AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 245 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What exactly is the difference in perceptible image quality on a 110-120 screen from 12 feet away?

I want to move to 4k from my Epson 3000. But being budget conscious, I want to ensure there is a noticeable difference. Can you give me some suggestions as to why I should pick 4k over pixel shift or vice versa? Thank you.
 

·
Registered
JVC RS4500 | ST130 G4 135" | MRX 720 | MC303 MC152 | 6.1.4: B&W 802D3, 805D3, 702S2 | 4x15 IB Subs
Joined
·
9,280 Posts
On your screen size, at your distance, I doubt you will notice much to be honest, unless you're playing games. I'm at 8 feet from a 135" and it's very hard to notice much most the time on 4K vs JVC e-shift on movie content. If you can move yourself closer, then you'll notice more. 4K differences are in the fine details of the image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
By “actual” I assume you mean native 4K? Unless you count JVC’s lone $35k model, Sony is currently the only game in town for native 4K and their 4K models start at $5k and rise quickly from there.

The good news is pixel shifted 4K is quite good and is massively more affordable. If you’re in the sub $3K forum I’m going to assume your budget is $3k or under. You have pretty much three options to choose from:
DLP XPR True 4K .66” 2-way shift
DLP XPR True 4K .47” 4-way shift
Epson 4K Enhancement

It’s generally accepted that the two DLP options result in a sharper image closer to native 4K due to them producing the full 8.3 million pixels on screen. But that’s not to discount the Epson solution. While the Epsons produce only 4 million pixels their pictures are still sharper than 1080p and their two entries into the 4K market have some unique features not found on other projectors at their price points. So there is a lot to consider.

My theater is currently host to a BenQ HT2550 4K DLP projector (.47” DMD) and I love it. It’s hard to describe just how much more clarity there is to this projector compared to 1080p alternatives. I currently sit around 9 ft away from a 100” screen and I wouldn’t be able to go back. In fact, I recently had a 1080p model in here for review and while it was an superb, exceedingly sharp (for 1080p), projector I just couldn’t shake the feeling like I was missing something— even with HD material.

4K is certainly more expensive than HD— both in the cost of the display itself and content— but if the goal is to produce a large, immersive image than I highly recommend making the plunge.

The YouTube channel for the TVSPro retail store does a lot of comparisons if you want to get a good idea for the differences.

Evan over at Projector central also wrote up a nice article about 4K native vs pixel shifting. https://www.projectorcentral.com/4k-projectors-defined.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
I have the Optoma UHD51 .47 chip 4K shifting projector and even 1080p or Blu Ray material upscaled through this is brilliant. Netflix and YouTube UHD looks amazing and I've still not seen HDR on it yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
By “actual” I assume you mean native 4K? Unless you count JVC’s lone $35k model, Sony is currently the only game in town for native 4K and their 4K models start at $5k and rise quickly from there.

The good news is pixel shifted 4K is quite good and is massively more affordable. If you’re in the sub $3K forum I’m going to assume your budget is $3k or under. You have pretty much three options to choose from:
DLP XPR True 4K .66” 2-way shift
DLP XPR True 4K .47” 4-way shift
Epson 4K Enhancement

It’s generally accepted that the two DLP options result in a sharper image closer to native 4K due to them producing the full 8.3 million pixels on screen. But that’s not to discount the Epson solution. While the Epsons produce only 4 million pixels their pictures are still sharper than 1080p and their two entries into the 4K market have some unique features not found on other projectors at their price points. So there is a lot to consider.

My theater is currently host to a BenQ HT2550 4K DLP projector (.47” DMD) and I love it. It’s hard to describe just how much more clarity there is to this projector compared to 1080p alternatives. I currently sit around 9 ft away from a 100” screen and I wouldn’t be able to go back. In fact, I recently had a 1080p model in here for review and while it was an superb, exceedingly sharp (for 1080p), projector I just couldn’t shake the feeling like I was missing something— even with HD material.

