• Welcome to AVForums running Xenforo 2.2. The upgrade from 2.1 was successful and finished in just 90 minutes, well before 8am. The most notable changes in 2.2 are listed in this post.

NEWS: Optoma launches new 4K UHD home DLP projectors

big boss

Well-known Member
Interesting that they've launched 2 models priced so close to each other!
 

antsims

Distinguished Member
Got excited when the review said 4K projector. Then got disappointed when it transpires it's another faux 4K projector.
 

Leo31291

Distinguished Member
Got excited when the review said 4K projector. Then got disappointed when it transpires it's another faux 4K projector.
Projectorcentral have got their hands on a pre production version of the UHD65 and in their words:

"There is no question that the 4K DLP chip is capable of producing a 4K video image that is the visual equivalent in image detail of a native 4K chipset."
 

John Galvin

Standard Member
Pricing for the UHD60 in the US is $2000, real shame that UK is being priced at £2499. Why such a disparity??
 

jakimp

Well-known Member
always the same - see oppo 203 pricing and Epson pricing. our price includes VAT at 20% - you have to add local sales taxes at maybe 10% to USA price but still probably a third cheaper over there with taxes paid. seems unfair.

it is still sort of faux k but I doubt if resolution will be the weak link here - RBE and black level / contrast may be. and possibly motion handling in the UHD60 as FI only fitted to UHD65.
 

Sandra51

Active Member
Pricing for the UHD60 in the US is $2000, real shame that UK is being priced at £2499. Why such a disparity??

They don't call the UK "Treasure Island" for nothing, we always get ripped off.
No doubt they will blame this latest profiteering on Brexit.
 

AVDavid

Active Member
They don't call the UK "Treasure Island" for nothing, we always get ripped off.
No doubt they will blame this latest profiteering on Brexit.
Brexit didn't help and just wait until we actually leave, at least at the moment you can order the UHD60 from Europe without import duties for 2500 euros
 

dhts

Active Member
Projectorcentral have got their hands on a pre production version of the UHD65 and in their words:

"There is no question that the 4K DLP chip is capable of producing a 4K video image that is the visual equivalent in image detail of a native 4K chipset."
...once they increased the sharpening which to me suggests Faux-k. He also says visual equivalent which I don't interpret as identical pixel for pixel. Most folks, me included think Faux-k is sufficient, I just wish manufacturers were a little more honest in their descriptions. Happy to be proved wrong if anyone can explain how it actually works.
 

afzal

Active Member
On Faux-K - Yes, the TI chip does not have a full 4K of mirrors. However, it is able to adjust in microseconds. What that means is that each of the "4k" pixels is individually addressable, and with a time lag of microseconds. To the naked eye, that should mean that it is impossible to differentiate from true 4K.
 

Barcoing Mad

Active Member
It's worth remembering that a monochrome CRT tube was a 'faux' display: it had a travelling single spot beam...all of one pixel equivalent. I've always objected to JVC's advertising, as two overlapping 1080p arrays in no way can be considered to be 4k (having half the pixel count with the pixels overlapping), however two half count arrays projected sequentially can fully emulate a whole array...so long as the pixels don't overlap!

There is pixel overlap in the TI array, and also mapping from a UHD array into TI's staggered diagonal array isn't straightforward, nonetheless if it can resolve a UHD test pattern, then they must be getting it right, although the ANSI contrast for the 1:1 patterns must be somewhat compromised due to the overlap.
 

dhts

Active Member
Whilst each pixel may display two discrete pixels it simply doesn't have enough mirrors to render UHD bluray when I do the maths. I've seen reference previously to it successfully rendering a 4K test pattern and I'm wondering if there are certain test patterns where the maths just works due to some quirk, but so far as I know the Ti array has 2716x1523 mirrors which is 8,272,936 on screen and 3840x2160 is 8,294,400 required for UHD bluray.
 

Abacus

Banned
It doesn’t display 4K in one go, but in 2 half’s, however, because it does it does it that fast, the eye cannot (It’s just not up to the job) differentiate between full 4K and 4K in 2 half’s.

It’s such a simple technique (Although difficult to implement) that I find it surprising how many people are confused by it. (The only thing I can think of, is that faux 4K is so imbedded in the mind that people have difficulty believing otherwise)

As always, the proof is in the pudding.

