around since the 90s, if not earlier. I've used 3D shutter glasses with my 120hz CRT back when I was in high school.
I checked the manuals for all the XPR projectors and the only ones that so far mention 1080p 120hz input support are: Acer VL7860 and BenQ HT 2550 / W1700. There's no reason the others can't function at 120hz, especially the Viewsonic which from what I can tell is more or less based on the BenQ.
What would be a godsend to gamers would be BenQ opening up 240hz at 1080p. Which HDMI 2.0 can do (in 8-bit RGB only). In 10-bit you could do 192hz at 1080p. And there's a slight possibility that 144hz native would work too, for frame sequential 72hz per eye 3D. Which would offer basically the same thing as DLP Link triple flash but you'd have to do it with LCD shutter glasses and IR transmitters instead of red flash from the projector itself.
True 120hz support is all that's required for a display to be considered "3D Ready".