Projector vs large TV - Bang for buck

[Pottsey]

As xs2man pointed out, you’ve fallen into the “when is a “4K” projector not 4K” trap. They may be a bit better than 1080p but they’re not 4K. And even then it’s still not far off the mid range price I put in.

So I stand by my point. Proper 4K projectors are thin on the ground, and those that are available are generally expensive if they’re actually any good.

I looked into this before I bought my B7 and short of spending close to 5 figures there really isn’t a decent option for 4K projectors at the moment.

So I’d agree with the others, a 55” OLED and a budget 1080p projectors is probably the best bet. Or just remove the hassle and get a 65” OLED or bigger LCD and use that for everything.

*obviously when I say 4K I mean UHD or 4K.

I have not fallen into the “when is a “4K” projector not 4K” trap.” You are muddling up this projector with the fake 4k projectors. These 3 Optima projectors display every single one of the 4k pixels. The fake 4k projectors only display 4 million pixels. The optima projectors displays the full 8million pixels to make 4k the same as the £8k+ 4k projectors like the VPL-VW365ES.

The optima 4k projectors have been run alongside the £8k VPL-VW365ES and the Optima from a pixel point of view is just as sharp and showing as many pixels as the VPL-VW365ES.

When I say 4k I also mean full UHD/4k where every single pixel is displayed. These 3 Optima projectors are not a little better than 1080p they are full 4k and just as good as any other native full 4k when it comes to displaying all the pixels. So I disagree this is a very good option as a 4k projector.

xs2man is wrong when he said the Optima projectors are more like 2k.

 

[Amp34]

No. The Optima PJ has a 4 MP sensor. It then tricks the eye into making it look like 4K by projecting essentially two images together.

It’s not xs2man has only quoted the link you yourself posted...

 

[w1ze1]

Sony call it EShift (fake 4k).

 

[xs2man]

No. The Optima PJ has a 4 MP sensor. It then tricks the eye into making it look like 4K by projecting essentially two images together.

It’s not xs2man has only quoted the link you yourself posted...

I doubt there is any point in continuing to attempt to correct Pottsey. He obviously knows something the rest of the world doesn't when he states the 4MP sensor in the Optoma is somehow capable of projecting a unique 8MP picture. I even quoted how it achieves it's stated 4K moniker by projecting the same image twice to make it a "4K image", pixel shifting.

But then again, he can't see the difference between a budget 1080p and a decent 1080p projector, so he's probably right to go for the budget fake 4K anyway.

 

[Pottsey]

No. The Optima PJ has a 4 MP sensor. It then tricks the eye into making it look like 4K by projecting essentially two images together.
It’s not xs2man has only quoted the link you yourself posted...

Why does that matter when it displays the full 8 million pixels and looks identical and just as sharp as a 8MP sensor? It doesn’t look the same as the other fake 4MP projectors.

When you run the Optima PJ side by side with the other fake 4mp projector there is a massive difference. When you run the Optima PJ next to the 8MP sensor projector it looks the same from a pixel and sharpness point of view.

I doubt there is any point in continuing to attempt to correct Pottsey. He obviously knows something the rest of the world doesn't when he states the 4MP sensor in the Optoma is somehow capable of projecting a unique 8MP picture. I even quoted how it achieves it's stated 4K moniker by projecting the same image twice to make it a "4K image", pixel shifting.

But then again, he can't see the difference between a budget 1080p and a decent 1080p projector, so he's probably right to go for the budget fake 4K anyway.

Well the rest of the world that tested it seem to agree with me. It does display a unique 8MP picture. It is not like the other fake projectors that’s why it won so many awards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDNELVmKZfk# (jump to 7.19 book mark)

The fake 4k projector on the left you can see the individual pixels as its only 4 million pixels displayed. Optima PJ on the right the full 8 million 4k pixels displayed sharply.

Same video jump to 9:47 fine detail in the stars comes though as its full 4k. The fake 4k projector is dull and not sharp. It couldn’t do that if it couldn’t display the full 8MP picture.

There are also in other videos comparisons of the Optima PJ against a full native 8MP sensor and the Optima from a pixel point of view comes out the same and all the videos and reviews.

Anyone who has looked into the Optima PJ will know it’s not the same as the fake Eshift.

 

[Rroff]

Sensor? cameras have sensors.

The budget Optoma 4K despite some claims to the contrary (I'm kind of suspicious of the site claiming the "pixels" are basically the same size as 1080p pixels as that is complete rubbish given that it uses a higher than 1080p grid to produce images from) do display the full 8MP - however the technique does limit the ability to get as punchy and sharp image as a "true" 4K projector in an otherwise equal setup - its a mile away from the 1080p shifters though. There is going to be some compromise of the ability to accurately reflect the data for every single pixel but in this kind of usage it is really not a big deal.

