The fact that you would suggest that differences between DLP and 3LCD/LCOS are subtle is ridicolus. For the sake of other users I'll try to explain as best I can.Contrast - This will vary depending on the image. I have pointed out this review to you several times:
where the contrast of actual images, as seen by the viewer, are measured.
In brightly lit images there is no doubt that DLP has higher contrast and this will be true for even the most expensive JVC DLA projector. In darker scenes the TW9400 does better, but not that much better. Colour and overall IQ are again subjective but it will not always favour one projector over another. A properly exposed nature documentary, for example, will probably have higher per frame contrast on a DLP projector such, as the UHD50, than on a much more expensive, 3LCD or LCOS projector, simply due to the lower ANSI contrast of non-DLP displays.
Another DLP advantage is explained here:
The reason the Theo-Z65, which uses a DLP single chip, can equal or exceed the detail of the native JVC is the 3-chip alignment challenges, and a technical limitation of liquid crystal technology called “Fringe Field Effect.” Basically, the rise time or depth of modulation on a liquid crystal display is somewhat limited by the layer of liquid crystal which cannot turn on and off as cleanly as a digital DLP device.
Are there areas that 3LCD or LCOS might do better? Yes, but again, in a properly setup projector and video source, the differences are likely to be subtle and if they're not subtle then something isn't setup correctly. This is why I always look for problems in setup when people complain about IQ.
The DLP projectors given in the examples are some of the best DLP models. The kind of 4K DLPs that people usually buy are of lower quality, like the one this thread is dedicated to.
In the cine4home article the W5700/HT5550 is tested against the TW9400 (6050UB) with the Epson's iris turned off. No iris is perfect, and reviews have noted issues with both models. The room is also not treated, which affects the Epson more than the Benq, in low ADL scenes.
This is not a fair comparison, so it's discounted.
Most new users, towards which these budget machines are aimed at often choose smaller screen sizes and/or sit too far away. Not to repeat myself, but all of these units are sharper than 1080p, which makes the extra resolution of secondary importance.
Some might also look at that quote and think that the advantage claimed by the reviewers (even when sitting close enough) is somehow relevant to overall experience when compared to a creme de la creme projector like the NX7. That quote without context is disingenuous because it tries to elevate the importance of sharpness/details off the coattails of the comparison with the JVC, and to imply that even a lowly UHD50 can do what the Z65 does, i.e. compete with NX7.
It's disingenuous that you dedicated such a large portion to the post to this issue to a discredited issue, that of the need to have DLP level sharpness and that other tech is not good enough:
Contrast and black level:
Your post misrepresents the type of content that is generally consumed from the point of view of ADL, and as such the contrast performance.
From the article: http://projectiondream.com/en/movie-brightness-adl-contrast-measurements/
Definition: ADL= Average Display Luminance (on screen brightness after gamma correction of 2.2)
The average ADL with the black bars is 8.0%.
Our results (with black bars) show that the most important contrast values are the ones measured on patterns with a ADL luminance up to 20%. With this we have covered about 90% of all pictures found in movies!
It also means that between 20% and 100% ADL there are only 10% of all analysed picture! The ANSI contrast with 50% ADL does really not speak for the brightness reality that we observe in our favorite movies…
On the other hand, under 1% ADL we already have more than 11% of the analysed pictures, which is more than between 20% and 100% ADL all combined together!
We have 80% of all movie pictures below 13% ADL luminance and 50% of all pictures below EVEN 5% ADL luminance.
So to recap, 11% of scenes are under 1% ADL, 50% are under 5%. This is what 5.9% ADL (with black bars, as most movies have them) looks like:
So how does this relate to projector performance?
This article describes three projectors, with native contrast of ~1600:1 W1070, 4500:1 TW9200 (5030UB), and 12000:1 WV520ES. The dynamic iris value is not noted.
However, this does not stop here. We can extrapolate the differences if dynamic lamp and iris were used. In this case the dynamic contrast of the W1070 would be ~4500:1, and of the TW9200 over 30 000:1.
So consider the W1070 with dynamic lamp mode instead of the TW9200 (in the chart), and the TW9200 as better performance than the Sony. After 5% ADL the differences are significant.
The average living room is not white walls, but far from perfect. Even in these conditions, the models with higher contrast show significant improvement vs. DLP after 5% ADL.
Not sure if there are more than 5 DLP projectors with active iris for sale right now. Dynamic lamp can be slow and not frame precise.
The UHD51A has a native contrast of ~475:1, with ~1000:1 with dynamic lamp and ~1700:1 in HDR.
Benq HT3550 has ~700:1 with ~1700:1 with iris.
HT5550 has ~1000:1 with ~5000:1 with iris.
HC3800 has ~1700:1 native contrast with ~32 000:1 with iris.
5050UB has ~4500:1 with 37 000 with iris.
It's not just about contrast, but also the black floor. JVCs are not overly bright, yet they are capable of high contrast.
So let me ask you this, where do those bright documentaries that you mentioned lie in this? How much content that a regular user would watch will be bright enough so that DLP will have at least from a technical standpoint a better value?
And are you saying that a 3LCD/LCOS projector does not look good with that type of content?
If someone were to get a low contrast DLP projector they would have an advantage, assuming general consumption patterns, in a small percentage. But if they were to get a model with better contrast, that feature will improve the image in a much larger percentage of content watched. And these models still look good with bright content.
Epsons in particular, even though they may have lower ANSI contrast than DLP, can behave better in an ambient light scenario because they are brighter and have higher color lumens. They also have longer throws that ALR screens require. And brightness uniformity, also for ALR.
Yet you still recommend these low contrast DLPs. I've even seen you recommend one in a thread where the user had a literal bat cave. How can a UHD51 belong in a bat cave? Especially since the user had a high contrast Sony?
So with all this being said, would you personally still prefer an UHD50 over a high contrast projector?
126.5 KB Views: 526