Optoma UHD550X/ UHD60/ UHD65 Owners Thread

toddy28

Well-known Member
Garry where are you [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
 

quinnmar

Active Member
The screen and infra-red connectivity unexpectedly arrived today, so it'll be next week for installation
 

Tazuk999

Active Member
Guys quick question how do i change the lamp mode. My uhd60 is on bright but its greyed out and can't change it
 

Grumble

Active Member
Guys quick question how do i change the lamp mode. My uhd60 is on bright but its greyed out and can't change it
You have to set Dynamic Black to off, then you can change the Brightness Mode to Eco.
 

AV Online

Well-known Member
AVForums Sponsor
Course they're nervous. They're trying to keep a straight face while they say 4k! :p
Well, technically, they are throwing 8 million pixels on screen :) To be fair, at the price point, Im not sure anything beats the UHD65 for out right image quality.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Well, technically, they are throwing 8 million pixels on screen :) To be fair, at the price point, Im not sure anything beats the UHD65 for out right image quality.
Technically they're throwing a lot more than that - they throw up red green and blue pixels to make a specific colour, so that's at least 4.15m per colour segment, multiplied by the amount of resolutions the colour wheel does, then they eshift the 4.15m display and do it again. If you want to count those pixels which technically you should do if you count the eshifted pixels (what's the difference?), DLP wins by a mile!

And that's not even when we start to mention the 16m sub pixels two eshifted frames of 4.15m can create before we start to think about the RGB multiplier :p

Shall I get my coat? :D
 

toddy28

Well-known Member
All I know is it looks spectacular in 4k way better then 1080p and other e-shift projectors I have seen running , how ever it's done it works and works better then other e-shift projectors on the market
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
All I know is it looks spectacular in 4k way better then 1080p and other e-shift projectors I have seen running , how ever it's done it works and works better then other e-shift projectors on the market
I think the comparison images that compare it with other eshift projectors show without doubt it can deliver a more detailed image over 1080 eshifted.

If the likes of JVC and Epson could follow suit, that might help keep costs down until they can deliver native 4k at an affordable price. Sony are doing it, and now we have another Sony laser pj on the market, so things are definitely moving in the right direction.
 

AV Online

Well-known Member
AVForums Sponsor
I think the comparison images that compare it with other eshift projectors show without doubt it can deliver a more detailed image over 1080 eshifted.

If the likes of JVC and Epson could follow suit, that might help keep costs down until they can deliver native 4k at an affordable price. Sony are doing it, and now we have another Sony laser pj on the market, so things are definitely moving in the right direction.
Correct me if Im wrong, dealing with lots of products blurs info sometimes so I'd have to double check, but IIRC Espon are eshifting 2 million pixels to throw 4 million on screen, while the Optoma eshifts 4 million to throw 8 million on screen, hence why Optoma get away with the 4K logo on the case while some dont. I certainly find that the difference is noticeable.
 
Last edited:

dhts

Active Member
Correct me if Im wrong, dealing with lots of products blurs info sometimes so I'd have to double check, but IIRC Espon are eshifting 2 million pixels to throw 4 million on screen, while the Optoma eshifts 4 million to throw 8 million on screen, hence why Optoma get away with the 4K logo on the case while some dont. I certainly find that the difference is noticeable.
Yes it's as simple as that.

More eshifted pixels = Good. Claiming to support UHD natively = Bad.
 

AV Online

Well-known Member
AVForums Sponsor
Yes it's as simple as that.

More eshifted pixels = Good. Claiming to support UHD natively = Bad.
It will take a 4k feed, and put 8 million pixels on screen, so you could argue its at the very least as close to 4k/UHD as it is to standard HD, but leaning to the side of true 4k, and its enough to get the 4k logo on the unit itself. For the money theres nothing that gets closer even if technically its not pure native 4k.
 

dhts

Active Member
It will take a 4k feed, and put 8 million pixels on screen, so you could argue its at the very least as close to 4k/UHD as it is to standard HD, but leaning to the side of true 4k, and its enough to get the 4k logo on the unit itself. For the money theres nothing that gets closer even if technically its not pure native 4k.
We don't disagree, indeed I'd say it was much closer to true 4k that it is to 1080p.
 

