Editor's Note: Given the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of pixel-shifting in 4K and 4K-compliant home theater projectors, our contributor and imaging tech expert Michael McNamara, the principal at In-Depth Focus Labs in Hopewell Junction, NY, experimented with six popular projectors at varying price points. In Part 1, found here, he explains the different factors which can affect perceived resolution and describes in detail how he conducted his tests. Here in Part 2, he shares the photographic results and some concluding comments.—Rob Sabin

JVC DLA NX7 main

JVC DLA-NX7/DLA-RS2000 ($8,999): This projector is sold under two model numbers through JVC's consumer and professional distribution channels. It is the only model in this comparison with native 4K (4086 x 2160) imagers that require no pixel-shifting, specifically three 0.69-inch (4096 x 2160 pixels) D-ILA LCoS chips. It's also the only one that actually displayed full UHD resolution on the test target in both the vertical and horizontal planes. Other key features include 1,900 lumens output, 80,000:1 contrast, and a premium quality 17-element glass 2x zoom lens with motorized zoom and focus. We measured high brightness uniformity in our tests. The projector can reproduce over 100% of the DCI-P3 wide gamut color space, and is HDR10 compatible with Auto Tone-Mapping. (Full review here.)

Resolution Test Target: Natural Mode, Default settings

12   13   JVCnx7   Vertical ResolutionREV 14   15   JVCnx7 Horizontal ResolutionREV

JVC DLA-NX7 Results: The native 4K imaging devices of this projector, combined with the best contrast seen in the test target among any of the projectors, produced the highest resolution results in the test. The line ladders are clearly discernible (B and D) and crosshatch lines are fairly close in detail (although in this mode they have a slight blueish tint). Upon close inspection all four of the smallest black hash marks between the longer tick marks can be discerned on the vertical resolution scale (A), as well as on the horizontal res scale (C). Therefore, the tested resolution meets the requirements for a true 4K UHD image, with contrast that makes text and line details very readable. (Note: Extreme closeups of the horizontal scale results for all the projectors are found in the Conclusion for comparison.)

Real Image Comparison: Natural Mode, Default settings

16   17   JVCnx7 Mantis Closeup

JVC DLA-NX7 Results: Color saturation appears to be a bit lower than found in the original target image, with a cool color cast. Shadow and midtone details are very visible, while highlights (scales on arm, E) don't stand out as much, possibly due to lower contrast. Color saturation is also slightly lower, but tonal gradations on the leaves in the background are very visible.

BenQ HT9060 FrontTop

BenQ HT9060 ($8,999): The premium-priced BenQ HT9060 1-chip DLP projector utilizes the larger 0.66-inch DMD containing 2716 x 1528 mirrors, and two-phase XPR pixel-shifting technology. Its features include a long life Philips ColorSpark HLD LED light engine that provides an unusually high (for an LED projector) 2,200 ANSI lumens, a high quality 14-element glass lens with manual focus and zoom, over 90% brightness uniformity, and high color accuracy. It's also HDR10-capable, and covers up to 98% of the DCI-P3 wide-gamut color space. (Full review here.)

Resolution Test Target: Cinema Mode, Normal Power

18   BENQ HT9060   Vertical ResolutionREV 19   BENQ HT9060 Horizontal ResolutionREV

BenQ HT9060 Results: The BenQ's lower contrast is the most noticeable difference between it and the other tested projectors from Epson and JVC. As noted in Part 1, contrast, or the lack of it, can have a noticeable effect on perceived resolution. On closer inspection, the BenQ's vertical res scale (top target A) barely shows separation between the four fine black lines located between each 10-line indicator—and skips some of the lines in the vertical line ladder (B), therefore its measured vertical res is slightly below the claimed 2160 pixels. However, those line ladders are still visible—which is not the case with most of the other pixel-shifting models tested here. Horizontal res is higher, with lower contrast than desired, but there is visible separation between the smallest lines (C) and in the line ladder (D), so this model meets the claimed 3840 pixels in this direction.