 

[xs2man]

Sure. But the point is, it isn't a "real" 4K picture. It can't really be, as it's a 4.15 mp sensor using fast switching to achieve its 4K rating. So it uses video processing to display the 8.3 mp.

Here is the quote from Optoma's own datasheet regarding this:

The UHD65 is powered by a revolutionary Texas Instruments 4K DLP UHD chipset with a high performance DMD. This utilizes XPR video processing technology with fast switching to display 8.3 million distinct pixels as mandated by the Consumer Technology Association’s 4K UHD 2160p specification.

And then a quote from Texas Instruments' overview sheet:

The fast switching speed of the DMD enables 8.3 million pixels to be displayed on the screen using 4.15 million micromirrors

So it is still a native 4.15mp image, but just fired with a high enough refresh rate (1/120th of a second), to appear as a 8.3mp image (with a 1/60th of a second refresh rate). This image refresh speed is fast enough for the eye not to notice, generally, but just because it's too fast for the eye to notice, doesn't mean it is a "real" 8.3mp image, despite making the specification for a 4K UHD label.

I'm not saying the UHD65 is necessarily a bad projector. It did win the 2017 What HIFI award for best projector afterall. I'm just saying, it is not a native 4K projector, in the sense that there are the same number of panel elements as there are pixels on the screen. Which to me, at least, is what makes a resolution native. Not how many pixels can be displayed before your eye can notice what's going on.

But I'm sure, as the video you linked shows, that the "4K" image shown on the DLP chip is better than the "4K" image from a 3LCD chip. Since it is virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye, hence being allowed to be called 4K.

A little quote from Projector Central on the differences:

4K projectors using either the 4K DLP chip or the 4K-enhanced 3LCD process will accept native 4K signals and then apply some extensive video processing on these signals to prepare them for output to their non-native DLP or 3LCD imaging devices. The difference is that TI's 4K UHD process produces independent single-pixel structures, whereas the 3LCD process does not...

...The 4K DLP chip starts with double the resolution of the 3LCD devices. It has a total of 2716x1528 mirrors. Through some proprietary video processing it is able to deliver two discrete pixels for each mirror. When using this chip in the pixel-shifting process, it delivers double the number of pixels in each refresh compared to the 3LCD projectors. The total number of addressable pixels in this process is (2716x1528) x 2 = 8.3 million, or the same as a native 4K signal. The pixels have been reformulated through video processing to map the native 4K signal information onto this pixel shifted delivery mechanism.

 

[Rroff]

The key there is "The difference is that TI's 4K UHD process produces independent single-pixel structures, whereas the 3LCD process does not..." the technique used does display the full MP it just can't attain 100% accuracy of a pixel value 100% of the time - the result is like unnecessarily processing native resolution through the scaler resulting in some softening of the image. This can be offset visually as noted in some of the articles by increasing the sharpening but that is just post-processing.

The one article that disagrees with this is clearly wrong as they keep banging on about the "pixels" being 4x the size of true 4K which isn't possible as a noticeable phenomenon without meaning the output being 1080p or 1080p shifted 3LCD style (assuming the same area covered by the output) which we know for a fact isn't the case.

 

[Pottsey]

Sure. But the point is, it isn't a "real" 4K picture. It can't really be, as it's a 4.15 mp sensor using fast switching to achieve its 4K rating. So it uses video processing to display the 8.3 mp.

Why does that matter when the full 8.3million pixels for 4k are displayed on the screen and it’s indistinguishable to the human eye from a so called “real” 4k picture? You seem to be lumping the Optoma 4K in the same level as the other fake 4k projector when the Optoma method and output is nothing at all like the other fake 4k projectors. While the other fake projectors are more like 2k and look pretty rubbish compared to real 4k. The Optoma performance from a pixel point of view is right up there with real 4k and doesn’t look like the fake projectors.

Just look at the 3 Optima projectors running alongside the VPL-VW365ES. While the VPL-VW365ES has a better blacks and contrast the 4k pixels and detail on the Optima is right up there with what you call real 4k.

You sound like one of those people who has to buy overpriced £50+ monster cables because it has better specs even though its indistinguishable to humans.

While the other fake projectors are displaying fewer pixels then real 4k. The Optoma delivers a true 3840x2160 pixels per refresh cycle and that is all that matters.

 

[xs2man]

I can assure you I do not buy over-priced digital cables. Just lol. All I am pointing out, is that it is not a real 4K projector. It may well be better than many of the other fake 4K projectors, but that does not make it real, native 4K.

