What Constitutes 4K? - Page 16 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 113Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 10:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
Luminated67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 525 Post(s)
Liked: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by racemaniac View Post
Now you're making me wondering. We're talking about display technology, what else matters beside what you perceive? The entire goal of many display technologies is tricking our eyes & brains to perceive certain things. If i perceive the 8 million pixels of a 4K display.... then it's a 4K display? O_o
Just like MP3 with your ears, just because eyes perceive it’s seeing 4K doesn’t automatically make it so. The brain is tricking you into thinking it’s the same because your eyes can’t quite see the difference.

Epson EH-TW9400 - QualGear Fixed Frame 100” - IPL Acoustics M1TLs & IPL Acoustics AVC Pro Centre, Four KEF surrounds & 2 Sub boxes (10” Sub + 10” Radiator)
Luminated67 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
And that's why this continues. Those are subjective evaluations rather than fact based.



Under close scrutiny, it's not a Ferrari, though some may think it is, and some may want it to be, but it isn't.

This is STILL a terrible analogy.

If you want a Ferrari then BUY a Ferrari. Ferrari’s are readily available. The Sony 285ES is now $4500 and the 385ES is $8000. However, if you want a Ferrari but are only willing to pay corvette money than you are not going to get a Ferrari— you’re going to get a corvette!

Does that mean the corvette is any less of a car? The Ferrari is a red sports car— can’t the corvette be a red sports car too?

To bring this argument out of the crap analogy: the least expensive native 4K projector is roughly 3 times the price of the median price for a 4K DLP. If your argument is: ‘expensive 4K is more better than inexpensive 4K’— well I should friggin hope so! But that doesn’t mean inexpensive 4K is any less ‘4K’.

Someone wake me when Sony starts selling native 4K projectors for less than $1500. Then, maybe, I’ll be able to jump aboard this particular train of thought.
dreamer and DRaven72 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.
sage11x is offline  
post #453 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 11:40 AM
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
Here is one and it's really inexpensive, doesn't do XPR, though: https://www.amazon.com/Enzo-Ferrari-.../dp/B01698WRJ8

Seriously, it would be great fun to hang this below your 4K XPR projector...
3DBob is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #454 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 12:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
This is STILL a terrible analogy.

If you want a Ferrari then BUY a Ferrari. Ferrari’s are readily available. The Sony 285ES is now $4500 and the 385ES is $8000. However, if you want a Ferrari but are only willing to pay corvette money than you are not going to get a Ferrari— you’re going to get a corvette!
Exactly, which is why the analogy works, so thanks for proving that. If you want 4K buy 4K, Don't buy something that pretends to be and isn't, but pretend it is and then argue about it being something it isn't just because it looks like it to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Does that mean the corvette is any less of a car? The Ferrari is a red sports car— can’t the corvette be a red sports car too?
That's a different argument. Being a sports car doesn't make it a Ferrari, even though it may look like one. Not all sports cars are claiming to be Ferraris'. Some people are saying that if it looks like 4K then that's good enough for them. This is AVSCIENCE so I thought that might mean something.

Being a fauk pj can still give a very good image and look to be of a higher res than the native res of the panel being used. Why try and make it out to be something it isn't? Of course the answer to that is marketing and sales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
To bring this argument out of the crap analogy: the least expensive native 4K projector is roughly 3 times the price of the median price for a 4K DLP. If your argument is: ‘expensive 4K is more better than inexpensive 4K’— well I should friggin hope so! But that doesn’t mean inexpensive 4K is any less ‘4K’.
That was never the argument and I've no idea where you get that from. It's no wonder these arguments go on as long as they do with people not even understanding the subject matter. And there are no 4K DLPs yet, only pixel shifters that give the impression of being 4K. Like a red sports car with a Ferrari badge that may look like a Ferrari to some people, or the owners who desperately want it to be a Ferrari simply because it looks a bit like one, but get called out for it not being one and then getting upset about the truth being out there.

4K is 4K, but fauK be it eshift or XPR are clearly not, and the price is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Someone wake me when Sony starts selling native 4K projectors for less than $1500. Then, maybe, I’ll be able to jump aboard this particular train of thought.
Sleep well.
markmon1 and Calibratedlumens like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #455 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
These discussions do tend to wander, don't they. 4K is not an object like a car but a performance specification. So if looking for a parallel example outside the video world a performance specification claim would represent a more direct comparison.

