True 4K / Native 4K - Pixel Shift - Help me understand it all?

[Owen]

Do you really think increasing the number of pixels in the vertical without doing the same in the horizontal is practical?

Resolution is defined as lines per unit distance on screen for BOTH vertical and horizontal.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Owen

[Kazz]

3 minutes ago, steffanth said:

As a slight side note........the guy who calibrated my projector recommended forcing the output to 4:2:0 for UHD on the JVC projectors.  He advised they work better on that setting.........

I'm actually doing that anyway due to cable limitations.

[Guest]

anyone here ordered the optoma uhd60 or 65 from the USA?

[betty boop]

15 minutes ago, browny said:

anyone here ordered the optoma uhd60 or 65 from the USA?

ordering a projector from overseas ? highly not recommended ! projectors are highly delicate things that can and do fail and you really want a local warranty no matter the brand. one thing I would 100% not grey import.

[Guest]

didnt say i had ordered one. and i wouldnt either from overseas.

was asking if anyone has and would like to know there thoughts on it if they have received it yet.

probably should have made my question clearer.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Guest

[Guest EZYHD]

Beats me why one would chance it but many do here.

[Mobe1969]

So are the current JVC projectors true 4k pixel arrays? Or is it just the Sony?

 

Sorry but whatever manufacturer and reviews say, I am not regressing to what is basically interlacing. I'm glad that people growing up now are going to watch Poltergeist and wonder what that black and white noise is on the TV. They aren't going to know what convergence issues are. They aren't going to suffer the indignity of  overscan, where they lost 20% of the picture. And they aren't going to know what interlacing is, nor 2:3 pull down is.

 

So take your "pixel shift"/interlacing and shove it...

 

[betty boop]

17 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

So are the current JVC projectors true 4k pixel arrays? Or is it just the Sony?

 

~

 

 

hi mobel, i went to some efforts to explain in earlier post

 

there is quite a bit to 4k. and its not a simple answer. if you want native 4k there is jvc at some $40k and sony at about $90k as ones below dont have the optics to deliver. 

17 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Sorry but whatever manufacturer and reviews say, I am not regressing to what is basically interlacing. I'm glad that people growing up now are going to watch Poltergeist and wonder what that black and white noise is on the TV. They aren't going to know what convergence issues are. They aren't going to suffer the indignity of  overscan, where they lost 20% of the picture. And they aren't going to know what interlacing is, nor 2:3 pull down is.

 

So take your "pixel shift"/interlacing and shove it...

suggest maybe check out the kind of results pixel shift can achieve in few makers using. you would be misplaced to dismiss as just interlacing. by the way native 4k sonys for instance have been found to not be able to render a 4k pattern due to processing and optics they employ . so bit more to this 4k business I would suggest  

[Owen]

2 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

So take your "pixel shift"/interlacing and shove it...

Well you will be missing out then because the X7xxx and X9xxx JVC projectors EASILY outperform Sony's low end "true" 4K projector that sells for about $10K, its a walkover. The Sony is let down by a poor lens, problematic processing, poor or non existant HDR support and poor contrast compared to the JVC's.

 

As for Sonys $30K top line domestic 4K projector, head on over to AVS form and ask the owners of those expensive protectors why they dumped their Sony's, loosing a lot of money in the proeccess, and purchased top line E-Shift JVC's after comparing them in their own homes. They will tell you that the visible resolution advantage of the Sony is small and totally outweighed by the much better contrast of the JVC's when it comes to picture "quality". 

 

I suggest you spend less time looking at spec sheets and MUCH more time experiancing real world picture quality.

 

If you just want a "4k" projector for gaming, buy a cheap DLP and forget about picture "quality", because you won't get it.

 

As for interlaced video, 1080i is by far the best video format for TV distribution and will remain so for quit a while. It can carry 1080p without loss and has double the frame rate of 1080p when needed, like for sport.