Bill
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
All the single chip DLP 4K offerings (BenQ, Optoma, Acer etc etc) all use the technique of shifting mirrors to create true 4K. This is done faster than the human eye can see/perceive and therefore you are seeing a true 4K picture. This is not to be confused with the technique used by Epson, JVC etc as with those projectors you are not seeing true 4K.
 

soupdragon

Distinguished Member
Re: these '4k' DLP chips, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding has been sampled and well tested (by Ekki at cine4home)

In a nutshell, they put the 4k DLP Acer V9800 up against the Espon e-shift 9300 and the Sony native 4k 550 and the 4k DLP was very very close to the native Sony 550 in terms of rendering a 4k image. The Epson (while very good for general watching for both 1080p and 4k) lags a fair bit behind the DLP 4k.

Eg, the Epson 9300 (note, these images are cropped images, zoomed in quite close)



versus the Acer DLP below



If you look at the 'no buses' sign and then the sign below where it says 8 - 21, you actually struggle to make out the figure '8' on the Epson. It could be a B or an S.

Another Epson 9300 pic



And now the Acer DLP



Ekki also mentions that while the 4k DLP chip isn't quite as good as a native chip, there is so little difference that it hardly even matters. The sharp analogue look of the 4k DLP chip seems to be a real winner.

You can read the very detailed analysis here (translated for you convenience :) )

Google Translate

One thing I'll also add. The fact that its single chip means you won't have those 3 chip panel alignment/convergence issues that you can get with Epson, Sony, JVC etc...so you won't have to worry about the 'good sample' lottery. No convergence issues to deal with will also help with the overall feel of 'natural' sharpness. Someone mentioned above about it maybe looking like 'processed 4k' but judging by Ekki's pictures, this new DLP chip seems like it doesn't need to rely on any of that - the technology seems to be good already, not needing any added tricks.

The only thing for me now is to see how Optoma implement this on their 60/65 machines as while the images above are from the same shared chip as the Optoma, we will need to see what lens/noise/contrast etc performance will look like. Price seems very competive though (only $1999 dollars in the US for the UHD60!!!)
 

dhts

Active Member
All the single chip DLP 4K offerings (BenQ, Optoma, Acer etc etc) all use the technique of shifting mirrors to create true 4K. This is done faster than the human eye can see/perceive and therefore you are seeing a true 4K picture. This is not to be confused with the technique used by Epson, JVC etc as with those projectors you are not seeing true 4K.
I really don't believe this is the case, I believe even more strongly that it doesn't really matter, if what you see looks good then who cares. So far as I'm aware the physical technique is the same as that being done by Epson and JVC. The only difference is it has more mirrors to start with. My understanding is you get two overlaid images of 2716x1523, whereas with the JVC's and Epson's you get two overlaid images of 1920x1080.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
I really don't believe this is the case, I believe even more strongly that it doesn't really matter, if what you see looks good then who cares. So far as I'm aware the physical technique is the same as that being done by Epson and JVC. The only difference is it has more mirrors to start with. My understanding is you get two overlaid images of 2716x1523, whereas with the JVC's and Epson's you get two overlaid images of 1920x1080.

You have a right to believe whatever you wish to believe. However, having been to the manufacturing floor and having had a true demo of 'wobulation' versus pixel shift I can say for sure which I would pick every day of the week. Just take a look at the pictures @soupdragon posted, would you say that the Epson looks good compared to real 4K?
 

dhts

Active Member
You have a right to believe whatever you wish to believe. However, having been to the manufacturing floor and having had a true demo of 'wobulation' versus pixel shift I can say for sure which I would pick every day of the week. Just take a look at the pictures @soupdragon posted, would you say that the Epson looks good compared to real 4K?
On the latter point we agree, if it looks good who cares and absolutely by any reasonable person's definition it's got quite twice the resolution as the Epsons/JVC's.
On the first point all I'm saying is whilst you're getting a similar number (but not identical number) of pixels as on a true 4K projector, you're not getting the same 1-1 information for each pixel as in the source material. To quote Ewan from projector central "The pixels have been reformulated through video processing to map the native 4K signal information onto this pixel shifted delivery mechanism".
If JVC were marketing this projector they would say it had 5.4K resolution so at least they aren't saying that.
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
On the latter point we agree, if it looks good who cares and absolutely by any reasonable person's definition it's got quite twice the resolution as the Epsons/JVC's.
On the first point all I'm saying is whilst you're getting a similar number (but not identical number) of pixels as on a true 4K projector, you're not getting the same 1-1 information for each pixel as in the source material. To quote Ewan from projector central "The pixels have been reformulated through video processing to map the native 4K signal information onto this pixel shifted delivery mechanism".
If JVC were marketing this projector they would say it had 5.4K resolution so at least they aren't saying that.

