Epson's 2016 Budget Friendly 4K Enhanced Projector Preview

[gene]

We got a chance to see Epson's new line of 4K Enhanced projectors at CEDIA in Dallas, Texas and couldn't believe the price for the quality. OK, OK, they're not truly 4K projectors, but even Epson reps will ask you, "Is the 4K stamp really worth twice the price?"

Epson has done some slick stuff with these new projectors that may make the answer to this question very easy for you to decide. Read the following preview to find out.

Read: Epson's 2016 Budget Friendly 4K Enhanced Projector Preview

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Gene's first post is correct - these are NOT native 4k. As to if 4k "stamp" is worth they money - YES, very much so then we're talking about 100+ sized screens, not 42" TVs.
The question of price becomes only a question of time and I can't speak for others, I will wait for native 4k projectors to be more budget friendly, just like their predecessors became very affordable with time.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/the-art-of-home-theater-projectors/epson-announces-pro-cinema-4040-projector-4k-support-ce/

These projectors are still native 1080p projectors like their predecessors

So, Let's update the article to make it more clear - these are NOT native 4k projectors on the budget, unfortunately

 

[shadyJ]

I am not a projector expert, but from what I have read, the 4k projectors may never get very cheap because the lenses required for that resolution need to be very finely made, and that process is too time-consuming to ever be inexpensive. Not sure about the veracity of that, it is just something I read in a discussion of 4k projectors.

Another thing, yes, you would need a very large screen for 4k to make a big difference- and you would need to be sitting relatively close to it. I would rather have HDR than 4k.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Projectors with proper HDR will be difficult to come by because of the brightness requirements, but the advantage of 4K with front projection, as it relates to screen size is not at all in question.

At about a 1.5x screen width viewing distance (center of theater), the advantages of resolutions beyond 1080p are already visible. But, many people sit closer than that. A typically diagonal size of 10" to 12" for each foot of viewing distance is common. So, at 10' viewing, a 100" to 120" diagonal is very normal these days.

On the low end, 100" diagonal at 10' viewing, that puts the eyes to screen distance slightly closer than 1.5x screen width, and in the range where the benefits of 4K become apparent.

Of course, rec2020 color support should be part of that change, as should any capacity towards true HDR support, but that will all come in time.

As for lensing, that's a great point, but also an industry lie.

The exact same words were said when 1080p came to market. But, the reality is that they are making lenses for cameras which shoot at 10+ megapixel. UHD sits at about 8 megapixel. The Sony projector, which is native 4K, and is about $5,000 or so, is not priced out of this world, and is a very solid projector. When Panasonic added a 4K projector, they actually didn't upgrade their lenses from the WUXGA models they had before it.

So, it will be about proper lens design and quality manufacturing above all else. A well engineered lens design. I mean, even on cheap projectors the interpixel gap of DLP is clearly visible. I can't even tell you how fine that sharpness is. Perhaps 1/32 of a pixel in width, and we can get clear focus of that. So, 4k is about 1/4 of the pixel size currently, and is far less than the interpixel gap we current can sharply focus on. No, I don't think lenses will actually be the issue some make them out to be.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I was about to make same argument about lens quality - even cheap cameras can capture near perfectly (optically) very high DPI images.
It sounds to me PJ vendors are actively trying to postpone release of budget true 4K model and flooding market with fake 4k like these ones which cost more than regular models - just prolong milking the 1080p cow as long as possible.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Another thing, yes, you would need a very large screen for 4k to make a big difference- and you would need to be sitting relatively close to it. I would rather have HDR than 4k.

As you can clearly see - assuming 10-12ft distance, the benefits of 4k/UHD will start to be visible even from "small" 90" diagonal screen and I plan to go with 120"+ screen then time comes for my basement HT.

 

[Josuah]

There is still a very noticeable improvement in picture quality with 4K e-shift technology, and the post-processing provided for image enhancement of 1080p content on a 4K e-shift projector if you so desire. I'm on a 106" screen at ~10ft. away. I would not knock the benefit of a Faux-K projector over an HDTV projector.

The significant problem with the Espon 5040UB and 6040UB is that it only handles up to 4Kp60 at 8-bit color, or 4Kp24 at 10-bit color. Which means streaming services and source devices that require 4Kp60 at 10-bit color in order to trigger Ultra HD BT.2020 HDR playback are not compatible.

I switched from an Epson 5040UB to a JVC DLA-RS500 and the video signal compatibility issue went away (Epson is 10Gbps and JVC is 18Gpbs). The JVC is also more functional, has autocal software (still needs some manual calibration afterwards), and provides a better overall picture quality IMO.

But the JVC has significantly more picture sync lag and apparently much higher display lag which is a detriment for gaming. But you'll only get 4Kp60 8-bit gaming on the Epson with an Xbox One S anyway. It's unclear how the PS4 Pro will interact with the Epson, but I suppose running 4Kp30 HDR might be possible.

Between HDR and 4K, I think I'd pick 4K. But of course best to get both.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I haven't compared FHD and pixel shift next to each other, but pixel shift seems to me like basically just another way of upscaling the resolution.

For some reason true 4k chips for PJs are not yet what would call affordable, but new TI half way solution may be just the key to get significant improvement in image sharpness without spending fortune.
Unlike traditional FHD chips which have native resolution of 2 megapixels, TI's new chip is 4mp (not to be confused with 4k which has 8mp resolution) and have "pixel shift" just as well.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/cedia-2015-review.htm?page=TI's-New-4K-DLP-Chip
tl;dr: Though the reviewer admits that unlike static images, where native 4k Sony had clear advantage, prototype TI chip was 2nd and 2mp products last, but switched to video, the difference between all units were indistinguishable.

 

[Josuah]

I haven't compared FHD and pixel shift next to each other, but pixel shift seems to me like basically just another way of upscaling the resolution.

Pixel shift isn't upscaling. It's taking the 4K pixels (4x the amount of pixels as 1080p) and kind of removing half of them so now you have 2x the pixels of 1080p, and showing that. You're not making more information by guessing, which is what upscaling does.

That being said, it's still clear that just being able to display that many pixels has a benefit because the guessing the software can do to turn a HDTV Blu-ray 1080p pixels into 2x 1080p pixels and apply post-processing filters, is still a very nice improvement over regular 1080p display.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Pixel shift isn't upscaling. It's taking the 4K pixels (4x the amount of pixels as 1080p) and kind of removing half of them so now you have 2x the pixels of 1080p, and showing that. You're not making more information by guessing, which is what upscaling does.

That being said, it's still clear that just being able to display that many pixels has a benefit because the guessing the software can do to turn a HDTV Blu-ray 1080p pixels into 2x 1080p pixels and apply post-processing filters, is still a very nice improvement over regular 1080p display.

Ok, I give you that much, using fancy glass/mirrors they do display final image with true half resolution of 4k and it sound like it actually works, but as you had mentioned and expected (after I got around to learn what it actually does) this does add very significant processing lag.

decent discussion about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2364009-ti-4k-pixel-shifting-technology-explained-barco.html

I still think these e-shift are parlor tricks. Get me native 4k less than price of new car !!!
Oleds were crazy expensive and look where their prices now.

 

[slipperybidness]

Ok, I give you that much, using fancy glass/mirrors they do display final image with true half resolution of 4k and it sound like it actually works, but as you had mentioned and expected (after I got around to learn what it actually does) this does add very significant processing lag.

decent discussion about it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/2364009-ti-4k-pixel-shifting-technology-explained-barco.html

I still think these e-shift are parlor tricks. Get me native 4k less than price of new car !!!
Oleds were crazy expensive and look where their prices now.

Well, that is really good to know! I would never use a display with high lag, at least not for my primary system, it would be incredibly frustrating while playing online games.

 

[Josuah]

Well, that is really good to know! I would never use a display with high lag, at least not for my primary system, it would be incredibly frustrating while playing online games.

I play games on a different system. Some 4K TVs also have game-affecting lag so you need to do your research if that is important for the type of games you play.

 

[slipperybidness]

I play games on a different system. Some 4K TVs also have game-affecting lag so you need to do your research if that is important for the type of games you play.

Agreed!

Mostly online FPS, and my all time favorite is Gears of War. GOW is very much a fast paced "twitch" game, so little lag is just as important as picture quality for me.