There's no issue with true 4K TVs because they all simultaneously display 3840x2160 discrete, non-overlapping pixels on a screen. There's no issue with native true 4K projectors because they do the same. The issue is with pixel shifters that sequentially throw subsets of overlapping pixels on the screen. Some may perceive that to be true 4K because that's what their eyes detect. But perception is not a specification. Optotune specifies that its XPR-25 actuator enables perceived 4K and not true 4K. YMMV.
markmon1 and Calibratedlumens like this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #456 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 12:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
4K is 4K, but fauK be it eshift or XPR are clearly not, and the price is irrelevant.
See, this drives me insane and pretty much confirms why TI named their pixel shifting "True 4K".


JVC's "E-shift" and Epson's "4K enhancement" result in 4.15 million pixels on-screen. That is 4.15 million pixels less than the number of pixels that DLP XPR delivers to the screen. But you and many others are comfortable lumping them together with DLP XPR as all being equally inferior to native 4K.


Keep in mind: I LIKE the 4K simulation from JVC and Epson as it's still an improvement over 1080p. But it's a FAR ways away from native 4K. DLP XPR delivers the full 8.3 million pixels to the screen and is as close to native 4K as you can get without actually being native 4K. It IS 4K-- it's just not native 4K. I don't know where the controversy here is.
DRaven72 likes 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.
sage11x is offline  
post #457 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 12:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
These discussions do tend to wander, don't they. 4K is not an object like a car but a performance specification. So if looking for a parallel example outside the video world a performance specification claim would represent a more direct comparison.

There's no issue with true 4K TVs because they all simultaneously display 3840x2160 discrete, non-overlapping pixels on a screen. There's no issue with native true 4K projectors because they do the same. The issue is with pixel shifters that sequentially throw subsets of overlapping pixels on the screen. Some may perceive that to be true 4K because that's what their eyes detect. But perception is not a specification. Optotune specifies that its XPR-25 actuator enables perceived 4K and not true 4K. YMMV.
Except when it's an RGBW LCD or a pentile OLED.

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 #458 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 12:54 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
As was pointed out in another forum thread. 24 fps is the norm for movies, yet it is no where near true motion, 60fps is closer to the truth. With frame interpolation we get even closer, but it's faked motion too. Hardly anyone likes true motion, we call it soap opera motion. Directors are changing to high-frame rates to achieve this true look, but people are fighting it. We live in a bassackward world in video. We want truth in the image we see, but not in the motion we see it in...go figure...
3DBob is offline  
post #459 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 01:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
As was pointed out in another forum thread. 24 fps is the norm for movies, yet it is no where near true motion, 60fps is closer to the truth. With frame interpolation we get even closer, but it's faked motion too. Hardly anyone likes true motion, we call it soap opera motion. Directors are changing to high-frame rates to achieve this true look, but people are fighting it. We live in a bassackward world in video. We want truth in the image we see, but not in the motion we see it in...go figure...
Where is @BattleAxeVR ? This has been his argument for years! Lol!


While I've never minded 24fps for movies I struggle with 30fps for games unless they have a good motion blur filter. Temporal resolution is almost as important as spatial resolution.
BattleAxeVR likes 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; 08-23-2018 at 01:04 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #460 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
I thought you were sleeping?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
See, this drives me insane and pretty much confirms why TI named their pixel shifting "True 4K".
Why? It's true that it's not 4K ergo it's not "True 4K"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
JVC's "E-shift" and Epson's "4K enhancement" result in 4.15 million pixels on-screen. That is 4.15 million pixels less than the number of pixels that DLP XPR delivers to the screen. But you and many others are comfortable lumping them together with DLP XPR as all being equally inferior to native 4K.
Because none of them can put 8.3m discrete pixels visibly on the screen. When they overlap, they stop being discrete, and we only see the overlapped sub pixels, none of which can be addressed discretely. This has been covered a million times already so I've no idea why we're still here. The 4.15m XPR chip actually has around 16 million sub pixels on screen when eshifted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Keep in mind: I LIKE the 4K simulation from JVC and Epson as it's still an improvement over 1080p. But it's a FAR ways away from native 4K. DLP XPR delivers the full 8.3 million pixels to the screen and is as close to native 4K as you can get without actually being native 4K. It IS 4K-- it's just not native 4K. I don't know where the controversy here is.
Because people keep saying that it's 'true 4K' or that IT IS 4K like you just did when it clearly isn't, or that it looks like 4K so that's good enough for them. It's clear people don't understand what they are seeing hence the arguments. For them, if it's red and looks like a Ferrari, that's good enough for them and that's what they will tell all their friends. Except their friends who know what a real Ferrari looks like will think they're completely mad. If they try and point out to them it's not really a Ferrari, we end up with multiple threads like this with people trying to explain to them it's not a Ferrari, but the reply they keep getting is that it's red, it has a badge and it looks like one, so IT IS ONE....
Ericglo and Calibratedlumens like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #461 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
The fact that different pixel shifting technologies put different numbers of pixels on the screen is a separate debate. The fact that DLP+XPR shifts more overlapping pixels onto the screen than other pixel shifting technologies is a positive that deserves recognition. But it doesn't raise DLP+XPR all the way to the level of native 4K. If native 4K is true 4K then all pixel shifting technologies should be identified as something less than true 4K. Calling any pixel shifter true 4K implies that it's an equal technology to native true 4K, which it isn't. What DLP+XPR is is exactly what Optotune says it is -- a combination that raises the perceived resolution of a lower native resolution projector to a higher resolution. Everyone should give credit to DLP+XPR for its balance of performance and value.
Calibratedlumens likes this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #462 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 02:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
What Constitutes 4K?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I thought you were sleeping?



