[Oleson M.D.]

In a word, no. Before you call me crazy (or worse), I have been looking at this in my personal home theater. Our equipment is current state-of-the-art, 4K. Including the processor (Yamaha CX-A5200), projector (Epson 5050UB), and player (Panasonic DMP-UB900).

I even did a side-by-side shoot out with my previous projector, the reliable and very good Panasonic PTAE-8000U.

Screen size = 155" diagonal.
Room size = 27' long X 24' wide.

Sitting in the "sweet spot", about 14' from the screen, my human analog eyes could discern little if any difference between HD 1080P Blu-ray videos, and UHD 4K. Switching out discs of the same movie, one 4K, one 1080P, virtually zero difference. If you get within one or two feet of the screen, there might be some difference.

We just did a major upgrade in all of our equipment ($$$). Had I known then what I know now...the money would have been spent (or saved) elsewhere.

And this, from Consumer Reports:
And oh yeah, Consumer Reports did a side-by-side comparison: 4K content on 4K TVs, and the same movie on Blu-ray with a 1080p TVs. They found, "...yes--the 4K films did show a noticeable bump in image detail compared to their HD counterparts. But there's a caveat: These differences were not present on all movies, and were visible only when viewed less than 2 feet from the screen, and even then only on certain scenes. When I moved back about 7 feet from the displays, differences between 4K and HD content were not discernible to any meaningful degree."

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Da Wiz]

Car enthusiasts find the opinions of Consumer Reports are not very relevant to how they select a vehicle.
Audio enthusiasts find the opinions of Consumer Reports on audio products to be not relevant to how they select audio products.
By now it should be obvious that video enthusiasts have a similar opinion of Consumer Reports' findings.

????? You formed an opinion of the appearance of 4K video with a projector that has 1920x1080 resolution imagers??? The pixels are 4 times larger than pixels created by real 4K projectors. As good as the xx50 series Epson projectors are (I've had a 6050 here), they in NO WAY represent the actual appearance of projected REAL UHD images (I've had around 15 UHD/HDR projectors here. Only 4 or 5 Sony models had actual UHD-resolution imagers. Even the DLP projectors selling for $30K had "half-resolution" imagers (Epson projectors have 1/4 resolution imagers, when you are talking about UHD) and have to double-flash every frame to display all the pixels in UHD images... those too-large pixels overlap each other, causing DLP projectors with that imager not look as sharp as projectors with actual UHD imagers. Then you look at UHD on a REAL UHD projector like Sony's $60,000 laser-phosphor projector with a lens good enough for UHD resolution and only then can you see whether UHD looks better or not (and yes it does, a LOT better than HD).

That said, there are no UHD/HDR standards suitable for projectors. So every projector manufacturer is taking their best guess at how to take UHD/HDR, which is designed and developed for video displays that can produce peak white levels of more than 1000 nits (already consumer flat panel video displays selling for under $2000 can produce up to 3000 nits). Translating that to projectors, especially projectors with projection lamps vs. laser or laser-phosphor illumination that limits the available color gamut so much that you don't see all the colors available on Epson projectors or other projectors with lamps. And even a pretty bright projector like the Epson xx50 series top out at maybe 180 nits - 200 nits. That's nowhere near bright enough to produce all the color in DCI/P3/D65 color space, nor bright enough to really make UHD/HDR "work".

To see the TRUE appearance of UHD video, you MUST use a video display that shows all 8.3 million pixels per frame (per color, so 25.2 million rgb pixels per frame) in every frame. And that display must also reach at least 1000 nits (not that difficult if you are getting a new TV today). It is very difficult to explain the difference in appearance. It really has to be seen PROPERLY to know what it actually looks like. If I put some really good video on a 75" TV and on a 75 inch projection screen... both with true UHD resolution (3840x2160 imagers in the projector), the TV will blow the projector out of the water, so bad, I mean, it's a WHOLE different deal on a bright flat screen TV. OLED is severely challenged by some of the better-designed and brighter LCD TVs when it comes to UHD/HDR. The inky blacks are unbeatable, but not being able to get much brighter than 600 nits or so... that $60k Sony projector only did about 300 nits and it would be pummeled in the image quality department by a sub $2000 Vizio TV in every way but screen size.

Only video displays with imagers that show 3840x2160 pixels per every frame will reveal what UHD looks like, but those displays also need 1000 or more nits of luminance to make the wider color gamut possible. So projectors with lamps already can't reproduce all of the colors, and on top of that, most have pixels way too large to represent UHD images so frames are double-flashed or even quad-flashed as in Epsons... 4 flashes from 1920x1080 imagers to actually display all the pixels in a UHD image... but not all at the same time... 4 separate frame flashes with all the pixels on top of each other and 4x bigger than they should be.

 

[Mazza]

Oleson MD, I agree completely with you about this. The variable for me is how close one likes to sit to your screen.

Before I purchased my first HT projector back in 2008 the decision then was 720P vs 1080P. I consulted with a friend that worked for a commercial installer that did conference centres and sporting venue scale screens. He advised that the eye is a relatively low resolution device and he challenged me to have the 1080 and 720 projectors set up side by side and switch between them.

This, my obliging local AV retailer did, in their dedicated HT room that could be made completely dark. Prior to this comparo session my AV retailer confidently reassured me that the difference in detail would be stark, of course, and at that time the 1080 was twice the price of the 720.

Throwing onto a 120" screen, sitting approximately 5m away, I could perceive ZERO difference.

Back to the distance variable, sure, if I sat 2.5m away from the screen I could clearly make out the fly screen door effect of the 720, but I don't like sitting that close. For my preferred distance the InFocus Play Big IN72 served me well for many happy HT years.

I now have a nice Epson 1080P projector but only because I moved to a new home with a larger HT room that necessitated me getting a projector with more zoom capacity, and for this 1080 was the only option at the time. So now I sit about 6.5 meters from my screen.

Friends constantly egg me on to go to 4K, but I just quietly/politely chuckle to myself about that. At my current distance the 720 would still be fine, even more so given the previous side by side experience. But do you think I can convince anyone of this, we seem to be suckers for a glossy, numbers driven marketing. I'm almost tempted to buy a 4K just so that I can do that side by side demo again for the egger's, and enjoy some peace with my 1080.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

I do not like Consumer Reports, and have not been a subscriber to them in decades. But CNET is something else, and there are multiple articles, very well written, that effectively illustrate the pros & cons of 720P, 1080P, 4K, 8K, etc.

Yes, we own a brand new 75" QLED TV. It is stunning. Great overall picture, colors, contrast, brightness. A 4K UHD Blu-ray (Dunkirk) looked not much better than the standard Blu-ray. But we don't sit 3 feet away from the screen. Perhaps if you get up real close, then some improvement would be noticed.

I wish my Panasonic PT-AE8000U projector had not been sold. Running side-by-side with the Epson 5050UB, there was almost zero difference in PQ. Again, we are sitting 10 to 14 feet from the 155" screen.

4K is now here to stay. Maybe 8K will be also. But what little broadcast TV we watch is in 1080P at best.

And this...we own a 61" Samsung DLP Rear Projection TV. 720P. Antique by today's standards. But it still produces a very good picture, that is very watchable. From a typical viewing distance, it looks about as good as anything else in our home. It does not have the brightness of the QLED.

Not saying 4K is bad, or that that it is not technically better than 2K. Just that from a practical viewpoint, the cost of a UHD Blu-ray over a standard Blu-ray video is not warranted. Not in my house, anyway.

But, your mileage (and experience) may vary.

 

[C. Burks]

Not saying 4K is bad, or that that it is not technically better than 2K. Just that from a practical viewpoint, the cost of a UHD Blu-ray over a standard Blu-ray video is not warranted. Not in my house, anyway.

But, your mileage (and experience) may vary.
[/QUOTE]

In my experience HDR and Dolby Vision are far and away the biggest advancements rather than 4k. I would venture to say that if the industry had simply applied those enhancements to 1080p Blu Ray I would have been perfectly happy.

Granted my only 4k Source is streaming Netflix/Vudu/Disney+ etc via the built in apps on my Sony XBR930e. I have not compared 4k to 1080p via disc but I have compared 1080p discs to streamed HDR & Dolby Vision. My 1080p disc player was among the top dogs in it's day and I run the signal through a Darbee. Once upscaled to 4k by the Sony the result is very impressive. It is however superseded by streamed HDR and Dolby vision material. I can only imagine the result from disc would be superior to streaming. Maybe I'll find out - I'm debating snagging a Panasonic UB 820 tomorrow.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

No projector is Dolby Vision capable. But, HDR10 is a reality, and I just placed my order for yet another Panasonic Blu-ray player, the UB820. This will allow my UB900 to serve duty in the family room.

 

[Oleson M.D.]

OK...my wife and I watched The Lion King, in UHD 4K Blu-ray. In a word, the detail was stunning. Nothing short of spectacular.
The movie itself was quite boring. But my attention was riveted to the little detail items like the individual hairs on the lions. From a technical point of view, it is awesome. The best example of 4K I have seen.