This was posted by longhornsk57 in one of the UHZ65 threads:[qoute]If you get 8 million unique pixels aligned properly at 60hz no matter how it's accomplished it's 4K.I'm not sure if he actually thinks they are properly aligned with the XPR method, but that is my guess. I would respond there, but I was banned from that thread for correcting misinformation.
I agree. I asked this because it is a tough one. Maybe 4K*, like you said. Basically, the pixel level is native 4K, but there may be a bottleneck elsewhere in the chain that can't actually support that much properly. If it is just a matter of going into the service menu and disabling pixel alignment then I would call it native 4K.
That one all depends on what one means by aligned properly. For example, if it means something like your theoretical 50% fill factor case, then sure.
I see that Ruined is over on AVS telling people that with XPR the human eye sees 4K just like it sees the integrated colors from a single chip DLP. Just more BS from him.I doubt he would claim that the human eye sees 3K images with JVC eShift projectors.If XPR projectors had gaps for the other sub-frame(s) then it would be like single chip DLP colors, but we know it doesn't work that way (for the reasons I mentioned), and Ruined knows it doesn't work that way.Seems like AVS is catering to the deceivers, so they get BS like that. The truth doesn't seem to have much relevance there.--Darin
What are your opinions?
Comparing the DLP XPR solution with the native 4K displays showed obvious artifacts using both the Sharpness and Overscan patterns and the Single Black Pixels set. When I used the simple horizontal and vertical single-line patterns, I noticed obvious softening or artifacts that prevented clean delineation of the pattern, which was present with both native displays. The Single Black Pixels pattern was the most obvious of the group, with pronounced artifacts visible when compared with the native displays. Other parts of the patterns fared better, such as text. But it was clear—at least with these two projectors—that the XPR technology wasn’t delivering the same level of performance as the native chips, which didn’t require any tricks to achieve their resolution.
So, I moved on to subjective testing of regular video content, using a variety of material on UHD Blu-ray. Here, the differences in picture detail between the displays rarely manifested. Resolution as a whole looked comparable, though the lack of native contrast with either of the DLP projectors gave the image a flat, washed-out appearance that was hard to ignore with most of the content. The XPR designs also had an ever so slight inherent softness that reminded me of the native 4K designs I’ve tested from Sony. Both the recent Sony projectors I’ve tried and these XPR designs required some fine-tuning of their image-enhancement features to deliver the sharpness one would expect from a native 4K design—an issue I never had with my reference projector. With some careful tuning, image fidelity looked better, with improved image delineation, though minor ringing was evident if I looked hard enough.
The biggest short coming of the UHD60 I had here wasn't resolution though - the picture looked surprisingly good ( other than the contrast ). It was rainbows, light leakage out the exhaust vent big time, limited lens shift and wonky HDR. And of course no power zoom or focus.
It's in the < 3K forum. Which sort of backs up my theory that most of those DLP fans are from the < $3k forum and don't really know what a $5000 machine should be capable of.
I saw a BenQ HT2050 in my room once and it was rainbow galore for me. I even saw rainbows just looking at the side of the lens from an angle.
119 Replies
42308 Views