4k Projectors Buyers and Owners Thread (1 Viewer)

[Dave Upton]

Where you sit is the most important factor. I sit 10' back from a 110" screen, so I can clearly see the benefits of 4K in my room.

 

[Edwin-S]

I find it isn't the resolution that is the most important factor in a picture that "pops". It is the contrast between the darkest and the lightest parts of the picture and, at present, OLED cannot be beat at that game. I'm in no hurry to get another projector unless an affordable one that can get close to the performance of OLED sets comes out.

 

[Worth]

...It will however,never be as good as 65mm..

I think digital will surpass film completely within the next decade. Having seen Dunkirk in IMAX, once in a 4K digital laser presentation, the other in 15/70 - I'd still give the film presentation an edge, but it was already pretty close. Aside from IMAX, I have yet to see a 70mm print that beats a solid 4K digital presentation by any measure, even though I still prefer the look of film.

 

[Mark Booth]

It's rather funny. Blu-ray enabled me to see the pores on the faces of actors.

Do I really need more clarity than that?

I owned a couple different 1080p television sets, both rear projection. When I finally purchased an LCD set (a 4K non HDR Vizio) in 2015 (because my JVC rear projection died) the only thing that truly impressed me was the increased brightness. From a resolution standpoint, a 70" 4K image from 10 feet away wasn't really all that much more impressive than 1080p.

In my humble opinion, what makes 4K worth it is HDR. That Vizio didn't have HDR but I had to buy something (the JVC died) to tide me over until purchasing an HDR set. To my eyes, a 4K Blu-ray that has weak HDR doesn't look all that much different than its 1080p standard Blu-ray cousin.

I want to replace the 1080p Epson projector in the Booth Bijou Garage Theater, preferably this year sometime. However, since (for me) HDR is the game changer more than resolution, I've decided to pay more attention to ratings for lumens and HDR performance and be less concerned about pixel shifting vs. true 4K. Yes, of course, motion artifacts and other factors are important too. But the comparison over at AVS posted by Dave underscores my point. The author preferred the image on the pixel-shifting JVC projector.

Maybe it's time we stop letting specs alone drive too much of our decision-making process? Perhaps it's time to start getting some eyes-on experience with a variety of these new toys at our local brick & mortar stores.

Mark

 

[DaveF]

^ there’s a “more pixels” vs “better pixels” argument. For UHD it seems both sides won with a spec supporting more and better pixels.

I have no personal experience: I’ve watched zero content on 4K except for short looks at BestBuy demos. So, caveat ignorance here...

What I’ve read is as you say: it’s the HDR and color gamut that is the killer features of UHD, not the 4K pixels per se.

That’s why I’m increasingly convinced that folks who refuse to consider “FauxK” projectors are stuck in “feeds and speeds” land. Real life viewer comparos find that FauxK is every bit the equal to true 4K because dollar for dollar, what’s lost in pixel count is gained in contrast and focus quality.

 

[Sam Posten]

The problem with the cheap FauxK is they mostly have low linen output and minimal shift capability. The 5040 isn’t bad in these respects but it’s 2 years our now. I’m assuming they will have a replacement sooner than later and I will have to re-evaluate my never FauxK position at that time. Especially given the lack of other potential solutions sub $5k

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think digital will surpass film completely within the next decade. Having seen Dunkirk in IMAX, once in a 4K digital laser presentation, the other in 15/70 - I'd still give the film presentation an edge, but it was already pretty close. Aside from IMAX, I have yet to see a 70mm print that beats a solid 4K digital presentation by any measure, even though I still prefer the look of film.

And in that specific case, the 15/70 print was made directly from the negative, while the laser DCP was created by scanning an element a generation removed (an IP). I wonder if both the 15/70 print and the DCP had been both made from the same source if it would have been even closer.

 

[DaveF]

The problem with the cheap FauxK is they mostly have low linen output and minimal shift capability. The 5040 isn’t bad in these respects but it’s 2 years our now. I’m assuming they will have a replacement sooner than later and I will have to re-evaluate my never FauxK position at that time. Especially given the lack of other potential solutions sub $5k

Right. The new UHD projectors really worth considering are MSRP $4999 and above. But in there are JVC eshift models like the JVC DLA-RS640. But prices are slowly dropping and quality improving.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

One of the things I am most comfortable with is that I am in the same boat as many of you. Something tells me when the right projector is available at the right price, we are all (or most of us are) going to come to an agreement. It's the kind of assurance I will need.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Amen, Ron!