 

3:2 pull down is not going away either, the US and other countries with 60Hz TV systems will be lookout at 2:3 pull down for many years to come, just as they have been since the advent of TV. 

Countries with 50Hz TV systems like Australia never had 3:2 pulldown, they have movies sped up slightly to 25fps in stead.

[Mobe1969]

5 hours ago, Owen said:

Well you will be missing out then because the X7xxx and X9xxx JVC projectors EASILY outperform Sony's low end "true" 4K projector that sells for about $10K, its a walkover. The Sony is let down by a poor lens, problematic processing, poor or non existant HDR support and poor contrast compared to the JVC's.

 

As for Sonys $30K top line domestic 4K projector, head on over to AVS form and ask the owners of those expensive protectors why they dumped their Sony's, loosing a lot of money in the proeccess, and purchased top line E-Shift JVC's after comparing them in their own homes. They will tell you that the visible resolution advantage of the Sony is small and totally outweighed by the much better contrast of the JVC's when it comes to picture "quality". 

 

I suggest you spend less time looking at spec sheets and MUCH more time experiancing real world picture quality.

 

If you just want a "4k" projector for gaming, buy a cheap DLP and forget about picture "quality", because you won't get it.

 

As for interlaced video, 1080i is by far the best video format for TV distribution and will remain so for quit a while. It can carry 1080p without loss and has double the frame rate of 1080p when needed, like for sport.

 

3:2 pull down is not going away either, the US and other countries with 60Hz TV systems will be lookout at 2:3 pull down for many years to come, just as they have been since the advent of TV. 

Countries with 50Hz TV systems like Australia never had 3:2 pulldown, they have movies sped up slightly to 25fps in stead.

Yeah I hear what you are saying. Where I live the options are pretty scarce for actually looking at a proper setup. There is a place that has some, but the room is open so poor viewing. At the moment research and recommendations is all I have. And I guess I should look at the JVC more.

[betty boop]

2 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

Yeah I hear what you are saying. Where I live the options are pretty scarce for actually looking at a proper setup. There is a place that has some, but the room is open so poor viewing. At the moment research and recommendations is all I have. And I guess I should look at the JVC more.

id suggest put the call out. I dont know retailer of late in melb has a projector setup for UHD(and am talking proper setup - plenty have good rooms) to take advantage. however I know people who have. I would be very surprised if there ae not people in bris with some effort put in to setup and with more suitable conditions. and if not bris surely sydney for a day trip. if spending $000's dollars whats a cheap day trip across in scheme of things. the web is a wonderfull thing. at this point in time unless wanting to spend $90k then the jvcs are well worth a look.

 

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/a-brief-demo-with-sonys-new-90000-vpl-vw5000es-4k-projector-420109

 

in the cheaper ones, sony has announced a $25k usd machine however kris deering(Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine) for instance with his note below could not, get confirmation the lens on this is any better than their $5,000 units which is the real let down on them,

 

Quote

The "new" lens on the Sony models is a point of contention with me. When I talked with Sony at the show they downplayed the "new" lens a LOT when I asked about it. Very vague answer on how it was "improved" versus the old one. The only answer I got that had any real mention of a change had to do with the surrounding hardware consistency (motor for lens memory and adjustment). Nothing about the quality of the glass or element changes. So call me skeptical on whether this is indeed an improved lens. But I'm sure most love to just push the I believe button to justify their lust for something new. IMHO a $25K projector in a lineup should not be using the same optical block and lens from the $5K projector. Not a chance. Sony not including the ARC lens on this is a huge misstep at that price point. But every consumer weighs different things in their decision to buy something. It is clear that many hear see native 4K and that is their primary motivator. I could have had native 4K in my room YEARS ago and there are reasons I chose not to. I have native 4K now but with other drawbacks. Everyone needs to pick the poison that works best for them and stop caring so much about what everyone else thinks about it. You're the one watching and if you worry about everyone else's opinion I guarantee it is compromising your ability to enjoy. But at the same time I have a huge issue with people trying to make their arguments that go against objective testing and evaluation. Great, you love your PJ, but that doesn't mean it can or can't do X,Y,Z. Too many people blur that line and typically start talking out their ass on things that they honestly have no clue on. It's been getting worse and worse lately too. 


