Originally Posted by audvid
Screen width is 150".
I am clarifying my question:
Setting the sharpness, colors, contrast, brightness and all factors other than the pixel resolution aside, I would like to know if there is a discernible and visible difference between the "faux" 4k of Epson, vs "real" 4k of lcos in terms of viewable pixel resolution, on a screen of about 150" wide, viewing distance of 22 ft.
FWIW, I just replaced an Epson 5040 with a JVC RS2000 in my theater with a 150" wide 1.3 gain (microperf) scope screen. I primarily sit at 11 feet, but my back row is at 17.5 feet.
The increase in sharpness is "discernible" with 4k UHD media, but not "significantly". Even not having compared the two "A to B" I can tell the JVC is sharper and more detail is on the screen. But I don't think resolution is solely responsible for the improvements I have seen
You are throwing all other factors other than resolution aside, but what I am saying is even if you take resolution out of the picture, the Epson could never compete with the JVC in terms of overall picture quality. I hate to even say that because I really thought my Epson threw a spectacular image. I didn't upgrade for better picture quality, and even though I expected a slight difference that nobody other than myself would even notice, it wasn't the case at all. Even my girlfriend is blown away by how much better everything looks. And I mean everything, including 1080p content that is upscaled. I attribute this to far more than the 4k panel. A better lens, better color uniformity, and of course significantly better contrast all makes the image better on the JVC. No amount of calibrating would change this, and at best you would have to purposefully make the JVC worse to be able to compare resolution without all the other factors.
That being said, I think it is important to note that having a theater with a larger screen meant I was always wanting more lumens. The thought of a 12k lumen projector was simply delicious, especially after viewing HDR with the Epson stock HDR profiles. But to be brutally honest, I no longer consider it a necessity to have over 2k calibrated lumens. The adjustable tone mapping in the JVC has made me realize that I don't need 40fL to enjoy HDR, and even 15fL is enough. I did buy a Paladin DCR lens to go with the JVC, and that has of course helped, as does the 1.3 gain screen, but even so, I bet I have less than 1700 lumens hitting my screen in total, and I bet I am under 20fL. I am even able to use the P3 color filter in the JVC and I am not feeling like I don't have enough lumens. The image is spectacular, and more than bright enough.
I don't know your screen gain, but I wouldn't lock myself into feeling like the only option is a super bright projector that either costs a fortune or lacks features and contrast. I've never seen the BenQ in person, so I can't say if it is sharper or of the lumen output can compete with the overall image quality of the JVC, but I can say the JVC makes me stop thinking about Epson as a viable upgrade in the future. Perhaps if they get a 5k+ lumen laser based LCoS in the future for a reasonable price, I would consider it, but only if I either had a good external solution for tone mapping all my UHD sources, or if they could get on the bandwagon and implement tone mapping at least as good as the JVC.