Originally Posted by Stereodude
Apparently your definition of performance is only includes resolution and brightness. The only thing going for the "faux-k" DLPs is resolution.
That is false. There were some hiccups with early 4K UHD XPR models due to immature software, yes. Arguably one could say TI released the hardware with software unfinished (which is actually what happens with most technology these days). And still we haven't seen a grand slam over $3k though the pieces are starting to come together. These temporary setbacks do not doom the class as a whole, and under $3k we have seen many successful models actually outperforming this expensive BenQ ht9050
A lot of the things that some consistently brought up as "permanent" downsides of the chip such as no native 24p, no 3D, etc, in early 2017 were added by TI over the course of the year to the core chipset, and actually were just temporary setbacks due to unfinished software.
The HT models in the under $10k range so far not any brighter than the JVC's.
I will note your "HT models" tag here, because as you well know it is just a matter of time before there is a way brighter HT DLP option under $10k. As the Optoma 4K500 is 5000 lumens and well under $10k. The UHZ65 is also extremely bright and under $5k. BenQ LK970 is around $10k and 5000 lumen laser. And at $20k price point there are 4k DPI and Vivitek models with 7500 lumens, cheaper and far brighter than the cheapest 4k lcos laser. New RB laser tech can push that up to 10k-12k lumens as demonstrated at 2017 ISE.
The entire class of XPR DLPs just came out this year and laser is just coming into affordability range. This is an area where DLP has tremendous growth potential, especially as HDR can soak up all that brightness.
They have vastly inferior contrast
Optoma UHZ65 has 9300:1 dynamic contrast as measured by Dave Harper when fully calibrated, with no reported significant dynamic contrast artifacts. Arguably this is fine for most people. Laser appears to be more amenable to high multiplier, low artifact dynamic contrast dimming likely due to its fast speed and high durability. If it looks good with dynamic contrast, most people aren't going to care what the native contrast is (btw, proven time and time again with flatpanel TV sales).
visual artifacts from slow sequential color
Fully solved already by fast 18x RGB LED / RGB Laser cycling as the Runco Q750i, DPI Cine LED 1000, Vivitek H9090, etc, did a long time ago. Rapid cycling could in time come to solid state xpr projectors as well.
Would likely be fully solvable on the BenQ HT9050 design specifically , actually, if BenQ sticks with the RGB LED design in future iterations. If they transition to laser for its brightness advantage, there will be a temporary period where it will be necessary to have some RBE until RGB laser is more affordable, and buyers should take that into account. Rapid cycling probably wasn't implemented at launch due to the color flash timing for faster than 6x speed not being ready yet for XPR.
inability to deliver high bit depth color due to temporal dithering at too slow of a frequency
If by "high bit depth" you mean 12bit, irrelevant as HDR10 is clearly the standard and it is 10-bit which single chip DLP does no problem.
a small color gamut
HT9050 was 95%+ DCI-P3. The other aforementioned RGB LEDs cover tremendously more of BT2020 than any JVC/Sony under $10k does. A yellow notch filter like the Epson LS uses can add 95%+ DCI-P3 to blue or red/blue laser projectors with ~15-20% brightness sacrifice. So again, the potential is there and very possible with the right components.
etc. If someone could pop out a "faux-k" DLP under $10k tomorrow that was 3000+ lumen, had near JVC dynamic range, no perceptible sequential color artifacts, 100% DCI-P3 color space coverage, and no banding I'd be at the front of line cheering them on even if it isn't true "4k".
And if JVC/Sony came out with a solid state projector under $10k that didn't have the motion issues of JVC or panel reliability issues of Sony then I'd certainly give it a lot of consideration. Or if Epson were able to get a much sharper and brighter image in their LS series, that would be a possibility. I haven't bought a 4K UHD DLP projector yet because I haven't found any that fully meet my requirements. But they seem closer to meeting my requirements than any 4K LCOS projector.
I'll also add I wouldn't be surprised if TI launches a native 4k 0.95" DMD in 2019-2020. It would have same density as 0.66" XPR so very doable, and as 8K XPR pro projectors are coming in 2018 using 1.38" chip, would pave the way for 8K XPR consumer projectors using 0.95" chip.
And? It's about making a large image high fidelity image. No one with a theater is going to refuse a large high resolution / small pitch LED screen because there's no projector used and they can get >500cd/m^2 from it.
Okay? I don't see how this is relevant to the argument at hand about projectors.