As a reviewer it is my job to be skeptical about gear, regardless of the brand. I may have owned a lot of JVCs but I am WELL aware of their shortcomings and continuing issues, which I let them know about A LOT. But don't think for a second that another brand of projector wouldn't be hanging in my room if it delivered the image I want to watch in my room.

 

[Mobe1969]

4 hours ago, al said:

id suggest put the call out. I dont know retailer of late in melb has a projector setup for UHD(and am talking proper setup - plenty have good rooms) to take advantage. however I know people who have. I would be very surprised if there ae not people in bris with some effort put in to setup and with more suitable conditions. and if not bris surely sydney for a day trip. if spending $000's dollars whats a cheap day trip across in scheme of things. the web is a wonderfull thing. at this point in time unless wanting to spend $90k then the jvcs are well worth a look.

 

http://www.avhub.com.au/news/sound-image/a-brief-demo-with-sonys-new-90000-vpl-vw5000es-4k-projector-420109

 

in the cheaper ones, sony has announced a $25k usd machine however kris deering(Technical Editor/Writer Sound and Vision Magazine) for instance with his note below could not, get confirmation the lens on this is any better than their $5,000 units which is the real let down on them,

 

 

Thanks. Yes that is an idea. I guess a trip to Sydney for a day might not be out of the question either.

 

I will wait a bit to see what the new Sony's shape up like. My room construction is in progress, but at this stage I'm less clear on a viewing device than when I started... If people hadn't dropped 3D on OLEDs I'd probably be looking into that still...

Edited September 24, 2017 by Mobe1969

[betty boop]

13 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Thanks. Yes that is an idea. I guess a trip to Sydney for a day might not be out of the question either.

 

I will wait a bit to see what the new Sony's shape up like. My room construction is in progress, but at this stage I'm less clear on a viewing device than when I started... If people hadn't dropped 3D on OLEDs I'd probably be looking into that still...

3D has to be experienced on a large screen in my opinion. unfortunately tellys in the oled max out at 65" from memory maybe 70" or something at best at some very silly pricing. even my relatively modest projector screen is some 50% larger in screen size and a picture that has me just looking on in awe... all this for an experience that likes of tellys just cant compete with.

 

I still run a dual screen setup in old pio kuro for every day tv and is quite good enough for that in screen size and quality. the screen dropping down in front for larger screen experience  I don think any telly right now could compete with.

 

but yeah if in no rush wait. time is good for answers but spend some time experiencing for your self. can be misled easily via lot what is on the net and seeing experiencing for yourself soon cuts though all that. 

[DoggieHowser]

 

About 7:30 he does a split screen zoom in of the Optoma vs the native 4K Sony.

 

Unlike JVC's eShift, the DLP is really really native 4K. 

 

That said I have been reading that the new 4K DLP doesn't really do 24p and does a weird 3:2 adjustment to 60fps - which is a no no in my book. I don't know if the reviewer covers this - or how much of DCI P3 the Optoma laser can address. From what I can tell, Sony does about 90% with the Triluminous color 

[Mobe1969]

Thanks!

I thought the 365 had a dynamic iris? Googling, I see not now. I thought it was the 265 that didn't.

Damn. That space scene with the stars is a bit of a killer scene for me as that type of scenes that annoy me with black handling. It wasn't too bad but the optoma was better.

 

No 3d is a definite no go though. Maybe I need to think about the sony laser model... Ouch

The 365 is the US designation for the Aus/EuroVPL-VW360ES isn't it? The 365 press release said "Advanced iris" whatever that meant.