4K is certainly more expensive than HD— both in the cost of the display itself and content— but if the goal is to produce a large, immersive image than I highly recommend making the plunge.

The YouTube channel for the TVSPro retail store does a lot of comparisons if you want to get a good idea for the differences. https://youtu.be/cDNELVmKZfk

Evan over at Projector central also wrote up a nice article about 4K native vs pixel shifting. https://www.projectorcentral.com/4k-projectors-defined.htm
+1 on "true 4K" being Sony LCOS or JVC RS4500...most of the review sites that compare the Sony's 4K VS. the 4K shifted ones oddly note that the native 1080p (4K shifted) pj outperform on 4K content and the native 4K Sony's outperform on 1080p content...my big question is will this trend continue on the next iteration of projectors, will it flip-flop, or will every pjs handling of different resolutions homogenize and be mostly the same as each other? I don't have a problem with shifted 4K as long as its tack sharp on 1080p and almost perfectly sharp on 4K, but it seems like the reverse is true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
+1 on "true 4K" being Sony LCOS or JVC RS4500...most of the review sites that compare the Sony's 4K VS. the 4K shifted ones oddly note that the native 1080p (4K shifted) pj outperform on 4K content and the native 4K Sony's outperform on 1080p content...my big question is will this trend continue on the next iteration of projectors, will it flip-flop, or will every pjs handling of different resolutions homogenize and be mostly the same as each other? I don't have a problem with shifted 4K as long as its tack sharp on 1080p and almost perfectly sharp on 4K, but it seems like the reverse is true.

There is a lot at play here. Beyond the actual resolution of the display and the quality of the lens you also have to consider the up scaling algorithm and how it is implemented.

Sound and Vision leveled some criticism toward Epson’s 4K enhancement saying that, when watching HD material, it had a tendency to scrub away fine detail in the image. I’ve heard the opposite of JVC’s E shift and, mechanically, they are very similar. That says to me that JVC’s algorithm might be better.

For me, I prefer the BenQ HT2550 (which uses pixel shifting) over my conventional HD projector for HD content. The up conversion works really well and allows me to sit where I want to sit (closer) without the pixel grid being visible. It’s actually quite impressive how nice HD can look on this 4K display.

Now, keep in mind, almost all pixel shifters (JVC E-shift, Epson 4K enhancement, DLP XPR .66” True 4K) use a two-way, diagonal shift. The .47 DMD in the HT2550 uses a four-way shift that more closely approximates the pixel structure you’d see with a native 4K projector. I’m not sure if that might have something to do with why I find HD on the HT2550 so compelling.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
What exactly is the difference in perceptible image quality on a 110-120 screen from 12 feet away?

I want to move to 4k from my Epson 3000. But being budget conscious, I want to ensure there is a noticeable difference. Can you give me some suggestions as to why I should pick 4k over pixel shift or vice versa? Thank you.
There's an easy solution, compare them yourself :)

You can get all kinds of opinions on the subject because everyone's tolerance level is different from each other, which is why you need to go and find out what you're tolerant of. One of the things that I notice that has been missed in nearly all the 4K vs faux-4K discussion is the quality of the chipsets and technology behind them. Most people have simply focused on the resolution, which isn't the only difference between these 2 chipsets. They miss out on every other technical advantages of the larger and true 4K 0.66" DMD, which is simply bigger compared to the 0.47", so everything is brighter, sharper, clearer and faster. Nothing is shifting, nothing is working in the background, it's just true 4K technology. Anyone thinking logically would assume that the 0.47" would be subjected to compromises trying to match a "4K" resolution, and they would be right because contrast and brightness levels actually did suffer. Some people would be tolerant of that, while others won't. Personally, I want to wait a little longer and let faux-4K mature a bit until someone gets it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
There's an easy solution, compare them yourself



You can get all kinds of opinions on the subject because everyone's tolerance level is different from each other, which is why you need to go and find out what you're tolerant of. One of the things that I notice that has been missed in nearly all the 4K vs faux-4K discussion is the quality of the chipsets and technology behind them. Most people have simply focused on the resolution, which isn't the only difference between these 2 chipsets. They miss out on every other technical advantages of the larger and true 4K 0.66" DMD, which is simply bigger compared to the 0.47", so everything is brighter, sharper, clearer and faster. Nothing is shifting, nothing is working in the background, it's just true 4K technology. Anyone thinking logically would assume that the 0.47" would be subjected to compromises trying to match a "4K" resolution, and they would be right because contrast and brightness levels actually did suffer. Some people would be tolerant of that, while others won't. Personally, I want to wait a little longer and let faux-4K mature a bit until someone gets it right.


Hey, rock, you do know that the .66” DMD uses pixel shifting as well right?
https://e2e.ti.com/support/dlp__mem...discrete-4k-or-if-it-s-a-pixel-shifted-image-

“The DLP 4K UHD solution uses the high speed of the DLP 4K UHD DMD chip, along with advanced image processing from the digital display controller, as well as an optical actuator, to deliver more than 8 million pixels to the screen with just 4 million mirrors. Each mirror is capable of switching on the order of microseconds, creating two distinct addressable pixels on the screen during every frame to deliver 4K UHD resolution.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave in Green

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,290 Posts
Yep, the 0.47" XPR chip is a 4X shifter and the 0.66" XPR chip is a 2X shifter. It's pretty common knowledge that neither is true, shiftless 4K.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Hey, rock, you do know that the .66” DMD uses pixel shifting as well right?
https://e2e.ti.com/support/dlp__mem...discrete-4k-or-if-it-s-a-pixel-shifted-image-

“The DLP 4K UHD solution uses the high speed of the DLP 4K UHD DMD chip, along with advanced image processing from the digital display controller, as well as an optical actuator, to deliver more than 8 million pixels to the screen with just 4 million mirrors. Each mirror is capable of switching on the order of microseconds, creating two distinct addressable pixels on the screen during every frame to deliver 4K UHD resolution.”
Yes I forgot about that since they never talk about it as much as this 0.47" and I'm not close to being in the market for a 4K projector. Even if I get the fastest camera available I probably can't capture 2 frames shifting anyway.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
868 Posts
Yes I forgot about that since they never talk about it as much as this 0.47" and I'm not close to being in the market for a 4K projector. Even if I get the fastest camera available I probably can't capture 2 frames shifting anyway.
Samsung Galaxy S9 can record slow-motion at 960 fps for a brief period. I intend to use it to capture what these 2x / 4x XPR shifters are doing at 120 hz / 240hz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Samsung Galaxy S9 can record slow-motion at 960 fps for a brief period. I intend to use it to capture what these 2x / 4x XPR shifters are doing at 120 hz / 240hz.
Is that going to see 2 movements in a millionth of a second? It's late, my math is turned off right now and I'm not a camera guy, but gut is telling me 960fps won't show anything concerning the mirror movement .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
Is that going to see 2 movements in a millionth of a second? It's late, my math is turned off right now and I'm not a camera guy, but gut is telling me 960fps won't show anything concerning the mirror movement .
Not the mirrors, but the wobulator. It only changes position 240 times per second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BattleAxeVR

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Shouldn't color be part of this discussion?? I know the OP wanted to know about native 4K vs pixel shifted 4K, but I am one of those that think the bigger change in "4K", is actually in color. HDR, Dobly Visio, HLG, etc..

Thoughts??
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Shouldn't color be part of this discussion?? I know the OP wanted to know about native 4K vs pixel shifted 4K, but I am one of those that think the bigger change in "4K", is actually in color. HDR, Dobly Visio, HLG, etc..

Thoughts??
Finally, yes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,210 Posts
Shouldn't color be part of this discussion?? I know the OP wanted to know about native 4K vs pixel shifted 4K, but I am one of those that think the bigger change in "4K", is actually in color. HDR, Dobly Visio, HLG, etc..



Thoughts??


The resolution difference is pretty important. Not saying that HDR isn’t important. But the advantages of 4K resolution in the UHD standard has been marginalized because most people buy flat screens and, to be frank, the advantages of 4K resolution evaporate when you’re staring at a tiny 70” TV set from across the room. Simply put: TVs are too small to clearly display the advantages of 4K resolution. You need a projector for that and, ironically, projectors have lagged behind TVs in adopting 4K.

So I wouldn’t say HDR is MORE important than the 4K component. But we could settle on equally important. :)

I have good news and bad news. The good news is HDR looks pretty damn amazing on a projector. The bad news is it won’t look quite as amazing as your OLED. This is down to a couple of factors but the biggest two are contrast and nits. It’s no secret that projectors have lower contrast than your average OLED panel and projectors struggle to attain the 400 nits required of HDR. But that doesn’t mean that a projector won’t look markedly better with HDR material than SDR material. After all, HD/SDR has been with us for years and is pretty limited. The ability to step outside those limits, even if only just outside of them, makes for a big improvement in immersion.

Beyond that there is HDR’s expanded color reproduction. Just like in the TV set market, a projector’s capability to adhere to the DCI-P3 color gamut has a direct correlation to it’s price. At the more affordable end of the price spectrum ($2500) where projectors like the JVC X590R not only cover DCI-P3 but start to offer significant coverage of rec.2020 as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
From reading many many different reviews, opinions and looking at pictures. Pretty much the only way to notice a difference in pixel shifted 4k vs. true 4k is getting up quite close to non-usual viewing distances. At THAT point, people/pictures start to notice a difference in pixel shifted 4k projectors vs. true 4k projections in 4k content. HD/Full HD content can be quite different pending technology/projector, but as far as 4k source material goes, at normal viewing distance nobody can really point out any perceivable sharpness difference between the much more expense true 4k projectors and the pixel shifted ones. This is part of the reason besides price the pixel shifted 4k projectors are so popular, the advantage of the more expense true 4k projectors dont come down to sharpness, but rather contrast/blacks among other features. While in tvs the jump to 4k; HDR is the much more noticeable difference because at typical seating distance you wont see a sharpness difference really in Full HD vs. 4k unless you have a very large tv and sit fairly close...when it comes to projectors you can absolutely notice the sharpness difference in Full HD vs. 4k at normal seating distances (say 120" screen with ~10 foot seating distance), but HDR is much less noticeable because projectors are just way behind tvs right now in really reproducing proper HDR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Not the mirrors, but the wobulator. It only changes position 240 times per second.
So the "wobulation" isn't the movement of the mirrors on the DMD ? My (limited) understanding has been that the mirror movement was the wobulation , the 60 , 120, or 240Hz refresh being handled upstream and the result is whats reflected by the mirrors . I probably need to read more , but have had only a passing interest in the inner workings .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
868 Posts
Not the mirrors, but the wobulator. It only changes position 240 times per second.
Indeed, if you show, in each 4x4 block of pixels: 100% Red / 100% Green / 100% Blue / 100% Black pixels, you should see a sequence of full-frame red / green / blue / black frames at 240hz.

And a 960hz camera is more than fast enough to capture that. Modulo frame transitions which should look like tearing. I already have the shadertoy written to test things, but even a static 2160p image would suffice. This will likely only work (fully) in RGB / SDR mode, obviously, since 4:2:2 HDR10 would have some colour smearing across channels. But it should be obvious what the behaviour is anyway.

These really are 240hz 1080p projectors, with a jiggle thrown in. There's no real magic here, aside from sampling theory working as it should, and has been proven to, countless times over.
 
1 - 20 of 245 Posts
Top