Acer V9800 4K DLP Projector Review and Comments

lexicon

Well-known Member
Did I miss the noise test results Phil? Was it 20db?

Looks more like 3/10 from the comments and terrible VFM when compared to the 9300.

Poor black levels, not motorised, no WCG, bad rainbows. Non starter surely?!
 

soupdragon

Distinguished Member
Nice info @Phil Hinton

It looks well over priced when the UHD Optomas can be picked up at less than half the price - less than £2k in terms of the Optoma HD550x. I'm hoping you'll maybe get one of those in for review?

I've a good grasp of what you are saying in reference to the JVC's and Epsons - very good qaulity projectors.

I would like to understand more about your actual opinion of the overall image quality in terms of sharpness. Do you think this new DLP chip has better sharpness than the JVC's and Epsons?

The reality for me is that I don't have a dedicated room and my viewing content these days seems to be sky UHD sports, gaming, animation movies with the odd feature film thrown in. In that respect, things like black level, WCG etc become less important and getting the extra sharpness is an attractive proposition for me.

I would have liked to hear a little bit more about the comparison between the mentioned projectors in terms of image sharpness. Does this DLP projector give better sharpness compared to the others and if so, is there much in it?

Reason I ask is that looking at comparisons I've seen, its clear that the Acer has a clear advantage in terms of image sharpness v the Epson 9300 for example. The thing that isn't clear, is that from a seating position, how much of a difference can be seen? Thats the million dollar question for me :)

Epson 9300 below

Detail1.jpg


v the Acer



Epson
Detail3.jpg


Acer


The images above show that the Acer makes a much better job of sharpness, nice rounded, detailed edges with no stair stepping. But paused, cropped pics are one thing - watching moving images from your seat is another thing entirely....
 
Last edited:

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Hi Phil, thanks for the review.

Can I ask how you measured the ANSI contrast, as 1308:1 is spectacularly high. I'm guessing it was at the lens but was it the standard 16 square checkerboard pattern?

Cheers.

Gary
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
Nice info @Phil Hinton

It looks well over priced when the UHD Optomas can be picked up at less than half the price - less than £2k in terms of the Optoma HD550x. I'm hoping you'll maybe get one of those in for review?

I've a good grasp of what you are saying in reference to the JVC's and Epsons - very good qaulity projectors.

I would like to understand more about your actual opinion of the overall image quality in terms of sharpness. Do you think this new DLP chip has better sharpness than the JVC's and Epsons?

The reality for me is that I don't have a dedicated room and my viewing content these days seems to be sky UHD sports, gaming, animation movies with the odd feature film thrown in. In that respect, things like black level, WCG etc become less important and getting the extra sharpness is an attractive proposition for me.

I would have liked to hear a little bit more about the comparison between the mentioned projectors in terms of image sharpness. Does this DLP projector give better sharpness compared to the others and if so, is there much in it?

Reason I ask is that looking at comparisons I've seen, its clear that the Acer has a clear advantage in terms of image sharpness v the Epson 9300 for example. The thing that isn't clear, is that from a seating position, how much of a difference can be seen? Thats the million dollar question for me :)

Epson 9300 below

Detail1.jpg


v the Acer



Epson
Detail3.jpg


Acer


The images above show that the Acer makes a much better job of sharpness, nice rounded, detailed edges with no stair stepping. But paused, cropped pics are one thing - watching moving images from your seat is another thing entirely....

I can confirm there is a huge increase in sharpness on these DLP units compared to the Epson & JVC's that is easily noticeable from a regular seating distance.

Regarding the Optoma offerings; apparently they are using inferior lenses on their 4K models (from their 1080P range) which is how they can undercut everyone. Until I see this with my own eyes or read a trustworthy review stating it I will withhold my judgement.
 
Last edited:

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
Nice info @Phil Hinton


Reason I ask is that looking at comparisons I've seen, its clear that the Acer has a clear advantage in terms of image sharpness v the Epson 9300 for example. The thing that isn't clear, is that from a seating position, how much of a difference can be seen? Thats the million dollar question for me :)
Hi Soupdragon,
Yes as I say in the review the Acer is sharper as it is a single chip unit and the JVC and Epson are both three chip units, so convergence can be an issue. From a seating position with a moving image the Epson and JVC's are good, but I would say the Acer is sharper and it is noticeable. Now, some might not like that as it can give the image a slightly clinical, or digital appearance against the others which could be described as a bit more natural and cinematic. It is a strong point for the Acer and is marked accordingly.
 

Phil Hinton

Editor
Staff member
Hi Phil, thanks for the review.

Can I ask how you measured the ANSI contrast, as 1308:1 is spectacularly high. I'm guessing it was at the lens but was it the standard 16 square checkerboard pattern?

Cheers.