On the Aus 360 - Dynamic Iris:
http://pro.sony.com.au/pro/product/projectors-homecinema/vpl-vw360es/features/#features

200,000:1 dynamic contrast for stunning realism

Sony’s Advanced Iris3 technology adjusts light output frame-by-frame, allowing the projector to achieve an incredible 200,000:1 dynamic contrast. Fine shadow detail is revealed in dark scenes, without compromising reproduction of bright scenes for truly captivating images.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Mobe1969

[betty boop]

main problem with these sony's though will be their plastic optics. and no idea why sony cant get their specs together either so all models are fully capable. seems crazy for kind of money they go for ! also the DLPs above quoted are simply not native 4k. they dont have a native 4k chip. dip naturally hs a sharper punchier look. and not that i believe 4k native is a major factor either in gear or source material or whats practically possible given conditions. 

[Mobe1969]

8 minutes ago, al said:

main problem with these sony's though will be their plastic optics. and no idea why sony cant get their specs together either so all models are fully capable. seems crazy for kind of money they go for ! also the DLPs above quoted are simply not native 4k. they dont have a native 4k chip. dip naturally hs a sharper punchier look. and not that i believe 4k native is a major factor either in gear or source material or whats practically possible given conditions. 

It is a shame that they don't do glass. What sort of extra cost would it add I wonder.

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Mobe1969 said:

It is a shame that they don't do glass. What sort of extra cost would it add I wonder.

no idea, jvc even with the base model have pretty good optics the goes through the range.

 

sony the $90k one has the ARC-F (All range crisp focus) optics. unfortunately the only other "lower" cost one is the $35k 1100es but it isn't fully supporting of UHD ! 

[Mobe1969]

Shame they don't join forces. Or JVC start spending more time and effort with a 4k chip rather than on eshift.

[Satanica]

11 minutes ago, Mobe1969 said:

Or JVC start spending more time and effort with a 4k chip rather than on eshift.

eshift is a great way to remove visable pixel structure. Whereas it might be visible with non-eshift 4K.

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Mobe1969 said:

Shame they don't join forces. Or JVC start spending more time and effort with a 4k chip rather than on eshift.

we are starting to go in circles  

 

JVC already has a 4K native projector. it costs $39k !

[Mobe1969]

1 hour ago, al said:

we are starting to go in circles  

 

JVC already has a 4K native projector. it costs $39k !

Not really. Sony has it in all 4k units so it is their 4k chip, so Sony's offering differ in light source, lense, dynamic iris. JVC has a proper 4k but instead of making it cheaper and available in all units and improving that , they xxxx about in the cheaper units with a substandard chip but add jiggle eshift, and leave the 4k chip in one unit that has it own problems as they only have one model/line to investigate/improve it. I can  nearly guarantee the Sony 4k chips are cheaper than the JVC because of this, and only maybe fractionally more expensive than jvc 1080p chips plus the Shakey cam eshift gear....

Edited October 11, 2017 by Mobe1969

[Owen]

3 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

Shame they don't join forces. Or JVC start spending more time and effort with a 4k chip rather than on eshift.

Its a shame that more people dont understand that pixels mean stuff all, and that there is no such thing as 4K resolution video, and never will be, so there is no need for a "true" 4K display.

Image sharpness has stuff all to do with pixels, its dictated by system MFT, which is relative contrast based and easy to manipulate with image processing. You can have whatever sharpness you desire if you use external processing.

In image sharpness and resolution (which is not the same thing)  is limited by the video source NOT the display.

 

The X7xxx and X9xxx JVC E-Shift projectors easily out perform the base model "true 4K" Sony for picture "quality" and even owners of the $30K ES1100 Sony have dumped them to buy a JVC because they have found that high contrast is much more important then some notional increase irresolution that you will never be aware of when viewing a movie.

 

The new so called "4K" DLP projectors have VERY poor native contrast that would have been considered VERY average 10 years ago, and have gone backwards very significantly in contrast compared to quality DLP models from years past that used larger better performing DLP chips and dynamic iris systems. That's not to mention DLP's other inherent problems, so in 2017 DLP is a bit of a bad of a joke.

