I think most of us use the Eclipse is the some of dreams, way to expensive to ever own and way too big and heavy to accommodate a traditional home cinema room. With this in mind I think it's fair to say that in the domestic market HDR was chiefly designed with TVs in mind instead of projector, I think we can all be in agreement that no normal projector can reach the 1000 never mind 4000 nits required to fully capitalise on HDR which is why I say it's better suited to TV at present.Kind of... The color saturation is well studied.
But there's something about the narrow band high color yield of rgb led/laser, and maybe the lack of any color wheel, color filter, or layer of liquid crystal between the light source and your eyes, though persons using 3chip dlp don't find this to be the case. But it appears brighter then it measures. Especially low APL scenes with the dimming, I'd never know that I was looking at 5fl.
A mastering monitor and the reference display in a screening room are very different.
The Eclipse is without any doubt the reference for HDR video. It's a real treat just to read about
Not necessarily ;] HDR was developed for high dynamic range displays. The Eclipse has the high dynamic range, in addition it has the color gamut. And again the pixel performance of DLP is superior to OLED.
I think until DSP (normal ones) offer decent levels of contrast they will not be considered by those dedicated to the hobby and treat their room to achieve the best possible image.The Eclipse is a no holds barred 6 chip projector with massive laser arrays to illuminate very large screens. RGB laser DLP projectors that can provide 100% bt2020 coverage are just now getting below $10,000, and it's reasonable to discuss a 2chip DLP projector would be similarly priced. The technology exists, it just hasn't been built yet.