Why? It's true that it's not 4K ergo it's not "True 4K"



Because none of them can put 8.3m discrete pixels visibly on the screen. When they overlap, they stop being discrete, and we only see the overlapped sub pixels, none of which can be addressed discretely. This has been covered a million times already so I've no idea why we're still here. The 4.15m XPR chip actually has around 16 million sub pixels on screen when eshifted.



Because people keep saying that it's 'true 4K' or that IT IS 4K like you just did when it clearly isn't, or that it looks like 4K so that's good enough for them. It's clear people don't understand what they are seeing hence the arguments. For them, if it's red and looks like a Ferrari, that's good enough for them and that's what they will tell all their friends. Except their friends who know what a real Ferrari looks like will think they're completely mad. If they try and point out to them it's not really a Ferrari, we end up with multiple threads like this with people trying to explain to them it's not a Ferrari, but the reply they keep getting is that it's red, it has a badge and it looks like one, so IT IS ONE....
XPR delivers 8.3 million discreet, individually addressable pixels to the screen. That's not even debatable-- it's a fact. What you are arguing is whether the overlap constitutes a reduction in clarity vs a native 4K projector. I would agree (and HAVE in the past) that detail SHOULD be finer on a native 4K projector assuming that projector has perfectly aligned panels and no lens deficiencies. Which may be a big ask...


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...-please-9.html

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; 08-23-2018 at 02:42 PM.
sage11x is offline  
post #463 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,390
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
The fact that different pixel shifting technologies put different numbers of pixels on the screen is a separate debate. The fact that DLP+XPR shifts more overlapping pixels onto the screen than other pixel shifting technologies is a positive that deserves recognition. But it doesn't raise DLP+XPR all the way to the level of native 4K. If native 4K is true 4K then all pixel shifting technologies should be identified as something less than true 4K. Calling any pixel shifter true 4K implies that it's an equal technology to native true 4K, which it isn't. What DLP+XPR is is exactly what Optotune says it is -- a combination that raises the perceived resolution of a lower native resolution projector to a higher resolution. Everyone should give credit to DLP+XPR for its balance of performance and value.
And I'm 100% in agreement with that. But that's not what is happening on this forum. XPR 4K pixel shifting get's lumped together with E-shift HD x 2 pixel shifting and the whole lot gets labeled "faux K". This may be a semantics dispute but here goes: I consider DLP XPR to be 4K. At the same time, I don't consider it an equal to native 4K. And I don't think that has to be a contradiction.

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 #464 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 03:04 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
True 4k is a marketing interpretation of 8.3meg addressable pixels in succession fast enough to create the perception of 8.3 pixels being on the screen at the same time--same time being our perception limit, not the exact time in microseconds--the time of one frame and for 24fps, that is so slow that you can overlap many times in one frame. Is it actual truth---as much as 1 frame of pixels is the truth, it is the truth. I'm beginning to realize that we need to include pixels per frame as the truth since we have all accepted movies at 24fps. Why is flashing native pixels over and over during one frame any different than flashing 1080 pixels 4 times over and over per frame??? NOW that said, how those pixels get overlapped and shown as actual pixels is a whole different discussion in my book (see how I threw that in there--I'm also a writer...)
sage11x likes this.
3DBob is offline  
post #465 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 03:54 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 868
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 519 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Where is @BattleAxeVR ? This has been his argument for years! Lol!


While I've never minded 24fps for movies I struggle with 30fps for games unless they have a good motion blur filter. Temporal resolution is almost as important as spatial resolution.
My main point about HFR vs true 4K vs 1080p is that 1080p + HFR (native 60 fps or 120 fps especially) is that unless you have ultra high framerate, you can't possibly get your money's worth out of the static resolution.

I think of motion resolution as just static resolution divided by motion blur. So unless you watch static screenshots, you aren't getting 4K, or even 1080p, most of the time. I'd rather get FULL 1080p ALL THE TIME (120 fps), than 4K 24 fps which is 4K only when everything is perfectly still, which is practically never, at least for actors and foreground moving objects which are what attracts the eye first.

4K 24 fps has the lowest resolution on exactly the parts of the image that matter most: the actors. So LFR 4K offers a kind of an unbalanced, schizophrenic presentation. Ultra sharp static content, but the second it moves, it's just as blurry as a DVD. A more "balanced" design would be a sensible tradeoff between static resolution and motion resolution, and the sweet spot for static resolution has already been passed after 1080p. I would even say 720p 120hz, for video content, with the same bitrate as a 4K 24 fps film (plus HDR / WCG), would likely be clearer in many ways. But certainly 1080p 120, it's been proven with side-by-side cameras. 4K LFR vs 1080p HFR, HFR wins in resolution for moving objects.

So 1080p is actually better. Or rather, moving beyond 1080p but staying at 24 fps is tilting at windmills.
BattleAxeVR is offline  
post #466 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 04:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Walnut, CA, USA
Posts: 4,029
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
4K is 4K, but fauK be it eshift or XPR are clearly not, and the price is irrelevant.

Name a single projector that you think is "4k". Should be easy enough.

*********************
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 offline  
post #467 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 04:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
True 4k is a marketing interpretation of 8.3meg addressable pixels in succession fast enough to create the perception of 8.3 pixels being on the screen at the same time--same time being our perception limit, not the exact time in microseconds--the time of one frame and for 24fps, that is so slow that you can overlap many times in one frame. ...
That's a good description of the marketing interpretation. Of course marketing often causes confusion because the job of marketing is to make consumers perceive a product to be better than it actually is to the point that they can't resist buying. I'm reminded of the new projector shoppers who show up here saying they are leaning toward a certain projector because the manufacturer specifications for contrast are so high.
3DBob and Calibratedlumens like this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #468 of 523 Old 08-23-2018, 04:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
And I'm 100% in agreement with that. But that's not what is happening on this forum. XPR 4K pixel shifting get's lumped together with E-shift HD x 2 pixel shifting and the whole lot gets labeled "faux K". This may be a semantics dispute but here goes: I consider DLP XPR to be 4K. At the same time, I don't consider it an equal to native 4K. And I don't think that has to be a contradiction.
I'm all for trying to help those looking for advice understand the actual differences between native 4K and all the various shades of pixel shifting. It's certainly fair to point out that DLP+XPR shifts more pixels than the other types of pixel shifters and therefore can be closer in fine detail to native 4K. Those who just like to toss "faux K" around without acknowledging how close pixel shifted 4K can come to native 4K do nothing to help fellow forum members choose from among the various options. People looking for advice are more likely to listen to those who provide useful data.
sage11x and Calibratedlumens like this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #469 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:05 AM
Member
 
guitarman512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I'd love to see some screenshots of the various 4k technologies - True 4k, E-shift, .66 and .47 XPR 4K pixel shifting to see what pixel resolution they can actually show from a true 4k test card like this one - http://vah.dy.fi/testcard/3840x2160.png


I put my version of it up on YouTube in 4K to test for myself as I couldn't project just the image at 4K at the moment. I'm sure the single pixel lines would be a challenge for them all.




guitarman512 is offline  
post #470 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 03:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,499
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4634 Post(s)
Liked: 2942
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
See, this drives me insane and pretty much confirms why TI named their pixel shifting "True 4K".


JVC's "E-shift" and Epson's "4K enhancement" result in 4.15 million pixels on-screen. That is 4.15 million pixels less than the number of pixels that DLP XPR delivers to the screen. But you and many others are comfortable lumping them together with DLP XPR as all being equally inferior to native 4K.