 

As for the "review" posted above I have a few comments.

Clearly the two projectors where NOT properly calibrated as the gamma of the Sony is VASTLY different the Optoma, thats why the Sony looks brighter yet has a low peak output level.

The colours we see in the "review" on our PC monitor is a combination of the display, the camera and our monitors so is not representative of actual performance in any way. Thank god for that because the colour I see on my calibrated PC monitor of the projector screen shots look bloody DREADFUL. Both the Sony and Optoma look highly over saturated and the Optima has a serous purple bias.

 

Laser projectors, with their narrow band primary colours, are pretty much impossible to calibrate properly. The narrow band primary colours look very different from person to person, from camera to camera and from calibration device to calibration device so there is no way of knowing if what the viewer is seeing is what the producers of the video saw in the studio. Lamp based projectors dont have that problem.

 

I have never found quality 1080 Bluray titles to be lacking in resolution or detail at all when properly processed and displayed on my 100" screen viewed from 3m. In fact VERY few movies are limited by 1080 Bluray full stop, nothing shot on film is and stuff all digitally shot titles are either, even the handful that are mastered in 4K.

Film is NOT a 4K medium so it doesnt matter what it is mastered in, and more than 99% of content shot to date is on film.

 

JVC do make a "true" 4K projector, the Z1, its costs about $40K, its VERY bright, and it has about half the native contrast and MUCH higher black level then the X9xxx E-Shift model. Unless you need the high light output to light up a VERY large screen I dont see the point.

The JVC 4K chips still have more than 3 times the native contrast of the best Sony's and maintain their contrast with use, unlike Sony light engines which loose contrast with use.

 

DLP "4K" projectors are not in any way competitive with native contrast at least 70 times lower then an X9xxxx JVC.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Owen

[Mobe1969]

Are there any places anyone is aware of where in good conditions you can see JVC and Sony units side by side?

 

Are cinemas using shift models? Or are the majority running on sxrd?

 

I keeps hearing people saying resolution means nothing, and have heard that for over a decade, and  I seem to notice even on a small screen, if for example for itunes suddenly updated and reset my download preference to 720p again and I can tell as soon as it starts playing at 55". So suddenly I'm at 110" and I'm supposed to not pick it? Lower res proponents say test patterns are unrealistic, but there are plenty of natural images with fine detail in video. And it is particularly noticable in city shots with fine diagonal lines such as architectural louvers on buildings. Sure, if the source is upscaled I probably won't notice, but why would I do the equivalent to say compare a DVD playback on a 720p TV vs a 1080p TV?

 

I do want to check out the x9900 and the Sony 385/360 when I can, with real 4k material. Or at least see some real reviews....

 

And of course for the JVC I have to pay all the extra $100s for a 3D emitter. The emitter cost is ridiculous. And I'm not sure my existing Sony glasses would work on it and I'd need to buy more

Edited October 11, 2017 by Mobe1969

[Javs]

4 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

Are there any places anyone is aware of where in good conditions you can see JVC and Sony units side by side?

 

Are cinemas using shift models? Or are the majority running on sxrd?

 

I keeps hearing people saying resolution means nothing, and have heard that for over a decade, and  I seem to notice even on a small screen, if for example for itunes suddenly updated and reset my download preference to 720p again and I can tell as soon as it starts playing at 55". So suddenly I'm at 110" and I'm supposed to not pick it? Lower res proponents say test patterns are unrealistic, but there are plenty of natural images with fine detail in video. And it is particularly noticable in city shots with fine diagonal lines such as architectural louvers on buildings. Sure, if the source is upscaled I probably won't notice, but why would I do the equivalent to say compare a DVD playback on a 720p TV vs a 1080p TV?

 

I do want to check out the x9900 and the Sony 385/360 when I can, with real 4k material. Or at least see some real reviews....

 

And of course for the JVC I have to pay all the extra $100s for a 3D emitter. The emitter cost is ridiculous. And I'm not sure my existing Sony glasses would work on it and I'd need to buy more

 

I have done a pretty in depth shootout betwen a Sony 320ES and a JVC X7000 last year. The Sony was certainly sharper when you study the pictures, however the contrast on the JVC made the image pop a lot more and subjectively I thought it looked better. I have owned both models too, once you feed 4k resolutino to the JVC which is a MUST, or you leave 50% of the detail on the table, then the gap between the 4k native and JVC units closes considerably to become a non-issue and other image factors take over.

 

The new incoming Sony's though have far better lens QC control apparantly, this will make the native resolution of the panel more obvious when compared with the JVC which already have utterly excellent lenses, its my opinion that the Sony's up until at least this point have had absolutely rubbish lenses in them and it was easy to get a horrible sample of a Sony 4k projector wrought with chromatic abberration and such rending the native panel in my opinion, totally useless. Now the lens design remains the same, but instead of only 20% of users getting a good lens sample, more owners should be getting good samples.

 

I have not done a shootout with a 9series JVC vs a 550ES which is the only Sony you want to look at up until the new range hits the streets in a few weeks, so given that my 9 series JVC literally kicked the living crap out of my X7000 it replaced, and the 550ES good sample units are supposed to be very, very sharp, it would be interesting to do another shootout.

 

I can show you two images which will show the native panel advantage very clearly. You do need to ignore the colour shift between the pictures though, I was not allowed to calibrate the Sony, and the JVC was calibrated. However the panels inherent sharpness and resolving power is clear. You can decide for yourself despite what Owen says above.

 

No amount of e-shifting is going to resolve what the Sony does in these shots. However its important to note that in person, you CANNOT tell the difference if you close your eyes for about 5 seconds and the image is switched and the colour was identical, the difference on a 120" screen from about 1 screen width away was totally negligible, that either says the Sony has a crap lens (which it does) or the JVC E-shift is seriously good (which it is). Those two variables being so close, but then the JVC has a native contrast in the order of 10x higher than the Sony, well, I will take that massive leap any day of the week and thats why I own a 9 series JVC.

 

First one, look at the fine lines in the ear rings...

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/120370

 

Second one, well, look everywhere, the Sony can render tiny window frames as they are, and the JVC turns them into fat lines...

 

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/120369

 

These are from Lucy UHD Bluray which is a proper 4k master. As Owen says above There is no such thing as 4k? Well, thats puzzling to be frank with tou, if there was not, then they should both be resolving the same thing right? I would take the above comments with a massive grain of salt. I have seen them both in the same room stacked at exactly the same time and took a bucketload of pictures to compare them.

 

If you wish to download the gallery of shootout images you are welcome to,

 

In the images, the first image in every set of two is the SONY and the 2nd image is the JVC in every case.

 

The shootout consisted of the same points photographed within seconds of each other under two different input/source scenarios.

 

MadVR content - 1080p bluray source, upscaled to 2160p, For the Sony, Reality creation ON set to minimum settings, JVC Clear Black Low, Ehance set to 2. (these are the no BS optimal settings for each PJ). When this is fed to the projectors there is virtually no difference between them (however I think the JVC looks better in every shot).

 

And UHD Bluray output in SDR WCG BT.2020. The Sony is clearly sharper here in every shot. (Again, realise the color is different but LOOK at the detail, not the colour)

 

Suggest you have a look at these two folders, the TIFF versions...

 

HD MadVR Enhancements ON

UHD SDR Enhancements OFF

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jwp704m5cb6zvub/AAA5j2Ia3yawX7Bo9nGkTTPYa?dl=0

 

I will be comparing the X9500 to the X9900 in about a week under the same conditions, but since I will own both, i will calibrate them both to identical colour and gamma. I am very interested to see what E-Shift 5 looks like compared to E-Shift 4.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Javs