Debut of BenQ's First Affordable True 4K UHD HDR Home Theater Projector (1 Viewer)

[John Dirk]

I'm looking forward to hearing how this performs. This is the first true 4k projector under $5000 that I've heard of.

Dave - I'm having a hard time confirming this as BenQ is short on details regarding the chip they've employed other than it being .47 inch DMD. As far as I could find, TI's .47 inch chip has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080.

http://www.ti.com/product/dlp4710

Their 4K DMD chip is .66 inches.

http://www.ti.com/product/DLP660TE/...tch=4k dmd chip&tisearch=Search-EN-Everything

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm unclear why - based on the specs provided - 3D projection is limited to 720p. For a projector that in theory can deliver 2D images in 4K, it seems strange that it can't do 3D at the 1080p resolution that's standard for other 3D displays.

 

[FoxyMulder]

The press releases and BenQ’s specs claim this is true 4K, not a dithered HD device.

http://www.benq.us/product/projector/HT2550/specifications/

It’s not true 4K, they are allowed to state that because the organization that certifies all this is content to allow it due to 8.3 million pixels being created, the fact these 8.3m pixels is never onscreen at once does not matter, outside of commercial cinema there is no true 4K DLP.

Now this will likely produce very nice images, it also could be argued that the Sony projectors are not true 4K as they cannot reproduce a single 1:1 pixel on a test pattern and the lenses are seen as a weak point, I believe testing that has been done shows them to be about 3.5K.

 

[DaveF]

Thanks for the info. So this may be temposrally dithered over four positions per frame, instead of the two position diagonal dithering currently used by “FauxK” projectors?

A 4x dither should provide better performance than the 2x. Reviews should be interesting.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Thanks for the info. So this may be temposrally dithered over four positions per frame, instead of the two position diagonal dithering currently used by “FauxK” projectors?

A 4x dither should provide better performance than the 2x. Reviews should be interesting.

It should be worse image quality, it’s having to shift pixels four times instead of two, more chance that artifacts can be created, we won’t know until one gets reviewed, shouldn’t be long now.

 

[DaveF]

It should be worse image quality, it’s having to shift pixels four times instead of two, more chance that artifacts can be created, we won’t know until one gets reviewed, shouldn’t be long now.

It's not "having to shift pixels four times". It's "able to shift pixels twice as much as current temporal dithering to get improved resolution". I think this will more closely mimic a true 4k grid array with a four-quadrant superposition, giving better effective resolution than the current diagonal dithering.

Put another way, if they can dither 4x, they can certainly dither 2x. And if 4x is worse, they'd just do 2x. And don't they already have devices doing 2x?

It's possible this is a "we've added yellow pixels!" or "the screen is curved!" type of technical "improvement" that's worthless. But done properly more dither should give more better picture

 

[DaveF]

I do think it's a win for consumers that pseudo-4K is now cheaper than HD was just a year ago.

But I hate the marketing of "True 4K" and "8.3 million native pixels" when that is a bald lie. This is akin to a decade ago when "HD" sets were sold that were only 720p. I'd like to see some alternate labeling required, such as 1080p native pixels and UHD displayed pixels, or a footnote(*) that the native* pixels are through dithering.

 

[John Dirk]

It’s not true 4K, they are allowed to state that because the organization that certifies all this is content to allow it due to 8.3 million pixels being created, the fact these 8.3m pixels is never onscreen at once does not matter,

If this is true then why can't the other "pixel-shifting" solutions claim to be full 4K? A price difference of $3000.00 between the Sony and this unit has to have some substance behind it, so I know you are ultimately correct, I would just like to understand more.

Now this will likely produce very nice images, it also could be argued that the Sony projectors are not true 4K as they cannot reproduce a single 1:1 pixel on a test pattern and the lenses are seen as a weak point, I believe testing that has been done shows them to be about 3.5K.

Agreed but my Panny already produces "very nice images." Yours is the first comment I've heard about the Sony possibly not being full 4K. As previously stated, $2000.00 is still a huge expenditure for most of us. When I invest in 4K [and eventually I will] I want to know I'm buying true 4K, or at least a product that is true to the spirit of the spec. Finally, what's that about the Sony lenses?

 

[FoxyMulder]

If this is true then why can't the other "pixel-shifting" solutions claim to be full 4K? A price difference of $3000.00 between the Sony and this unit has to have some substance behind it, so I know you are ultimately correct, I would just like to understand more.



Agreed but my Panny already produces "very nice images." Yours is the first comment I've heard about the Sony possibly not being full 4K. As previously stated, $2000.00 is still a huge expenditure for most of us. When I invest in 4K [and eventually I will] I want to know I'm buying true 4K, or at least a product that is true to the spirit of the spec. Finally, what's that about the Sony lenses?

The other pixel shifting projectors, JVC and Epson produces about 4 million pixels onscreen, about half required for 4K, different tech, slower tech than DLP, one of the reasons DLP produces such great 3D is the speed, a microseconds refresh rate instead of milliseconds with other tech.

The Sony lenses on the cheaper, kinda funny term to use since they are not cheap, but cheaper than their top model, those lenses contain some plastic elements and from reviews I have read do not quite reach all the way to 4K resolution, I have also read that there is an inherent issue with the Sony projectors, even their very expensive state of the art model that prevents them showing the 1:1 pixel patterns on 4K test pattern discs.

Naturally test discs and real world content is another thing, they still throw excellent image quality that I am sure most of us would not complain about.

 

[DaveF]

Circa 2007, Kuro 720p plasma HDTV's won blind-viewing tests against 1080p HDTVs.

Ultimately what matters are not static-image metrics, but how the display looks overall compared to its competition. I don't dismiss the 'feeds and speeds'. But nor do I into the "Sony aren't 4k because their lenses have a worse MTF than brand X".

In any case, reports from Sony, reviewers, and users are that Sony has that lens quality control problem under control and the new 285 and 385 models are very nice.

I continue to hope (against hope) that the 385 or equivalent will be under $5000 in a year.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Circa 2007, Kuro 720p plasma HDTV's won blind-viewing tests against 1080p HDTVs.

Ultimately what matters are not static-image metrics, but how the display looks overall compared to its competition. I don't dismiss the 'feeds and speeds'. But nor do I into the "Sony aren't 4k because their lenses have a worse MTF than brand X".

In any case, reports from Sony, reviewers, and users are that Sony has that lens quality control problem under control and the new 285 and 385 models are very nice.

I continue to hope (against hope) that the 385 or equivalent will be under $5000 in a year.

I am still interested to know if Sony have fixed their contrast degradation issues which were widely reported by users of previous models, they say it’s fixed but let’s see what users report six months and a year from now.

At their price point I am less lenient on them than this BenQ.

 

[DaveF]

I am still interested to know if Sony have fixed their contrast degradation issues which were widely reported by users of previous models, they say it’s fixed but let’s see what users report six months and a year from now.

At their price point I am less lenient on them than this BenQ.

And also the lamp flicker problem.

For a $2000 pseudo-4k projector I can accept more quirks / less performance than a projector costing quadruple. But for $8000 for the 385 and even $5000 for the 285, there's no excuse now for lamp flicker and contrast degradation.

Initial reports on the 385 are very encouraging. I'm hoping the lens QC, flicker, and contrast problems are all truly solved!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

BenQ's CineHome HT2550, the First Affordable True 4K UHD HDR Home Cinema Projector, Is Now Available


COSTA MESA, Calif. — Jan. 5, 2018 — BenQ America Corp., an internationally renowned provider of visual display solutions, today announced the availability of the CineHome HT2550 DLP® projector, offering movie aficionados 4K UHD HDR cinematic quality right at home at an incredible value of $1,499 retail.

​

Stunning 4K Comes to Life
Producing 8.3 million distinct pixels for true 4K UHD performance, BenQ's CineHome HT2550 is the first projector to use the latest 0.47" single-DMD-chip TI DLP® technology. With over 96% coverage of the Rec. 709 color gamut with precise Delta E<3 performance, it faithfully reproduces exactly what filmmakers intended. In addition, it employs exclusive BenQ CinematicColor™ technology and a RGBRGB color wheel to meet the film industry's highest standards for color accuracy.

Advanced Technology for Uncompromising Entertainment
The CineHome HT2550's pristine 4K video quality is supercharged by high dynamic range (HDR10) support, offering greater brightness and contrast with auto image optimization and accurate flesh tone mapping to bring pictures to life. Its performance is further improved by motion-adaptive edge pixel enhancement, sophisticated color algorithms, and proprietary CinemaMaster Video+ and CinemaMaster Audio+ 2 technologies for the ultimate home entertainment experience. With full support for the latest HDCP 2.2 copy protection, it allows users to enjoy all of the fast-growing choices for 4K content.

Contemporary Design and Easy Setup to Fit Any Space
Blending beautiful aesthetics with flawless function, the CineHome HT2550 projector is lightweight, sleek and compact to blend perfectly into any décor. It's designed to set up fast with auto keystone correction and powerful 1.2X big zoom, overcoming any installation hassles with ease. In addition, the CineHome HT2550 quickly becomes a smart projector by simply connecting an HDMI dongle, such as Google Chromecast, Roku, or Amazon Fire TV Stick, to instantly stream TV shows, movies, sports and even video games to the big screen.

The BenQ CineHome HT2550 retails for $1,499 and is now available in North America for pre-order exclusively via Amazon until Jan. 14 and at BenQ Direct. Additional availability starts Jan. 15 from Best Buy U.S., Best Buy Canada ($1,999 CAD).

Additional information on the BenQ CineHome HT2550 is available at http://www.benq.us/product/projector/HT2550.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

They don't highlight it, but this projector also supports 3D. I believe it's the lowest cost "4K" projector that does this.

 

[Jim517]

I'm anxious to read some reviews on this !

 

[Sam Posten]

VERY limited zoom range and no shift. Beware, you need to have your position locked in perfectly.

 

[Sam Posten]

I'm anxious to read some reviews on this !

AVS buyers are starting to get them in:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...2-benq-ht2550-4k-review-coming-very-soon.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ly-announces-ht2550-4k-hdr-dlp-projector.html