I'm not sure I understand, these projectors don't give you similar they give you exactly 3840x2160 pixels. If that is what Ewan is saying then either he is wrong or I was lied to at 2 factories (Digital Projection and BenQ). Wobulation uses the mirrors within a DLP projector to correctly map each individual pixel.
 

dhts

Active Member
I'm not sure I understand, these projectors don't give you similar they give you exactly 3840x2160 pixels. If that is what Ewan is saying then either he is wrong or I was lied to at 2 factories (Digital Projection and BenQ). Wobulation uses the mirrors within a DLP projector to correctly map each individual pixel.
There's a lot of confusion out there about these. The nearest I've got to a real technical description is from a Barco white paper:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
But think about it, if the number of pixels on the DMD x 2 doesn't equal the number of pixels in a UHD display (and it doesn't) then how can it be 1:1 ?
 

Abacus

Banned
There's a lot of confusion out there about these. The nearest I've got to a real technical description is from a Barco white paper:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
But think about it, if the number of pixels on the DMD x 2 doesn't equal the number of pixels in a UHD display (and it doesn't) then how can it be 1:1 ?

As I said in my previous post, it doesn’t, it displays the image in 2 half’s, which are projected one after the other at a speed that the eye cannot see, thus the eye sees a full 4K image.

Hope this helps

Bill
 

alistairg

Active Member
I am very interested in these projectors and considering them versus the TW9300 and JVC X5500.

It seems that they are sharper and probably have better motion but they have less contrast.

Projector Central have an initial write up.

New Products: Optoma UHD65 and UHD60

Perhaps if people want to argue if 4K DLP is faux K or not they could set up a thread for that rather than discussing it again when every projector comes along.

I'd rather just know if this is a good projector for the money or not.

The pricing is cheeky. Most products today seem to have the USD price similar to the GBP price. If you account for VAT this equates to a few percent premium in the UK which is fair considering lower volumes. This product is 500 more in GBP than USD which is quite a big premium. I guess you can order them from Europe which would help.
 

dhts

Active Member
As I said in my previous post, it doesn’t, it displays the image in 2 half’s, which are projected one after the other at a speed that the eye cannot see, thus the eye sees a full 4K image.

Hope this helps

Bill
What you refer to, I think, is how early wobulation devices work. They would simply typically double the horizontal resolution, so for example from 960x1080 to 1920x1080. The chip used here doesn't work like that, it shifts diagonally, and you can't create a pixel for pixel version of the source doing that. Yes two frames are being shown quickly, but each isn't simply half of the source pixels.
 

dhts

Active Member
Perhaps if people want to argue if 4K DLP is faux K or not they could set up a thread for that rather than discussing it again when every projector comes along.

I'd rather just know if this is a good projector for the money or not.

The pricing is cheeky. Most products today seem to have the USD price similar to the GBP price. If you account for VAT this equates to a few percent premium in the UK which is fair considering lower volumes. This product is 500 more in GBP than USD which is quite a big premium. I guess you can order them from Europe which would help.

I take your point about having the Faux-k debate on every pj which uses the new chip, I just want people to be informed about their potential purchases. Actually I feel the same way each time Rip of Britain pricing is raised in a thread. (I'd add a smiley but I'm too old).
 

mbmapit

Well-known Member
There's a lot of confusion out there about these. The nearest I've got to a real technical description is from a Barco white paper:
http://cineramax.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BARCO-whitepaper-4K-UHD.pdf
But think about it, if the number of pixels on the DMD x 2 doesn't equal the number of pixels in a UHD display (and it doesn't) then how can it be 1:1 ?

That's a good link. So the DMD is actually 2560x1600 and with the wobulation it makes it 5120x3200 and then it is processed back down to UHD/4K. So not faux 4K?

I have been told by both manufacturers they produce every last pixel. Maybe have a read of these links:

TI DLP® Technology - 4K Ultra HD | TI.com
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/ssnb002/ssnb002.pdf
DLP660TE DLP® 0.66 4K UHD DMD | TI.com
Standard Display - Products | DLP® Products | TI.com
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Q Acoustics Q3030i, Humax Aura, Roku Streambar & WandaVision Reviews and more...

Latest News

KEF announces KC62 subwoofer with new Uni-Core technology
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 20th January 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Netflix passes 200 million subscribers to end 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cyrus Audio announces soundBuds2 in-ear headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio Research launches Reference 80S power amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom