What's new

4k Projectors Buyers and Owners Thread (1 Viewer)

Dave Upton

Audiophile
Moderator
Reviewer
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
4,409
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
Dave Upton
We need to be very careful here about what we allow to be called a 4K projector. Nothing from JVC, Epson, Optoma or BenQ (sans top of the line offerings at JVC) is actually 4K. Pixel wiggling and similar technologies are all fauxK not 4K.

The Vivitek is actually a DLP (which means it's a 1080p projector, using the same as pixel wiggling, but with mirror shifting to get 4K). What this means is that you do get 4K pixels per frame of a video, but it's 2K then 2K, which is not nearly as good as native. Reports from CEDIA stated that nobody was really able to stand up to Sony other than JVC's 35K laser/true 4K model, and Sony's 885ES was superior in the view of most attendees.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Ah. My error. I’d gotten the wrong understanding the Vivitek was a true 4K projector. It’s higher native res than the Epson, but is still a flavor of pixel shifting.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
it's probably going to be quite some time before I can get a 4K projector, since any projector I would buy has to have the following specs:

1) no bulb. Laser only.
2) Passive 3D capability, not active.
3) Well below 5000 Canadian.
4) No irising to artificially raise contrast levels. The contrast rating should be native like JVCs old RS projectors were.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
it's probably going to be quite some time before I can get a 4K projector, since any projector I would buy has to have the following specs:

1) no bulb. Laser only.
2) Passive 3D capability, not active.
3) Well below 5000 Canadian.
4) No irising to artificially raise contrast levels. The contrast rating should be native like JVCs old RS projectors were.
Wow. Finding a passive 3D projector is going to be a pretty high bar. RealD (the ability to flash alternate polarizations rapidly) hasn't been feasible for the home market. And unlike flat panels which have each line of pixels on the display hardcoded with a specific polarity, projectors can't do that. Here is the only passive projector currently on the market and it's not even HD
28424.jpg
 
Last edited:

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
it's probably going to be quite some time before I can get a 4K projector, since any projector I would buy has to have the following specs:

1) no bulb. Laser only.
2) Passive 3D capability, not active.
3) Well below 5000 Canadian.
4) No irising to artificially raise contrast levels. The contrast rating should be native like JVCs old RS projectors were.
So never, then? You’re never buying a 4K projector? Because I expect that’s the timeline for passive 3D, given that most 4K projectors have zero 3D. :)

Everything else is maybe three years out. Except for no iris, that’s just a user defeatable option.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
Wow. Finding a passive 3D projector is going to be a pretty high bar. RealD (the ability to flash alternate polarizations rapidly) hasn't been feasible for the home market. And unlike flat panels which have each line of pixels on the display hardcoded with a specific polarity, projectors can't do that. Here is the only passive projector currently on the market and it's not even HD
View attachment 41219

So never, then? You’re never buying a 4K projector? Because I expect that’s the timeline for passive 3D, given that most 4K projectors have zero 3D. :)

Everything else is maybe three years out. Except for no iris, that’s just a user defeatable option.

Looks like I'm outta luck on the passive 3D requirement. :oops: :laugh:
Wonder why they can't make RealD work in a home environment?
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,271
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Looks like I'm outta luck on the passive 3D requirement. :oops: :laugh:
Wonder why they can't make RealD work in a home environment?

RealD requires a very expensive silver screen for the polarization to work. So in addition to needing an active attachment on the lens, you'd need to buy an outrageously expensive screen to go with it.

Personally, I'm rather happy with the active 3D on my Epson 5030 - if a good projector brand offers you all the specs you want except for active over passive, my humble recommendation would be to not let that stand in your way.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
RealD requires a very expensive silver screen for the polarization to work. So in addition to needing an active attachment on the lens, you'd need to buy an outrageously expensive screen to go with it.

Personally, I'm rather happy with the active 3D on my Epson 5030 - if a good projector brand offers you all the specs you want except for active over passive, my humble recommendation would be to not let that stand in your way.

Ah. Interesting information regarding RealD. To tell the truth, my only real hard requirements are no bulb and a reasonable price. I could live with active 3D, although it isn't the most ideal system. It would be better than nothing though. I'm still missing the 3D that I had on my LG EG9600. The C7 is very nice looking set too, but the lack of 3D support is a major failure on the part of LG.

Edit: That should have been B7 rather than C7.
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,271
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
To my eyes at least, active on a projector is different than active on a TV. It's far easier on the eyes on a projector, at least for me.

I don't mind the bulb. Epson tends to have cheaper bulbs than some of the other brands, and I got more than three years usage out of my last bulb. I totally understand not wanting a device where you have that recurring expense, but it wasn't as bad as I feared!
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
I didn't mind it for my RS2U, but I'd like to avoid bulbs going forward. Of course, the bulb in my RS2U is still pretty good as I haven't used the projector in a long time. My plans for a home theatre room got derailed and the projector ended up back in its box.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Laser sources are in the ... $10,000 Epson projector now? That suggest two or three years to be $5000. I've also read a few comments that the laser projectors have colors that are quite askew lamp projectors. The lifetimes are also not as impressive as you'd hope for, based on forum comments from a year ago. I've not paid attention the past year so I don't know what 2017/18 reality is.

I'd like to see laser projectors, assuming their heat output is lower and lifetime is longer than lamps. But for now, I think lamp based is the realistic upgrade option for my first 4k projector.
 

Dave Upton

Audiophile
Moderator
Reviewer
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
4,409
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
Dave Upton
Laser sources are in the ... $10,000 Epson projector now? That suggest two or three years to be $5000. I've also read a few comments that the laser projectors have colors that are quite askew lamp projectors. The lifetimes are also not as impressive as you'd hope for, based on forum comments from a year ago. I've not paid attention the past year so I don't know what 2017/18 reality is.

I'd like to see laser projectors, assuming their heat output is lower and lifetime is longer than lamps. But for now, I think lamp based is the realistic upgrade option for my first 4k projector.
Sony's 25K 885ES is also laser - so expect to get from dealers around 19K once promotions start - that's still a very expensive projector. My 675ES is a great machine, but as much as I want laser, I'm not willing to pay 10K more for it.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,555
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Sony's 25K 885ES is also laser - so expect to get from dealers around 19K once promotions start - that's still a very expensive projector. My 675ES is a great machine, but as much as I want laser, I'm not willing to pay 10K more for it.

The 675ES may be what I eventually settle upon. However, with projector prices at what they are, I am still in no hurry to get into 4k.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
I am waiting for decent priced Laser projectors, faux 4K will do me as long as they reach full DCI-P3, have HDR 10 and Dolby Vision and can do decent blacks and contrast, I am not a contrast junkie, I do not need JVC levels, a black of 0.001 ft Lambert would be ok by me and contrast around 20,000:1 and the ability to reach higher brightness for decent HDR which on a projector is currently lacking.

hDMI revision 2.1 looks like it might have decent improvements too for gaming and maybe a higher frame rate for sports broadcasts with the 120hz feature, I would hope projectors have the 120hz option, might give better motion if implemented correctly since current frame interpolation is frankly unwatchable to me, soap opera effect.

Reason I think 120hz might work and not have soap opera effect is the Showscan camera system, developed back in the early eighties which supposedly had great motion but none of the soap opera effect, sure it may be apples to oranges but maybe it’ll work.

P.S. I know projectors can do 120hz aka 60hz per eye for 3D and DLP can do triple flash 144hz but higher frame rate implementations for 2D films always give soap opera effect to my eyes, I think this native 120hz feature could at last bring nirvana and motion as good as plasma gives.
 
Last edited:

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I’ve not watched any UHD material on any UHD display, except for demo loops at BestBuy. So I’m only guessing, but I think I will care most about wide color gamut and HDR and least about actual 4K resolution. I don’t really care about lamp vs laser at this point: I don’t expect to keep my current projector or the next one for a decade. Depending on the state of affairs with HTPCs, I could choose a pixel shifter as best compromise.

That said, what I’ve read about the Sony 285 (MSRP $4999) and Sony 385 (MSRP $7999) has me excited for potentially a native 4K with dynamic iris potentially next year at a sub-$5000 price.
 

Dave Upton

Audiophile
Moderator
Reviewer
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
4,409
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
Dave Upton
It's certainly true that the color gamut is more important than resolution, but I am a believer that you should get both for it to be a legitimate UHD projector.

To get full DCI P3 and the contrast we all desire, you have to jump up to the 885ES from Sony, and that's like buying a car.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Thankfully the VW260ES was very accurate after calibration and it also performed well in our HDR testing, with some measurements that were better than the VW550ES. We certainly found the VW260ES to be a great performer, delivering a lovely SDR image that was detailed and boasted natural colours and good motion handling. The black levels could have been better and appear to be a retrograde step compared to recent Sony projectors but overall the VW260ES impressed us. It also proved to be a good performer with HDR, at least as far as projectors go, with good tone mapping, saturated colours and reasonable brightness.

The problem is that as good as the VW260ES is, the HDR projector market is very competitive and there are other manufacturers who can deliver models that are not only better in some respects but also considerably cheaper. The fact that the Sony is a native 4K projector simply isn't enough when watching at any a sensible viewing distance and other factors like black levels, brightness, tone mapping and colour gamuts are equally as important. However, the Sony VPL-VW260ES does represent a significant step in the evolution of native 4K projection and for that reason, along with its overall performance, comes recommended.
https://www.avforums.com/review/son...xrd-projector-review.14020#sectionAnchor52630

(260 is the Euro number for the 285)

I’m impatiently waiting the next year or two to bring 4K into my house!
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Another review of the 285, highlighting the compromises still necessary in the sub-$10k projector class:

Price-wise I do think these were very appropriate things to take away from this projector to allow this unit to be priced at $4999. The only other area that might have been appropriate would have been a hit on lumen output, but at a maximum of 1200 calibrated lumens, I think Sony made the right move as HDR performance would have suffered greatly with less available light output. This is an area where the 675ES pulls ahead of both the 285ES and 385ES offering several hundred more lumens. This is due to the 280 watt lamp the 675ES gets over the 225 watt lamp found in both the 285ES and 385ES. If you’re looking into getting a better HDR experience and you have a big screen, say around 120” or larger, the 675ES (or a brighter JVC model) makes a lot more sense. As many will tell you, HDR and wide color gamut performance gives a far greater sense of improvement in image quality than the relatively small bump in fine detail you get on UHD blu-ray titles. Better performance in these areas is especially important for those looking to make a long term investment in their projector purchase in a world about the dominated by HDR. Unless you plan on upgrading every year or so, you may want to opt for a brighter projector as the future is going to be all about HDR. The 285ES is much more comfortable with it’s 1200 lumens of peak brightness with screens at 120” or smaller, or possibly a screen larger than this that has some positive gain.

The RS440 does offer several things the 285ES does not. Those things would include a lens iris that can be used like the 385ES’ (manual, dynamic or both), around 600 more calibrated lumens, roughly double the native contrast and about an order of magnitude more dynamic contrast. Brightness and contrast capabilities are the biggest differences between these two models and are the things that will stick out most if you were to compare the two images next to each other. The RS440 also has lens memories, creative frame interpolation that works with a 4K source (the 285ES is limited to 1080p sources) and an auto-calibration suite with the option to upload custom gamma curves and custom color profiles offering greater HDR flexibility. I've also found that the JVC has a slightly nicer lens that has better focus uniformity and can focus on pixels better. The RS440 has two full-spec HDMI 2.0 ports which includes 18Gbps throughput. The 285ES has two proprietary HDMI 2.0 ports that only support 13.5Gbps throughput. 13.5Gbps is enough bandwidth to fully support UHD blu-ray as the specification stands now. This means UHD resolution at 60 frames per second at 10bit 4:2:0. However, the 285ES does introduce very visible banding within the image when a UHD/60p 10bit 4:2:0 signal is sent to the projector. It seems this is a video processing issue. Hopefully Sony can address this problem with a future firmware update. There is very little video content on UHD bluray encoded this way. So this issue should be more of a concern for gamers who want to take advantage of 4K HDR gaming at 60p. The JVC does not have any banding issues with this type of content sent to the projector.

Native contrast is excellent on the 285ES, but is beat out by the RS440. But this should not come as a surprise, as it’s been this way for years. JVC has almost always had a lead with on/off contrast. Placing the lens at the telephoto end of it’s zoom range, with my Minolta CL200 measuring towards the lens at around 8 inches away, the 285ES achieved 17,826:1 on/off contrast. At maximum zoom, under the same measuring conditions, the 285ES achieves 12,989:1 on/off contrast. The JVC RS400 measures in at 23,432:1 at the telephoto end of it’s zoom range and 16,834:1 at maximum zoom. The JVC has a dynamic iris which increases contrast dynamically to about 10 times it's native performance. With the DI engaged, the JVC had an obvious advantage in contrast when A/B'ing the two images on the same screen.

https://discuss.avscience.com/?topic=1369.msg6414#msg6414
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,555
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Dave,

I take great interest in your research, Dave. I don't have time to research projectors right now.

As far as I am concerned, I am still a good year or two away from a 4k projector --- if I ever get one at all.

However, if something remarkable comes to the consumer lineup at a decent price I may budge.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top