It's amazing to me how good our current HD tech is. If you would have told me twenty years ago that I'd be able to watch movies in such high quality and even in 3D at home, I never would have believed it. There's no shame in holding on to our current projection equipment until the upgrade path is clearer.

 

[Reed Grele]

I too am holding off on upgrading to a 4K display or projector at this time. What I already have (1080P) is just fine (especially ghost free DLP 3D).

I was in Costco yesterday and took a good look at a 65" LG OLED that was running a 4K demo. Yes, it had perfect blacks and the colors were "eye candy", but I'm not about to shell out almost 3 grand for it.

Once you've experienced projection on a 120" (or larger) screen, UHD on a 65" OLED screen, even with perfect blacks, doesn't transport me to the same world I'm in when I'm watching a much larger, projected image. Also, as with any display with a reflective glass surface, it's a different feeling, rather like looking through a window, and that tends to take me out of the film. Whereas an image projected on a huge screen more closely captures the cinema experience.

I'll bet in the not too distant future we will have 120" roll down OLED screens. Now THAT will really be something!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm also a bigger fan of projection than direct view monitors. Even with the compromises and limitations that can be associated with projection, to me, there's a kind of magic that happens that I don't quite feel when I watch TV.

Plus, you buy a TV, you're stuck with that screen size forever. With a projector, you can always imagine going bigger (even if you never actually do it). In my current home, the screen setup is 100" -- but who knows, maybe in the next place, it'll be larger and all it'll cost me is the price of screen material. I like the flexibility, even if its mostly in my imagination.

 

[Sam Posten]

So, I'm rounding back on this decision now. Strongly considering the JVC 440 and the Sony 285 to a lesser degree. AFAIK none of our regular posters have bought either one of them. If I am wrong, or there are lurkers who have but don't post, please PM me if you are willing to give a demo. I'm also interested in 2017 vintage PJs too, including JVC, Sony and Epson. Waiting for that tax return check to make a final decision, but I'd like to see these guys in operation if possible first... Biggest concern: Going down to 1500 lumens from the monster 2300 of the 5020.

Also, If you are willing to consider 2016/17 JVCs at closeout prices, PM @Gregg Loewen as I know he has some at terrific prices.

 

[DaveF]

You're killing me Posten!

I'm trying to hold out for a 385 equivalent.

 

[Sam Posten]

You're killing me Posten!

I'm trying to hold out for a 385 equivalent.

The shootout reports I have read have pretty consistently given the edge to the FauxK JVCs over the real 4k $5k Sony

:0

 

[DaveF]

The shootout reports I have read have pretty consistently given the edge to the FauxK JVCs over the real 4k $5k Sony

:0

That's what I've been saying the past several posts: people shouldn't get hung up on "real" 4K vs "FauxK". The real shootout showed that on the whole, the eShift is just as good as native 4K pixels.


What I'm hoping for is 385 performance for $5000. Or something equivalent to it from JVC for $5000. Right now the $5000 solutions, Sony and JVC, aren't enough for me to buy into.

 

[DaveF]

If you find a demo in the area, lemme know. I might be able to join in, if that's ok.

 

[Sam Posten]

If you find a demo in the area, lemme know. I might be able to join in, if that's ok.

Will do. I’m actually interested in seeing pretty much any of the modern 4k compatible PJs including Sony JVC Epson etc. will travel anywhere from NOVA to north jersey and out west as far as central PA if anyone wants to show their place!

 

[DaveF]

This got me to re-read the AVS shootout thread summary comments and realized I’d inadvertently minimized the comments on the JVC RS640. I’d had the idea it was a match to the 285. But it’s peer to the Sony 385.

Some further searching finds this review:

THE JVC-RS640 is premium-priced but offers the best image quality I’ve seen from any projector to-date. Once you see it, you won’t care about the cost.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...tors/jvc-dla-rs640-ultra-hd-projector-review/

In the absence of demos, the JVC DLA-RS640 is my target projector in the next year. I think I’d be happier overall with a little more contrast than a littler more resolution. But either way, I’m dreaming of finding performance equal to the JVC 640 or Sony 385 for $4995 about this time next year.

 

[Wayne_j]

I'm planning on getting the Optoma UHD51A when it gets released sometime in March. It should retail for $1699.