Gary
Hi Gary, yes and yes. Measured from the projector at the usual 6ft mark and using the standard pattern. For those measures we take the room out of it as much as possible. Thanks.
 

Abacus

Banned
Pop onto YouTube and type in “Epson vs Optoma 65” (Ignore quotation marks) and you will find various comparisons from TVS Pro.

I just wish Optoma UK would hurry up and send out review samples so that we can get a genuine UK comparison.

Bill
 

AVDavid

Active Member
I must correct a couple of inaccuracies in this review, The DLP chip puts 8.3 million discrete pixels on screen there is no pixel shifting with this technology which is why it is clearly sharper than the Epson and JVC, comparable to the Sony 4K projectors. I have an Optoma HD300X and I find the black level to be more than adequate for movies this chip uses the same technology so why would you assume the black level would be any different?
 

dhts

Active Member
I must correct a couple of inaccuracies in this review, The DLP chip puts 8.3 million discrete pixels on screen there is no pixel shifting with this technology which is why it is clearly sharper than the Epson and JVC, comparable to the Sony 4K projectors. I have an Optoma HD300X and I find the black level to be more than adequate for movies this chip uses the same technology so why would you assume the black level would be any different?
I'm afraid your description is incorrect, but completely understandable given the misleading information put out by the manufacturer. I was very pleased to see Phil accurately capture this unlike other reviewers. If you read up on the spec of the TI chip being used you'll see it's exactly the same tech as the JVC's and Epsons but it starts with more pixels so can get to 8.3m but it's still two overlapping images.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Phil and dhts are correct.

I think the lower contrast may be because the chip has more intra pixel gaps compared to the 1080 variants. JVC has a similar contrast problem with its 4K chip compared to the lamp based models that are 1080.
 

soupdragon

Distinguished Member
If you read up on the spec of the TI chip being used you'll see it's exactly the same tech as the JVC's and Epsons but it starts with more pixels so can get to 8.3m but it's still two overlapping images.

The eshift and TI tech are actually quite different. There are arguably some similarities but certainly not 'exactly the same'.

I think the important bit is what you actually see on the screen, regardless of what is happening from a technical point of view. From my own reading of online articles, it seems that the TI chip is doing a brilliant job with 4k content. The debate about true 4k or not may run and run but the reality is, if it's not true 4k, it certainly looks very close.

The gap between 1080p4k eshift and TI 4k seems quite significant which is why these new dlp's have grabbed my interest.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Single chip is always going to be sharper than 3 chip due to the alignment, so that would be a difference in sharpness just because of that I would think.

I wonder how good the dynamic black is for contrast performance. I don't think I've seen it mentioned how well it works (or not).
 

soupdragon

Distinguished Member
Single chip is always going to be sharper than 3 chip due to the alignment, so that would be a difference in sharpness just because of that I would think.

I wonder how good the dynamic black is for contrast performance. I don't think I've seen it mentioned how well it works (or not).

I don't think it's down to 3 chip v single chip, as the native 4k Sony's do a great job already with 4k content despite having 3 chips on board. I think it's just that the TI chip is better at delivering a sharper 4k image compared with the eshift technology.
 

Abacus

Banned
Epson & JVC cannot process more than 4 million pixels, therefore the 8 million that comes in gets down converted to 4 million, they then display the same 4 million pixels twice with a pixel offset to give the impression of 4K. (It’s essentially chip level upscaling)

The TI DLP chip projectors can process all 8 million pixels and then splits them into 2 discrete 4 million pixel layers, which it then displays one after the other at a speed that the eye cannot see, which means as far as the eye can determine it is true 4K (8 million pixels), (Effectively it is the modern DLP version of the old interlaced TV) this is why if you compare a Sony 4K SRXD (Or JVC equivalent) to the TI DLP the sharpness (Within the limitations of the lens used) is identical, something the pixel shift projectors cannot do. (It’s such a simple idea (Although difficult to implement) that it’s just brilliant)

As to 3 chip distortion, then this is possible, but to be honest, unless they are using really cheap mountings or have abysmal quality control, this should not be a problem in this day and age.

Where the 4K DLP do fall down is with WCG as the colour wheels can only produce RGB (Rec 709) which restricts the amount of colours they can deliver, (Although as these are 1st generation I am sure this will be overcome in the future) although some do use RGBRGB colour wheels to offer a little mitigation of this limitation.

Bill
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
Epson & JVC cannot process more than 4 million pixels, therefore the 8 million that comes in gets down converted to 4 million, they then display the same 4 million pixels twice with a pixel offset to give the impression of 4K. (It’s essentially chip level upscaling)

The TI DLP chip projectors can process all 8 million pixels and then splits them into 2 discrete 4 million pixel layers, which it then displays one after the other at a speed that the eye cannot see, which means as far as the eye can determine it is true 4K (8 million pixels), (Effectively it is the modern DLP version of the old interlaced TV) this is why if you compare a Sony 4K SRXD (Or JVC equivalent) to the TI DLP the sharpness (Within the limitations of the lens used) is identical, something the pixel shift projectors cannot do. (It’s such a simple idea (Although difficult to implement) that it’s just brilliant)

As to 3 chip distortion, then this is possible, but to be honest, unless they are using really cheap mountings or have abysmal quality control, this should not be a problem in this day and age.