Keep in mind: I LIKE the 4K simulation from JVC and Epson as it's still an improvement over 1080p. But it's a FAR ways away from native 4K. DLP XPR delivers the full 8.3 million pixels to the screen and is as close to native 4K as you can get without actually being native 4K. It IS 4K-- it's just not native 4K. I don't know where the controversy here is.
I can't accept something being 4K unless it's 3840x2160 pixels, non-overlapped where the size of each pixel is 1/4 the size of the equivalent 1080p pixel. 4x 1080p is not 4K because each pixel is still too big and all the overlapping just crushes the detail. And 4K is a spec of 3840x2160 not "a group of 8.3 million pixels laid out however". We're talking 4K not 8.3 megapixel.

Now, if you could pixel shift 1080p pixels that were 1/4 the size of a normal 1080p pixel as such that they laid out non-overlapped, evenly spaced, so that the 1920 odds in a 3840 row and the 1920 evens in a 3840 row did not touch and were evenly spaced across, and you showed me only 1920 of those at a time but flipped through them real fast, I'd call that 4K no problem.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #471 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
XPR delivers 8.3 million discreet, individually addressable pixels to the screen. That's not even debatable-- it's a fact. What you are arguing is whether the overlap constitutes a reduction in clarity vs a native 4K projector. I would agree (and HAVE in the past) that detail SHOULD be finer on a native 4K projector assuming that projector has perfectly aligned panels and no lens deficiencies. Which may be a big ask...


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...-please-9.html

Yes, the 4.15m native pixels are discretely addressable but because they overlap at the corners, you can not change a single visible pixel, you can only change four at a time because a single discrete pixel overlapping other discrete pixels creates four sub pixels, so changing one discrete pixel changes four visible pixels. That's a fact as well, but one that people seem to either ignore or not understand.

How they are delivered is different to how they are seen:

For example, DLP creates colours by overlapping red green and blue pixels, and we see the result of the overlap, not the discrete addressable pixels. Ignoring RBE, we never see the individual discrete RGB pixels. With XPR the same science applies both electronically and visually, so we only see the result of the overlap, not the discrete pixels.

With your argument that putting 8.3m discrete addressable pixels on screen is what makes a display 4k, you could just as easily say that DLP produces three times as many discrete pixels (so 1080 is really a 6m pixel display) because it's putting three time as many discrete pixels on the screen, and ignoring the fact that we only see a single pixel due to the overlap.

So although with XPR you can alter the discrete pixels which are large, you never see those discrete pixels because you can only see the smaller sub pixels that are created by the overlap, and you can't change the smaller visible sub pixels discretely.

Hope that's clearer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #472 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 11:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamer View Post
name a single projector that you think is "4k". Should be easy enough.
jvc z1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #473 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
I can't accept something being 4K unless it's 3840x2160 pixels, non-overlapped where the size of each pixel is 1/4 the size of the equivalent 1080p pixel. 4x 1080p is not 4K because each pixel is still too big and all the overlapping just crushes the detail. And 4K is a spec of 3840x2160 not "a group of 8.3 million pixels laid out however". We're talking 4K not 8.3 megapixel.

Now, if you could pixel shift 1080p pixels that were 1/4 the size of a normal 1080p pixel as such that they laid out non-overlapped, evenly spaced, so that the 1920 odds in a 3840 row and the 1920 evens in a 3840 row did not touch and were evenly spaced across, and you showed me only 1920 of those at a time but flipped through them real fast, I'd call that 4K no problem.
Agreed, though they don't have to be physically smaller but I get the point. Shifting a 1080 panel into 4 different quarter positions fast enough to fool the eye would give us a 4k image using 8.3m addressable and discrete pixels on screen with no overlap, and that can physically replicate a 4K source. You could have an array that had pixel sized gaps between pixels and the shifting filled in the gaps could work too (may need less extreme shifting). The only reasons they don't do that is because it reduces contrast and lumens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #474 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 01:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Agreed, though they don't have to be physically smaller but I get the point. Shifting a 1080 panel into 4 different quarter positions fast enough to fool the eye would give us a 4k image using 8.3m addressable and discrete pixels on screen with no overlap, and that can physically replicate a 4K source. ...
I usually have no problem understanding your explanations, but I must be having a bad day as I'm having a problem envisioning this. When rapidly shifting a 1080p panel into four different positions how would there not be pixel overlap if there's no pixel size gap between pixels when the 1080p panel is stationary? Seems as if they'd be overlaid same as with the XPR-25 beam shifter.