Peter Parker

Distinguished Member
Correct me if Im wrong, dealing with lots of products blurs info sometimes so I'd have to double check, but IIRC Espon are eshifting 2 million pixels to throw 4 million on screen, while the Optoma eshifts 4 million to throw 8 million on screen, hence why Optoma get away with the 4K logo on the case while some dont. I certainly find that the difference is noticeable.
The two passes of 4.15m pixels overlap at the corners because they are eshifted, so the DMD pixels aren't visibly native or discrete when displayed on screen, and you won't be able to accurately display a 4k test pattern like a native 4k display will if someone wanted to prove it was truly 4k.

It certainly looks better than an eshifted 1080 panel, but it's not really 4k. It does have 16 million sub pixels to play with though :)

If we threw up a 720 display 9 times per frame, that would probably be classed the same as 4k by the CTA as well if the amount of discrete pixels placed on screen per frame was all that mattered.

Of course, what's important is the image we actually see and it certainly does a good job at that. I'm pretty sure a lot of the detractors of Tis new solution would rave about how much better their JVC looked if they eshifted a 4.15m pixel display instead of a 1080 one and kept most of the other image qualities that JVC has to offer.
 

Baggesgaard

Novice Member
hallo

I am also looking into UHD550 or UHD60,
but I'm aware that it does not have PURE MOTION. (between image calculation)

Could one of you who have bought one of the mentioned, tell how you experience this. And yes, I know the UHD65 has PURE MOTION, but it seems the price is too high.
 

duffus

Active Member
hallo

I am also looking into UHD550 or UHD60,
but I'm aware that it does not have PURE MOTION. (between image calculation)

Could one of you who have bought one of the mentioned, tell how you experience this. And yes, I know the UHD65 has PURE MOTION, but it seems the price is too high.
I've watched 4-5 movies with the 60 and cannot say that I'm missing anything with regards to motion stutter on panning shots. It's plenty fluid for me.
 

johan81

Active Member
I just got the UHD65 in and am very happy I did, except for the extra cash I needed to spend. The blacks are way better on the UDH65 in my darkened room. And colors are a lot better as well, way more lively.
The UHD550X just isn't good enough, I cannot speak for the UHD60 even though it seems to be the same one, I cannot confirm that. It is a huge step up in price, but I just couldn't stay with the 550X, the level of quality just bothered me too much to enjoy it.

I tried Pure Motion as some reviewers liked it, but I hate it for now, too much smoothing it out if you ask me, but opinions tend to differ a lot in this department.
 

toddy28

Well-known Member
I just got the UHD65 in and am very happy I did, except for the extra cash I needed to spend. The blacks are way better on the UDH65 in my darkened room. And colors are a lot better as well, way more lively.
The UHD550X just isn't good enough, I cannot speak for the UHD60 even though it seems to be the same one, I cannot confirm that. It is a huge step up in price, but I just couldn't stay with the 550X, the level of quality just bothered me too much to enjoy it.

I tried Pure Motion as some reviewers liked it, but I hate it for now, too much smoothing it out if you ask me, but opinions tend to differ a lot in this department.
So glad you said about the pure motion as that was the only thing I thought I might miss out on , if I had a dedicated room and black walls I would definitely of gone for the uhd65 ,

our living room is so white you need sunglasses [emoji41] so I don't think it would be at its best in that environment

Enjoy [emoji4]
 

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
Who is feeding them this stuff?

