Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Maybe I've missed this discussion. I read all the reviews and check all the manufacturers web sites. It seems like the only 4K options in projectors are sony's 4K units or everyone else's 1080p units with some form of pixel shift technology. I've seen the JVC projectors in various showrooms, and they look great....but the engineer in me just can't spend the money on a projector that is based on 1080p display technology. Just wondering why Sony is the only manufacturer (that I'm aware of anyway) to offer a 'true' 4K projector when everyone else is on the pixel shift side of the fence. Is it some type of patent? Are manufacturers holding out till there is finally consensus in the UHD bluray format? Just curious. I'm realistically a couple years from making a change but will definitely be buying 4K as my next projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
JVC does have true 4K projectors but their entry level is rebranded warble-vision. Still a striking picture to be sure but it's true it's not really 4K, in the truest sense of the word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
JVC isn't true 4K because it uses a 1080 panel which it shifts up and across by half a pixel, and the overlap gives you smaller virtual pixels. If you do a side by side with a 4K Sony and JVC eshift with true 4k source material, you will see that the Sony is sharper - but not by a lot.

TI have a 1080 chip that is soon to be available in Optoma and Benq projectors soon, and is said to produce genuine 4k pixels by shifting the image and rendering unique pixels. It can do this because it switches so fast - I guess like CRTs with a traveling spot beam, phosphor and persistence of vision. It's only one beam, but we see whatever resolution it is rendering. Hopefully the marketing is genuine, but it may just be like the wobulated chips we saw before 1080 chips were being produced. We will have to wait and see.

The Epson LS10000 laser pj uses it's own version of eshift, but without equalising image brightness levels, overall it gave a slightly better image than the JVC (X5000 here in the UK) and Sony, so there's more to an image than resolution. But like you, I think a true 4k panel just feels better than one that is emulating 4k, even though the image differences are very small. I actually prefer the Epson over the Sony for example.

I'm sure JVC and others will have true 4k panels soon, and I think it's a good idea to wait until UHD and HDR have settled in and ironed out any problems etc, so when you do buy, there will be plenty of source material, players and all the problems will have been ironed out, just like when 1080 HD became available.

Gary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
...Just wondering why Sony is the only manufacturer (that I'm aware of anyway) to offer a 'true' 4K projector when everyone else is on the pixel shift side of the fence...
Sony spends an absurd amount of money on R&D, and develops a ton of new technology. They've been at it for decades. They developed HD cameras and displays, constrained layer dampening, OLED display panels, Blu-Ray discs, CDs... the list goes on. So my guess is Sony either won't license the technology, or competitors aren't willing to pay the licensing fees. Another possibility is that Sony is willing to sell parts for competitors to build 4K projectors, but nobody is buying. (Sony has a long and illustrious history of selling OEM parts to other major brands... CCDs and CMOS sensors come to mind).

Food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I have a JVC DLA-x700rb. I wouldn't buy a JVC based on the e-shift. Buy it because it has superior native contrast and black levels more than anything, but the e-shift isn't all that great. It just kind of blurs things a little. It's weird, some things look better with it but some things look better without it. Depends on what is being displayed. Organic things like human faces may look better but then when something should be sharp like blocky text, you can tell it is there when it shouldn't be, the result is blurrier than it ought to be. True 4K wouldn't do this.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top