EDIT: Never mind, I was just misinterpreting your total thought process. It finally broke through that you were in fact saying this would work with pixel size gaps between the 1080p pixels and you addressed the issues with that strategy in the rest of your post.

Last edited by Dave in Green; 08-25-2018 at 01:39 PM.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #475 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I usually have no problem understanding your explanations, but I must be having a bad day as I'm having a problem envisioning this. When rapidly shifting a 1080p panel into four different positions how would there not be pixel overlap if there's no pixel size gap between pixels when the 1080p panel is stationary? Seems as if they'd be overlaid same as with the XPR-25 beam shifter.
Imagine a 4K display as four quarters, one full 1920 x 1080 panel displayed for the top left quarter, then fully shifted for the top right, then the bottom left, and finally the bottom right. Placed quickly enough they'd appear as one image, and you can then place 3840 x 2160 uniquely addressable discrete pixels both on screen and in your eye, and alter a single display pixel without affecting any others if you want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #476 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,932
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3578 Post(s)
Liked: 2767
@Gary Lightfoot , ha, I was right the first time that I hadn't gotten it and then was wrong when I edited that I finally got it when in fact I hadn't. Your explanation above is crystal clear and seems logical enough but perhaps subject to its own set of issues that make it impractical.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #477 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,499
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4634 Post(s)
Liked: 2942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Imagine a 4K display as four quarters, one full 1920 x 1080 panel displayed for the top left quarter, then fully shifted for the top right, then the bottom left, and finally the bottom right. Placed quickly enough they'd appear as one image, and you can then place 3840 x 2160 uniquely addressable discrete pixels both on screen and in your eye, and alter a single display pixel without affecting any others if you want to.
If someone implemented this, I would consider it 4k. And the pixels would be 1/4 size in your example because a 1080p image would stretch across the whole image, each 1/4 of the screen would be 1080p. The problem I see here is that if we are talking a single 1080p panel getting shifted, it’s goiin to be off 3/4 of the cycle and only on 1/4 of the cycle so you’d see the flickering.
markmon1 is offline  
post #478 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
If someone implemented this, I would consider it 4k. And the pixels would be 1/4 size in your example because a 1080p image would stretch across the whole image, each 1/4 of the screen would be 1080p. The problem I see here is that if we are talking a single 1080p panel getting shifted, it’s goiin to be off 3/4 of the cycle and only on 1/4 of the cycle so you’d see the flickering.
It wasn't meant as a serious suggestion, just an example of how a smaller display panel could be used to replicate a larger one without overlapping pixels, and could be genuinely called a 4K display, despite not having a native 4K panel.

CRTs build up an image, and most CRT displays in the US were 60hz, but that was effectively two halves interlaced, and the flicker wasn't obtrusive for most people. A 120hz 4 way shifted 1080 may not be any different to the CRT example to most people, though it is a much larger chunk of the display and side by side, above below rather than interlaced, so it could have visible flicker. If it was done faster it may not. 600hz may be just fine for example, depending on how fast the DMD mirrors and the eshifting device could switch for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #479 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,499
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4634 Post(s)
Liked: 2942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
It wasn't meant as a serious suggestion, just an example of how a smaller display panel could be used to replicate a larger one without overlapping pixels, and could be genuinely called a 4K display, despite not having a native 4K panel.

CRTs build up an image, and most CRT displays in the US were 60hz, but that was effectively two halves interlaced, and the flicker wasn't obtrusive for most people. A 120hz 4 way shifted 1080 may not be any different to the CRT example to most people, though it is a much larger chunk of the display and side by side, above below rather than interlaced, so it could have visible flicker. If it was done faster it may not. 600hz may be just fine for example, depending on how fast the DMD mirrors and the eshifting device could switch for that.
The flicker on an interlaced image works because it's every other image. If it were broken into screen halves (top and bottom) it'd be super noticeable. But even then it's half on half off. If it were 1/4 on 3/4 off, you'd see it super obvious.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #480 of 523 Old 08-25-2018, 02:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
@Gary Lightfoot , ha, I was right the first time that I hadn't gotten it and then was wrong when I edited that I finally got it when in fact I hadn't. Your explanation above is crystal clear and seems logical enough but perhaps subject to its own set of issues that make it impractical.
Lol, sorry about that.

Yeah, I doubt that it'll work and has probably already been tried and failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot 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