New Projectors: Optoma UHD65 and UHD60
"...the UHD65 clearly exceeds the sharpness and 4K image detail of the 5040UB when they are placed side by side with a 4K source signal. There should be no surprise here since the 4K DLP chip has double the number of mirrors on the device that the 3LCD chips have. Moreover, the pixel shifting on the 3LCD 1080p devices result in partial overlay of one pixel upon another, whereas the shift technology on the DLP chip, though it overlays, is able to define a second discrete pixel."

Has anyone found an explanation yet for what on earth they actually mean?

(please note, I'm not knocking the projector or the tech, I'd just dearly love to understand the explanation for this eye-bending phenomena... ;) )
 

johan81

Active Member
So glad you said about the pure motion as that was the only thing I thought I might miss out on , if I had a dedicated room and black walls I would definitely of gone for the uhd65 ,

our living room is so white you need sunglasses [emoji41] so I don't think it would be at its best in that environment

Enjoy [emoji4]
Yeah, I understand that in a white room you will not really see the difference, but if you can black out everything, it makes a very noticeable difference that just cannot be ignored.

About the Pure Motion, it looks kinda cool, but it makes watching a movie not watching a movie anymore. I will try to watch one with it on the whole time just to see if it is adjustment, but I doubt that will be the case. And in shaky camera movies, you really get shaken with it a lot more and my girlfriend doesn't like it at all, she felt she was about to get a bit sick because of it.

I know my brother loves the tech and has it on, on his Plasma TV, he even doesn't mind the artifact here or there (which I couldn't see happening with the UHD65 though, that is a plus). So I think it is very much a personal preference.

Who is feeding them this stuff?

New Projectors: Optoma UHD65 and UHD60
"...the UHD65 clearly exceeds the sharpness and 4K image detail of the 5040UB when they are placed side by side with a 4K source signal. There should be no surprise here since the 4K DLP chip has double the number of mirrors on the device that the 3LCD chips have. Moreover, the pixel shifting on the 3LCD 1080p devices result in partial overlay of one pixel upon another, whereas the shift technology on the DLP chip, though it overlays, is able to define a second discrete pixel."

Has anyone found an explanation yet for what on earth they actually mean?

(please note, I'm not knocking the projector or the tech, I'd just dearly love to understand the explanation for this eye-bending phenomena... ;) )
The consortium has given the approval of this tech to be called 4K because effectively it works as 4K. The reason this is the way it is, is because DLP can change the pixels/mirrors so quickly, it can produce more than one perceivable pixel at one time.
 

jfinnie

Distinguished Member
our living room is so white you need sunglasses [emoji41] so I don't think it would be at its best in that environment
I doubt it is much whiter than mine - high-gloss IKEA units all over the walls, white walls and ceilings. Seriously consider a Draper ReAct3 or similar ALR screen. It takes my image from "nice big picture" to awesome, with superb contrast.

With any screen you will see a difference in Native contrast if there is one, but it may just be less pronounced. With an ALR screen like a ReAct the difference should be easily discernible even in a white room.

Some piccies (JVC X30):
P7270791.JPG P7270794.JPG P8311384.JPG
 

quinnmar

Active Member
I doubt it is much whiter than mine - high-gloss IKEA units all over the walls, white walls and ceilings. Seriously consider a Draper ReAct3 or similar ALR screen. It takes my image from "nice big picture" to awesome, with superb contrast.

With any screen you will see a difference in Native contrast if there is one, but it may just be less pronounced. With an ALR screen like a ReAct the difference should be easily discernible even in a white room.

Some piccies (JVC X30):
View attachment 908692 View attachment 908693 View attachment 908694
Not as bright as my room
Bottom Windows.jpg
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Samsung HW-Q950T Soundbar Review, Filmmaker Mode, Disney+ $30 for Mulan, AV news and more

Trending threads

Latest News

Xbox Series X November launch confirmed
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Xiaomi OLED is world’s first mass produced transparent TV
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Tron 3 lands star and director for Disney
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Kef announces KW1 Wireless Subwoofer Adapter
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 9th August 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom