Do You think faux 4K/8K etc (pixel shifting)..... is the future for projectors?

escksu

Member
I am just thinking about this and I feel we probably will using pixel shifting in the future. As resolution increases, the LCD/DLP/Lcos panel will get bigger. I feel there may be a limit to how big these panels can get before they become too difficult and expensive to produce. So, pixel shifting will be necessary in the future.

Although pixel shifting is very new to projectors, the principle is very old. Our old CRT TV/monitors have been doing the same thing for decades. The 3 electron guns in colour CRT can only light up 1 pixel at any time. But it sweeps across the screen at an extremely high rate. So what we see is a full screen image instead. WE cant see individual pixels being lighted up 1 at a time. Sometimes we can notice screen flickering if refresh rate is low (~60Hz), but at 85-100HZ and above, we cant see.

Although close up photos have shown a distinct difference between native 4K and pixel shifting, but I don't think anyone will be sitting that close to the screen when watching movies. At normal view distance of ~3m, it is extremely hard for human eye to tell the difference. There is still alot of room for improvement for pixel shifting. It can only get better and I believe its just a matter of time before we can't see the difference at all.
 

iamsludge

Active Member
Faux 4k pixel shifting projectors have been out for 5 years... and are now replaced by native 4k... and faux 8k...

Eventually we may get native 8k and faux 16k...
 

ask4me2

Active Member
Think the MTF for the lens and optical component needs to be real high end to be able to project these higher native or pixel shift resolutions mentioned too.

For normal cinema viewing distances, not sure we need to go 8K - 16K either.

I am more hoping for higher native contrast for 4K HDR sources in projectors (better than 1000 000:1) , with the use of contrast chip etc., and more direct use of RGB lasers to get to BT2020 etc.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
the 9400 faux 4k pixel shift was incredible so if it means the PJ can pump out more lumens and be cheaper, then sure why not.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
i'd take a 4k e-shift jvc projector at £3000 for example if the resolution increase to 4k is the reason JVC PJ are very expensive.
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
I personally think the material needs to be better moving to 4:4:4 and 4K would be as far as you would need to go with plenty of headroom. I also believe that if 2k was done particularly well this would surprise most. With a PJ contrast, motion handling, refresh rates, colour accuracy, absolute black levels all make more of a difference.

Look at photography lenses to get exemplary performance like the MTF's from Leicas 50mm F2, it took years from design to manufacture to get this performance to production and mounting accuracy and production tolerances need to be near perfect. I bet 8K will show how much the lenses would need to step up. Getting good 4k is proving to be expensive, 8K will need a jump in projector design in my opinion.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sky Glass, Epson Laser Projectors plus Home Cinema Subwoofers and More…
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom