"4K UHD", "True 4K", "Real 4K", and "Native 4K"

[Andreas21]

Yes, like runt of the litter. He has went after Kris in the Optoma thread for his "biased" review of the Benq. Admittedly everyone has biases, but that is like the pot calling the kettle black (or light grey in this case ).

What I find to be utterly funny is how he is telling us how wonderful these DLP´s are with HDR, HDR needs a lot more than 1000:1 on/off contrast. HDR is so much more than brightness (not that these are very bright when calibrated to D65 as far as I have read), he is clearly clueless.

To me there is no doubt this guy (Ruined) is the most DLP biased guy on the other forum, I think he works for a DLP provider or he has some kind of stock or owns a business in the DLP branch. The way he is calling Kris Deering biased is simply stupid, and saying a 1000:1 (4000:1 dynamic) projector can show fantastic black levels clearly shows how biased Ruined is.

And to give a projector deserved critique in a review does not make it a negative review, that is if the projector deserved the critique. And these DLP clearly deserve it in my opinion even if I have never seen one of these XPR ones. I have seen my share of low end 1080p DLP´s and I am not close to interested in seeing one of these so called 4K ones.

[stanger89]

Someone posted an image in the other thread, and this is the second time we've been able to compare/measure pixel sizes.  And again, when you count pixels on an XPR machine, it's clearly putting 2716x1528 pixels on screen, not 3840x2160.

There's something really weird going on with these XPR DLPs, it seems most of the image doesn't even get shifted at all.

[coderguy]

For the Sony's, I would say the panels are obviously native, but the end-result may not be, given bad enough color addressing is similar to a pixel mapping issue. That's how I would distinguish it, but I've never tried a test pattern.

Here is how I would define it:

The pixels must be addressable and must produce the true pixel's color with a pixel pitch that does not greatly differ (ratio-wise) from the native pixel pitch of the native panel. Hence by ratio adjusted, I mean taking into account the tighter fill @ higher res.

The panel doesn't necessarily have to be native, but the end-result does. I'm not sure there is any tech that ever could produce a native result with a non-native panel, so it's somewhat hyperbole.

As far as MTF, I think the shifted pixel would have to be near equal to the non-shifted pixel. Though this does get a bit muddier, as you could also say just within some %.

AFIK, there are no Native 4k DLP's in the consumer space, trickery just like e-shift. It may be superior to e-shift, but there are still some issues with patterns.

I am pretty much in full agreement with Stranger89 I believe (or really close)...

[stanger89]

The panel doesn't necessarily have to be native, but the end-result does. I'm not sure there is any tech that ever could produce a native result with a non-native panel, so it's somewhat hyperbole.

Well, there's scanning laser machines, like the Picobit.  Technically they only display one pixel at a time, but they can produce much higher "native" resolutions.  Of course, I think 720p is about the limit of these for now.

[darinp]

To me there is no doubt this guy (Ruined) is the most DLP biased guy on the other forum, I think he works for a DLP provider or he has some kind of stock or owns a business in the DLP branch.

I think he is probably doing all that spinning for free. He posts misinformation and then when I point it out he refuses to address it or claims it is okay for him to say those things based on a technicality, even if he gets readers to believe something that isn't true. He tells people that XPR works like 1080i and the 2nd subframe for XPR fills in gaps in the 1st subframe, based on the fact that the fill ratio is less than 100%. He seems happy to make people believe that pixels don't overlap.

There is another poster who clearly has trouble understanding my posts who asked me if I have no shame because I called out Ruined's misinformation, as if I am in the wrong for doing that while it is fine that Ruined posts false information and won't address it when called on it.

One of the assumptions has been that TI calls these 4K UHD projectors based on a CTA spec. Ruined claims that the CTA makes the specs (as if nobody else does) and that he will defer to what the CTA says. He says that his reason for calling them 4K UHD is that the CTA is the authority on this and reportedly these pass the CTA requirements. However, I haven't found anywhere that TI or their partners use the CTA logo and I don't think the 2 way shift products actually pass the current CTA requirements.

The original CTA requirements only included 8.3M active pixels, 3840 horizontal pixels and 2160 vertical pixels. However, that was changed later. Now there is a requirement that when proving the resolutions the display needs to be able to show the full color range.

I don't think that the 2 way shift models can do the full color range when demonstrating the horizontal or vertical resolutions. The reason I say that is that I think they need to make half the pixels in a vertical white line black and so the "white" line can't go brighter than 50% luminance. Since 50% luminance and 100% luminance are different colors IMO, I don't think they currently qualify.

I mentioned this to a CTA representative and he said that if there was a complaint they would probably ask for industry input, since they didn't explicitly discuss that with their latest update. I figure that if things went that way and the CTA group wanted these to qualify, then they could change the spec.

That doesn't really matter if TI and their partners don't use the CTA logo though.

I would have to think some more about whether the 4 way shift units meet all the CTA requirements.

Anybody think Ruined would actually stop calling these 4K UHD with no qualification if it turns out that TI isn't confident enough to use the CTA logo and they don't really meet all the CTA requirements?

--Darin

[stanger89]

FWIW, I don't recall seeing the CTA logo anywhere.

[AVSCraig]

The new DLP chips being called " 4K " is certainly working from a marketing point of view. I get people callng saying " now that true 4K projectors are under $3K, which one should I buy ? ". 

[Stereodude]

The new DLP chips being called " 4K " is certainly working from a marketing point of view. I get people callng saying " now that true 4K projectors are under $3K, which one should I buy ? ". 

Do you futilely try to explain the truth to them and eventually end up taking their money in frustration?

[AVSCraig]

Do you futilely try to explain the truth to them and eventually end up taking their money in frustration?

I do explain it to them. Then, suddenly, their choices expand, seeing as JVC and Epson become viable again in their mind. And the Sony 4K projectors. 

I don't see my job as selling someone anything in particular. It's about helping folks make informed purchases. Of course some of you are already informed - then I'm just an order taker / toy purchase enabler !

[coderguy]

What I always tells people that say "I wonder what 4k would look like on my screen or would I benefit"...

I tell them to go to their normal viewing position and take a close look at a paused image, now take 2 steps back, that's 4k...

I'm not sure I have the number of steps right, but they get the idea...

[tp1]

I'm not worried about Roxie. Honestly, so far I've been pretty impressed with the 885ES from a subjective standpoint. I haven't gotten too far into the measurements and objective testing yet. I only plan on some passing comments when comparing it to the 4500, and only because they are both laser and native 4K. Their price points set them apart quite a ways, but they definitely have performance differences (especially peak brightness). I wish I had a 385ES on hand to be honest. It would help me more in evaluating value in comparison to the rest of their line.

Sorry to bring up an older post but as person who just bought a Sony VPL-VW760ES (885ES) , I thought I should comment on the decision making process in relation to the JVC -Z1/4500 vs Sony 885ES/760ES.    Firstly, if my budget extended to the JVC laser PJ, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. However, since it only extended to around $20k AU - or USD 15,500  , my choices were limited to all projectors up to and including that price-point - which is around the average discounted price for the Sony Laser in Australia.   So for me, the only competition for the Sony was  JVC's top E-shifter ( which I already owned) and lesser Sonys etc.  I think context and purpose is relevant here.   Your review will be useful in identifying performance increments  for people who's budget stretches to the JVC 4500, but at some point I think it would  be useful to do a review with Sony 885ES and cheaper  PJ's  to show what ( if anything) people can get as an upgrade path from the  bulk of the globe based projectors and cheaper laser models.

Regarding Sony "Softness" - this is only relevant next to JVC 4500 and Sony 5000, next to JVC X9900 /x9500 (X990/x950)  Sony is sharper in every way , including 1080p material.  Sony have introduced a new lens for the 2018 models  and  while I cant be sure, I would suggest it could be better than JVC's  E-shift lens. Sony laser also seems to have better video processing than its globe based equivalents but not to the standard of the 5000

I have gone out of my way not to be a brand loyalist with projectors.   Been there  - I was previously  a DLP convert which kept me on one side of the fence for too long.   I would buy JVC again without any equivocation and I still recommend  JVC E-shifters to friends over Sony's globe based PJs.    I would upgrade  if a better affordable alternative popped up, but for now the Sony Laser is simply producing the most awesome images I have had in my theatre.

[Dylan Seeger]

Sorry to bring up an older post but as person who just bought a Sony VPL-VW760ES (885ES) , I thought I should comment on the decision making process in relation to the JVC -Z1/4500 vs Sony 885ES/760ES.    Firstly, if my budget extended to the JVC laser PJ, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. However, since it only extended to around $20k AU - or USD 15,500  , my choices were limited to all projectors up to and including that price-point - which is around the average discounted price for the Sony Laser in Australia.   So for me, the only competition for the Sony was  JVC's top E-shifter ( which I already owned) and lesser Sonys etc.  I think context and purpose is relevant here.   Your review will be useful in identifying performance increments  for people who's budget stretches to the JVC 4500, but at some point I think it would  be useful to do a review with Sony 885ES and cheaper  PJ's  to show what ( if anything) people can get as an upgrade path from the  bulk of the globe based projectors and cheaper laser models.

Regarding Sony "Softness" - this is only relevant next to JVC 4500 and Sony 5000, next to JVC X9900 /x9500 (X990/x950)  Sony is sharper in every way , including 1080p material.  Sony have introduced a new lens for the 2018 models  and  while I cant be sure, I would suggest it could be better than JVC's  E-shift lens. Sony laser also seems to have better video processing than its globe based equivalents but not to the standard of the 5000

I have gone out of my way not to be a brand loyalist with projectors.   Been there  - I was previously  a DLP convert which kept me on one side of the fence for too long.   I would buy JVC again without any equivocation and I still recommend  JVC E-shifters to friends over Sony's globe based PJs.    I would upgrade  if a better affordable alternative popped up, but for now the Sony Laser is simply producing the most awesome images I have had in my theatre.

There is no "new" lens for the 2018 Sony 4K models. The consensus is that it's the same lens, however, Sony now has better quality control on the lens that goes into these units. Kris asked the Sony reps if that was true (or maybe it was his friend Daren, I forget) and Sony did not confirm that a "new" lens is being used. What happened was there were a large number of projectors that had a lens that visibly softened the image because it was so far off from spec. Ekki of cine4home mentioned some ridiculously large number (in the several tens of percent of all units) had this issue. So basically what this means is that the 2018 models will now give the buyer a better chance of receiving a lens closer to full specification because they're tightening quality control on the lens.

From my own experience, I can tell you the 285ES sample I had looked worse off than a 665ES I had before in both focus uniformity and how well it could focus down on pixels overall. So while more Sony 4K units have a better chance of getting a lens closer to spec, I still don't think their QC is up there with the likes of JVC and Epson. The lens in the HW 1080p Sony units had very similar issues. Instead of fixing it, they introduced reality creation to artificially sharpen the image to overcome the lens deficiencies. The lens used in the cheaper Sony 4K models is definitely better than the HW 1080p Sony models, so the need for reality creation is not there, however, from what I've seen (many Sony's and many JVCs) the JVC lens used in the eshift units is objectively better. It's all glass (the Sony uses a plastic exit element) and there seems to be WAY less variance in quality and focus uniformity. Overall the lens used in the JVCs is better. I would imagine a large portion of the price difference between the RS4500 and 885ES is in the lens the JVC has. The same could be said about the 5000ES.

[tp1]

I don't know where you got your information, but there is not a "new" lens for the 2018 Sony 4K models. The consensus is that it's the same lens, however, Sony now has better quality control on the lens that goes into these units.

There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA.   Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen  from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as,  let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and  has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side,  it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens.  There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units.   But if  JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.
 

[Dylan Seeger]

There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA.   Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen  from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as,  let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and  has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side,  it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens.  There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units.   But if  JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.
 

I never said the JVC's lens is "best", but definitely better than the Sony's. I'm sure JVCs lens could be improved in certain areas like optical coatings to improve ANSI contrast.

With that said, I would take Kris's report from when he spoke to the Sony reps at CEDIA saying they could not confirm a new lens over anecdotal evidence (spread by pro-Sony people) where they took one line from  a CEDIA report and ran away with wild fantasies about what that ambiguous line actually meant. The line that was reported by Scott Wilkinson where all of these "new lens" rumors came from says:

"Finally, an improved lens offers even better focus and stability than before."

What this is in reference to are issues with previous VW3xx and VW5xx models. See here where Ekki of cine4home goes over the focus and uniformity issues that a large percentage of lenses that made it into previous models had. You'll need to translate it into english:

http://cine4home.de/sony-vpl-vw520-in-der-cine4home-highend-edition/

Ekki states (translated):

"Unfortunately, it does not look that good in terms of optical clarity: Four projectors we viewed did not allow optimal sharpness and were not able to bring the full 4K brilliance to the screen...the large series variance in the optical sharpness did not meet us in the predecessor generations so. This is particularly annoying since affected devices there is no fix."

So this statement that Scott made was in reference to better quality control, NOT a new lens design. The very fact that the 285ES I had here, which has this supposed "new" lens, looked subjectively worse off for uniformity and pixel delineation compared to the 665ES I had the previous year, I can't help but conclude that this is not in fact a new lens design that improves optical performance. So while very far from spec lenses may not make into projectors, there still seems to be a decent amount of variance among the lenses that do make it into projectors. I've compared this "new" lens to two different JVC eshift units and objectively and subjectively the JVCs is nicer. JVCs lens has better focus uniformity, better pixel delineation and is all-glass. There seems to be very little variance with the JVCs lens. I've seen around a dozen JVCs with this lens and have seen very little variance in optical performance. I've spent just as much time comparing them as I'm sure most people who've had two of these projectors here have. That is my take on the matter.  If you get specific confirmation from Sony themselves that says otherwise, please be sure to post that here. Otherwise I'm sticking to my quality control mentality. The reports of a new lens stems from two people who are Sony fanboys taking one ambiguous line on a forum post. and somehow making it into claims of a totally new lens. It's a game of telephone gone wild and now tons of people assume there is a new lens in these projectors. I'm sure Sony is very happy about that.

[woofer]

There have been several reports of a new lens across the range for Sony , not just in the USA.   Notwithstanding the reason for the improved lens quality, nothing I have seen  from owning JVC's top globe based projector would indicate that its lens was as good as,  let alone better than the one in the Sony 885ES. That is because the Sony has better edge to edge uniformity and  has clearly sharper images on 1080P material with the gap widening for 4K material.
You need to live with these side by side for some time to fully appreciate whats going on and based on what I have seen from actually owning the units at the same time and side by side,  it would be misleading to suggest that Sony has an inferior lens.  There seems to be zero actual evidence that JVC's is "better" as of the current production units.   But if  JVC owners want to claim that the JVC lens is the best, then thats fine by me because I only care about the projected image.

I own the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900, and have had many of the previous E-Shift JVC,s.
A friend who also has had several of the E-Shift JVC,s ..X5000,X7000,X7500 and lastly the X9500 decided to purchase   the Sony 760ES, his "first " Sony .

His decision was that he was so impressed with my Z1/RS4500, BUT couldn't quite afford the Z1/RS4500, so the Sony 760ES was the next best option.

He was kind enough to "loan" me the 760ES for a couple of weeks ...we compared it directly against the Z1/RS4500 and the X9900 and X9500.

The Z1/RS4500 is most definitely at another level.

The 760ES is hands down "sharper" more "detailed" in every way than ANY of the E-shift projectors... I dont know if this is due to its   lens or processing, but on my 143" scope screen its VERY apparent!

The 760ES does struggle for contrast in some instances, BUT overall the image from it is terrific...my friend has NO regrets on going from the X9500 to the 760ES.

I am definitely NOT a Sony "Fanboy" , but i do think the 760ES copes more "flak" than is justified.