And as I quoted earlier from one review I found, the £2k 550X does not look like you get a decent picture for your money. So a good 4K projector for £2k, like you suggested, is not really an option. You need to spend 50% more to get a good "4K equivalent" projector. Since the 550x and the 60 share the same colour wheel, you need to jump to the 65 for the better picture quality. And for a good native 4K projector, you're probably around £8k for the Sony.

If I was going to jump on the 4K projector bandwagon right now, I'd probably go for the UHD65 personally anyway, as it does look like the best bang per buck at the moment. But I am extremely happy with the performance of my HW40ES just now, so feel no need to upgrade at the moment. Until the market opens up a bit at least, and the cost of the good native 4K projectors come down to a level us mere mortals can consider. My dispute with what you were saying is that no, you do not get a good 4K projector for £2k. And that the UHD65 isn't a native 4K projector, no matter how slick it's processing is.

Anyway, this is all way off topic. I still stand by the suggestion the OP gets a 4K TV, and if he also wants the bigger screen size, then get a more budget 1080p projector.

 

[Pottsey]

“but that does not make it real, native 4K.”.

Effectively it does make it native. The end result is it displays the full 4k pixels per refresh cycle. When you run at 60hz every single one of those refresh cycles will be the full 4k pixels. Anyway enough on this.

Although I have to admit I am a bit torn. My current lamp at 6000+ hours should have blown months ago. For some reason its running well past its lifespan and still more then bright enough. Anyway I am turn between getting a new lamp and waiting for next gen 4k projectors or getting a UHD60 or 65 now. We use a lot of Netflix and Amazon Video. No TV in the house and no live TV.

 

[vila]

Effectively it does make it native.

No it doesnt, the chip has 1/2 the number of pixels of a native UHD image, flashing the second half of the pixels does not make the image any more 'native' than 1080i screen's were 'Full HD'

The Optoma provides excellent bang for buck but its not a native 4k projector, it also misses out on important 4k features like a wide colour gamut.

 

[w1ze1]

But, but, but my Panny GT is the dogs ******** that is until I got my custom built OLED better than any others models spec as it can do 8k natively.......

 

[dancook]

Why does that matter when the full 8.3million pixels for 4k are displayed on the screen and it’s indistinguishable to the human eye from a so called “real” 4k picture? You seem to be lumping the Optoma 4K in the same level as the other fake 4k projector when the Optoma method and output is nothing at all like the other fake 4k projectors. While the other fake projectors are more like 2k and look pretty rubbish compared to real 4k. The Optoma performance from a pixel point of view is right up there with real 4k and doesn’t look like the fake projectors.

So my 'fake 4k' JVC X9500 looks rubbish to real five figure £££ 4K projectors, but the Optima UHD65 doesn't?

Someone should have told me before I spent the £££

 

[Pottsey]

So my 'fake 4k' JVC X9500 looks rubbish to real five figure £££ 4K projectors, but the Optima UHD65 doesn't?

Someone should have told me before I spent the £££

That depends how many pixels does it display per refresh cycle. 4k is made of up 8million individual pixels. The fake 4k projectors only display around 6 million pixels and the missing 2million pixels mean they do not look as good as the native 4k projectors. I am not sure how many the JVC X9500 displays.

The Optima UHD65 displays the full 8 million individual pixels per refresh cycle so from a pixel point of view looks as good as the real five figure £££ 4K projectors.

No it doesnt, the chip has 1/2 the number of pixels of a native UHD image, flashing the second half of the pixels does not make the image any more 'native' than 1080i screen's were 'Full HD'

The Optoma provides excellent bang for buck but its not a native 4k projector, it also misses out on important 4k features like a wide colour gamut.

The end result is it looks the same as a native 4k with the same amount of full 8 million individual pixels per refresh cycle displayed. It’s not a native mirror but it doesn’t matter when the results are as good as they are. Its not the same as the fake 4k projectors that have millions of missing pixels not being displayed.

 

[signs]

My JVC x500 Has fake 4k (eshift ) my X7 before that didn't . i like fake 4k

 

[w1ze1]

Fake is fake like big paid for B00bies never quiet "natural" looking.

And yea it was JVC that had E-Shift not Sony like I said above.

 

[signs]

Fake is fake like big paid for B00bies never quiet "natural" looking.
.

offers plenty of play time though

 

[signs]

Which brings me to my question. Why do people buy projectors and screens when you seem to get a far better quality imagine from spending a little more on a 4K TV?

have you never been to the cinema OP ?

 

[w1ze1]

Most IMO would say drop from a 9/10 Video Quality TV size screen (42"-65") to a 8/10 Video Quality Big Screen (110"-120") on wall for the WOW factor, I would not got more than 1 notch lower for Video Quality though.