Where the 4K DLP do fall down is with WCG as the colour wheels can only produce RGB (Rec 709) which restricts the amount of colours they can deliver, (Although as these are 1st generation I am sure this will be overcome in the future) although some do use RGBRGB colour wheels to offer a little mitigation of this limitation.

Bill

You beat me to it and probably explained it better than I could. Just 1 thing though...

These DLP's do indeed fall down with regards to WCG *BUT* the BenQ X12000 (which is LED) is able to hit 90-95% of DCI-P3.
 

dhts

Active Member
Epson & JVC cannot process more than 4 million pixels, therefore the 8 million that comes in gets down converted to 4 million, they then display the same 4 million pixels twice with a pixel offset to give the impression of 4K. (It’s essentially chip level upscaling)

The TI DLP chip projectors can process all 8 million pixels and then splits them into 2 discrete 4 million pixel layers, which it then displays one after the other at a speed that the eye cannot see, which means as far as the eye can determine it is true 4K (8 million pixels), (Effectively it is the modern DLP version of the old interlaced TV) this is why if you compare a Sony 4K SRXD (Or JVC equivalent) to the TI DLP the sharpness (Within the limitations of the lens used) is identical, something the pixel shift projectors cannot do. (It’s such a simple idea (Although difficult to implement) that it’s just brilliant)

Bill

That would be great but it's not how it works. It's 2 images of 2716x1528 overlaid. They want you to think you're getting the exact 8.3m pixels from the source but you're not. Read the TI specs or believe Phil.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
That would be great but it's not how it works. It's 2 images of 2716x1528 overlaid. They want you to think you're getting the exact 8.3m pixels from the source but you're not. Read the TI specs or believe Phil.

Here is my take on it after visiting the factory of both Digital Projection and BenQ:

Lets say you have a projector that is 1000 pixels across (using simple numbers here for ease of explanation). Your image is 2000 pixels across. You have an issue whereby you cannot display the entire image without doing something e.g. ignore every other pixel or downscale it. In neither of these examples are you getting the 2000 pixel across image.

What XPR/Wobulation does is take the 1000 pixel projector and adds a half pixel shift to the optic. So you can now take your 2000 pixel across image and break it in to two images. The first is made of all the odd pixels across (odd image) and the second all the even pixels across (even image).

You then send the odd image and have it display for a fraction of time e.g. 1/120 of a second. Then you use your half pixel shift optic to shift the image 1/2 of a displayed pixel to the right and send it the even image for 1/120 of a second.

Now if I understand them correctly this means they are not overlaid they are in fact 2 separate images but displayed so fast that it is essentially putting the full 8.3m pixels on the screen.

Is the image as good as a native 2000 pixel across projector? Perhaps, perhaps not. The optics of projectors play a huge part in the image we see on the screen.
 

dhts

Active Member
Here is my take on it after visiting the factory of both Digital Projection and BenQ:

Lets say you have a projector that is 1000 pixels across (using simple numbers here for ease of explanation). Your image is 2000 pixels across. You have an issue whereby you cannot display the entire image without doing something e.g. ignore every other pixel or downscale it. In neither of these examples are you getting the 2000 pixel across image.

What XPR/Wobulation does is take the 1000 pixel projector and adds a half pixel shift to the optic. So you can now take your 2000 pixel across image and break it in to two images. The first is made of all the odd pixels across (odd image) and the second all the even pixels across (even image).

You then send the odd image and have it display for a fraction of time e.g. 1/120 of a second. Then you use your half pixel shift optic to shift the image 1/2 of a displayed pixel to the right and send it the even image for 1/120 of a second.

Now if I understand them correctly this means they are not overlaid they are in fact 2 separate images but displayed so fast that it is essentially putting the full 8.3m pixels on the screen.
But you can't take 2716x1528 and get it to equal 3840x2160. As I said the marketing blurb is highly misleading resulting in some inaccurate reviews and a confused public. Still I'm sure Donald Trump would say these are just alternative facts.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
But you can't take 2716x1528 and get it to equal 3840x2160. As I said the marketing blurb is highly misleading resulting in some inaccurate reviews and a confused public. Still I'm sure Donald Trump would say these are just alternative facts.

You are correct and there is obviously either some downscaling going on or they are not using the full panel. Perhaps this is why there is a border of around 1-2 inches of projected light around these DLP models.
 

Thatsnotmynaim

Distinguished Member
I don't care how they do it or what voodoo stuff is going on in the background, if it looks as good as it does in #3 who cares, you're getting a projector that looks better detail than a faux 4k, maybe close to a true 4k, but for less that the current faux 4k.

If you look at the TVS Pro YouTube videos of the Optoma 60/65 with what I think is the same Ti chip, the guy in that video is not just looking at the marketing blurb and just regurgitating it, he shows it side by side with the Epsons 4k faux (~£6k) and Sony true 4k and the Ti does not disgrace itself.

I know that is only one aspect of the performance, but it looks like a great start, I'm watching eagerly.
 

Abacus

Banned
Let’s take a picture and print it out on A4 paper and then blow it up (Upscale it) to A3 size, you find that the image is not as good as leaving it as A4.

Print half the picture on an A4 sheet and the other half on another A4 sheet, then put the two half’s together and you have a nice clear image as there is no zooming (Upscaling) required.

The principle of the Ti chip is the same, it just does it at pixel level and overlays the 2 half’s, rather than placing them side by side, thus as far as the eye can see (It overlays the 2 images faster than the eye can see) it is true 4K (8 million pixels), whereas faux 4K is still 4 million pixels.

I can’t see what the problem is, as nobody is saying that the Ti chip displays the 4K image in 1 go, because it doesn’t, it does it in 2 goes (Faster than what the eye can see) just like the old interlaced TV system that required 2 passes to display 1 image.

Bill
 

AVDavid

Active Member
From another review:
"However, unlike ‘pseudo’ 4K solutions from rivals such as JVC and Epson, the UHD60’s 4K solution has been given the ‘real 4K’ seal of approval by the independent Consumer Technology Association. More importantly, given that seeing is always believing with this sort of stuff, the resolution really does seem to be right up there on the screen with the UHD60, as we’ll discover later."
 

dhts

Active Member
Let’s take a picture and print it out on A4 paper and then blow it up (Upscale it) to A3 size, you find that the image is not as good as leaving it as A4.

Print half the picture on an A4 sheet and the other half on another A4 sheet, then put the two half’s together and you have a nice clear image as there is no zooming (Upscaling) required.

The principle of the Ti chip is the same, it just does it at pixel level and overlays the 2 half’s, rather than placing them side by side, thus as far as the eye can see (It overlays the 2 images faster than the eye can see) it is true 4K (8 million pixels), whereas faux 4K is still 4 million pixels.

I can’t see what the problem is, as nobody is saying that the Ti chip displays the 4K image in 1 go, because it doesn’t, it does it in 2 goes (Faster than what the eye can see) just like the old interlaced TV system that required 2 passes to display 1 image.

Bill
Your explanation is sound for interlaced tv. That's because the second pixel so to speak is being displayed directly above and inline with the first pixel. So this would work if the DMD chip was say 3840x1080. But here the second pixel is diagonally shifted by half as per the JVCs and Epsons and overlaps the first pixel (not a bad thing for a projector).
Here's the best explanation I've seen:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
The pj takes the 3840x2160 image, converts it to a whopping 16m pixels and then works out how to display that using two diagonally shifted images. It's much cleverer than simply displaying half the pixels on one pass and the other half on the next.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
You've come a long way from:

I'm afraid your description is incorrect, but completely understandable given the misleading information put out by the manufacturer. I was very pleased to see Phil accurately capture this unlike other reviewers. If you read up on the spec of the TI chip being used you'll see it's exactly the same tech as the JVC's and Epsons but it starts with more pixels so can get to 8.3m but it's still two overlapping images.

Your explanation is sound for interlaced tv. That's because the second pixel so to speak is being displayed directly above and inline with the first pixel. So this would work if the DMD chip was say 3840x1080. But here the second pixel is diagonally shifted by half as per the JVCs and Epsons and overlaps the first pixel (not a bad thing for a projector).
Here's the best explanation I've seen:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
The pj takes the 3840x2160 image, converts it to a whopping 16m pixels and then works out how to display that using two diagonally shifted images. It's much cleverer than simply displaying half the pixels on one pass and the other half on the next.

Do you now see why people complain when it is referred to in the same breath as JVC/Epson's iterations? The technology being used in these single chip DLP projectors is far more advanced and far superior in terms of retaining the original image. At the moment they seem to lack in other areas but detail is not one of them.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Are the TCL MiniLED TVs better than OLED? TCL Interview with Marek Maciejewski | AVForums Podcast
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

iFi Audio launches NEO Stream music streamer with DAC
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Musical Fidelity launches M6x 250.7 multi-channel power amplifier
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Is Google set to rival Dolby Vision and Atmos?
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
'Tizen TV by Samsung' brands coming to UK?
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Denon announces five new 8K AV receivers
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom