hodg100
Outstanding Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 14,220
- Reaction score
- 4,522
- Points
- 6,489
Projectorcentral have got their hands on a pre production version of the UHD65 and in their words:Got excited when the review said 4K projector. Then got disappointed when it transpires it's another faux 4K projector.
Pricing for the UHD60 in the US is $2000, real shame that UK is being priced at £2499. Why such a disparity??
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 eurosThey don't call the UK "Treasure Island" for nothing, we always get ripped off.
No doubt they will blame this latest profiteering on Brexit.
...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.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."
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.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.
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.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.
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: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 ?
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.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
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.
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 ?