Real Image Comparison: Cinema Mode, Normal Power

20   BENQ HT9060 Mantis Closeup

BenQ HT9060 Results: This projector does a very good job of reproducing detail in most parts of the continuous tone Mantis photograph, but lower contrast and color saturation produces fewer details in fine color gradations between some similar-tone details like the white arm spikes and background leaves (E).

Optoma UHD60 4K Projector

Optoma UHD60 ($1,799): This model uses a 1-chip 0.66-inch DMD containing 2716 x 1528 mirrors and 2-phase pixel shifting, and also claims to achieve full 4K UHD (3840 x 2160 pixel) resolution. It features 3,000 ANSI lumens brightness, HDR10 compatibility, and up to 100% coverage of the Rec.709 color gamut. Its 1.6x manual zoom and focus lens is sharp, but by ProjectorCentral measurements delivers 64% uniformity at the wide angle end. (Full review here.)

Resolution Test Target: Cinema Mode, Default settings

21   Optoma UHD 60   Vertical ResolutionREV 22   Optoma UHD 60 Horizontal ResolutionREV

Optoma UHD60 Results: This model shows slightly lower contrast than the Epson or JVC 1080p pixel-shifting models in this comparison, but higher measurable resolution. However, in both of the fine line ladders (B and D) it appears that only half the lines are reproduced, while the crosshatch lines are also missing fine details. Upon closer inspection you can see some separation between the finest black lines on the vertical resolution scale (A), but certainly not all four that reside between the longer mid-sized hash marks. The horizontal res scale (C) does show all four fine lines, albeit at much lower contrast than found in the native 4K JVC. Therefore, tested resolution in the horizontal direction is enough to meet the claimed UHD resolution, but the vertical resolution doesn't appear to in this specific display mode and location on the target.

Real Image Comparison: Cinema Mode, Default Settings

23   Optoma UHD 60 Mantis Closeup

Optoma UHD60 Results: Overall contrast is decent, and there are plenty of details in the midtone, shadow and highlight regions. Color saturation is a bit high in bright green edges of the leaf in the background, but overall color accuracy is high. Up close, there are some minor noise issues in fine color gradations (E), and some edge artifacts show up around the mantis arm teeth.


ViewSonic X10-4K ($1,499): This compact and portable DLP projector utilizes a 1-chip 0.47-inch DMD containing 1920 x 1080 mirrors and 4-phase pixel shifting to achieve a claimed 3840 x 2160 pixel resolution on screen. It features a relatively small, fixed short-throw lens and a long-life LED light engine and claims to provide 2,400 LED lumens (we tested only 761 ANSI lumens in Brightest Mode—which is half the luminance of the BenQ HT9060, the other LED model in this test). It provides up to 125% of the Rec.709 color space and HDR10 compatibility. (Full review here.)

Resolution Test Target: Brightest Mode, High Power Setting

24   ViewSonic X10 4K   Vertical ResolutionREV 25   ViewSonic X10 4K Horizontal ResolutionREV

ViewSonic X10-4K Results: Besides its lower maximum luminance output, the X10-4K produces an image with lower contrast than the others in this comparison. This lower contrast is the reason why the details in the fine line ladder (B and D) are nearly imperceptible unless greatly magnified, and certainly not visible at normal viewing distances. The crosshatch lines are also unusual, so fine diagonal details in any image are going to look strange. Lower contrast text and larger black lines are also harder to see. Upon close inspection there is minimal separation in the finest lines on the vertical res scale (A)—perhaps 3 of 4, while the horizontal res scale (C) shows separation of all 4 but at such low contrast they blur together. Therefore, the tested resolution falls short of a true 4K UHD image, but somewhat higher than found in the 1080p Epson or JVC—albeit with lower contrast. Keep in mind when comparing this with the other DLPs in our test that it not only uses the smaller, four-phase 0.47-inch imaging chip, but also uses a much smaller fixed lens to accommodate the projector's portable form factor.

Real Image Comparison: Brightness Mode, High Power Setting

26   ViewSonic X10 4K Mantis Closeup

ViewSonic X10-4K Results: The narrow dynamic range in this model's reproduction is the most noticeable difference from a normal viewing distance. Note how the darker area on the under-arm obscures details and tones that should be lighter, while details in the bright leaves in the background are blown out (E). Greens are also oversaturated, while yellows and light reds (in arm) are undersaturated. In addition, the darker green tones in the background show high amounts of noise, not seen in any of the other models tested.


Epson Home Cinema HC5050UBe ($3,299): This wireless HDMI version of the Epson HC5050UB ($2,999) utilizes three 0.74-inch, native 1080p LCD panels (RGB) and two-phase pixel-shifting to deliver 4K enhanced resolution (4Ke). It delivers 2,500 ANSI lumens brightness, and over 1,000:1 ANSI contrast (tested). Other top features include high brightness uniformity, over 100% coverage of the DCI-P3 color gamut, and a high quality, 16-element, 2.1X glass lens with motorized zoom and focus. (Full review here.)

Resolution Test Target: Cinema Mode, High Power Setting

27   Epson HC5050UBe   Vertical ResolutionREV 28   Epson HC5050UBe Horizontal ResolutionREV

Epson HC5050UBe Results: The most obvious differences between the original file and the HC5050UBe's reproduction can be seen in the center areas to the sides of the horizontal and vertical number scales. These are missing the fine line ladder (B and D) and produce thicker diagonal crosshatch lines. However, overall contrast is higher than on the BenQ, Optoma, and ViewSonic models, with text more readable and larger black lines popping out, so image sharpness appears higher from normal viewing distances than the scales suggest. Upon closer inspection, only two of the four smallest black lines between the hatch marks can be discerned on the vertical res scale (A), or on the horizontal res scale (C). Therefore, the tested resolution falls somewhere in the middle between what you'd find in a 1080p image and a true 4K UHD image, with a boost in perceivable sharpness from higher contrast.

Real Image Comparison: Cinema Mode, High Power Setting

29   Epson HC5050UBe Mantis Closeup

Epson HC5050UBe Results: Higher contrast contributes to an increase in midtone, shadow and highlight details visible in the Mantis arm teeth (E). Although a bit warmer in color temperature, the saturated colors and fine tonal gradations also improve the impact and perceived separation (3D effect) between the arms and background.


JVC DLA-X790R/DLA-RS540 ($3,999): As with the DLA-NX7, this home cinema model is also sold under an alternate model number, the DLA-RS540, for distribution through integrators. It was previously announced as discontinued, but JVC now says it will remain in production and available through September 2020. It is the last remaining native 1080p D-ILA projector in the company's home theater line-up, and utilizes three 0.7-inch, LCoS D-ILA chips and JVC's e-shift5 technology (two-phase shifting) to project 4K UHD content on screen, along with offering 1,900 lumens and a high native contrast ratio. It also features a high quality, multi-element 2x glass lens with motorized zoom and focus, full Rec.709 coverage, and is THX-certified. (Product information here.)

Resolution Test Target: Natural Mode, Default settings

30   JVC DLA X790R   Vertical ResolutionREV 31   JVC DLA X790R Horizontal ResolutionREV

JVC DLA-X790R Results: Like the other pixel shifting models, the most obvious differences between the original file and the X790's reproduction are the missing details in the fine line ladders (B and D), which in this case also took on different color casts. The crosshatch lines were also jagged, with missing fine line details. While the overall contrast is higher than in several other models in this test, making solid lines jump out, some artifacts can be found in the numbers that make them less readable, and small lines are thicker than they should be. Upon closer inspection, neither the vertical res scale (A), or the horizontal res scale (C) show clear separation in the finest lines, so as with the Epson, the tested resolution falls somewhere in the middle between what you'd find in a 1080p image and a true 4K UHD image.

Real Image Comparison: Natural Mode, Default settings

32   JVC DLA X790R Mantis Closeup

JVC DLA-X790R Results: The image reproduced by this model shows good contrast and decent color saturation, with darker greens. Shadow and midtone details are very visible, while highlights (E) have slightly lower details. Dark tonal gradations on the leaves in the background show minor signs of banding.


The best resolution comparison photos for this test were taken by the camera closest to the screen on the right focused on the target's horizontal resolution scale. The six closeups shown side by side below show the exact same section down to the pixel level.

33   composite comparison v2

The clear winner among these projectors, with the highest resolution and detail, very good contrast, and very readable text is the JVC DLA-NX7, the only projector in this test containing three true native 4K resolution imaging devices (and requiring no pixel shifting). Even at the relatively small image size in the composite, you can clearly see the NX-7's four fine black lines in between the longer hash marks. (See arrow, A). These lines correspond to 3840 pixels of resolution from the left side of the image to the right side.

Of the pixel-shifting DLP models, the BenQ HT9060 showed the highest horizontal resolution, with all four fine tick lines between the hash marks visible (B). Text is well formed and readable, although lower contrast than in the JVC DLA-NX7, Epson HC5050UBe, or Optoma UHD60. The Optoma takes third place in overall detail, with most of the fine lines visible (some are blurred together), well formed text, and slightly low contrast. Its pixel structure is also slightly visible (C), as it is on the Epson HC5050Ube, but in neither case could the pixel structure be seen at normal viewing distances.

The Epson HC5050UBe (D) takes fourth place even though it only shows separation between two of the four super-fine lines and no line ladders in the horizontal direction.. However, its higher contrast and darker lines improve perceived sharpness and text at normal viewing distance. In fifth place, the JVC DLA-x790 (three-chip, native 1080p with pixel shifting) shows one or two of the four super-fine lines and none of the line ladders as found on its 4K native sibling, the DLA-NX7. It also had the worst font production of all (E). However, its contrast is better than any of the DLP models, and as found with the Epson, that improves perceived detail at normal distances.

The ViewSonic X10-4K has the lowest resolution of all the DLP models, as well as the lowest contrast and luminance of any model in the test. As mentioned earlier, this is the only DLP to use the smaller 0.47-inch DLP XPR imaging device with four-phase pixel-shifting. As a portable lifestyle projector, it's also the only model here not to feature the optics of a traditional long-throw home theater lens. Some combination of these differences came to bear in its test targets, which barely show any discernible fine lines (F). They are there, but at such low contrast they tend to merge into the background instead of forming a darker line from a few feet away. Vertical resolution was even lower on the target—and does not reach the claimed 2160 pixels for 4K UHD.

With all the variables at play in these projectors it's hard to draw any firm conclusions from our testing. They vary widely in imaging technologies, native resolution of the chips, the use of either two-phase or four-phase pixel shifting, their brightness and native contrast, their image processing, and their optics. Perhaps one observation we can make is that a projector like the JVC DLA-NX7, with its trio of true native 4K chips, a good lens, and high native contrast, gives the best chance of delivering the most measurable detail to the screen compared with any pixel-shifting projector. But the two-phase pixel-shifting associated with TI's 0.66-inch DLP also appeared very capable of delivering something close to the full on-screen resolution of a UHD signal if embedded in a projector with good optics and even mediocre contrast, as we saw in the BenQ HT9060.

Less demonstrable from our tests here is what capabilities or limitations can be associated with the smaller DMD and four-phase pixel-shifting used in TI's 0.47-inch XPR DLP chip—the one that's typically included today in the most affordable 4K home theater projectors. The ViewSonic X10-4K was the only projector with this chip we had access to at the time of our testing, but it was built with a small form factor, portability, and ambient-light viewing in mind rather than an optimized home theater experience. Its results in our test could be attributed as easily to the inherent performance sacrifices of its design as to the imaging chip. The true efficacy of the 0.47-inch DLP imager is something that would need further exploration on a model with higher luminance, contrast, and a high quality zoom lens.

Another observation our test reinforced is that pixel resolution is only one component of image quality that helps to define how much detail we perceive on the screen. As mentioned in Part 1, much of the differences we saw up close in the magnified test target were not easily detected at normal viewing distance, and in the Mantis photo, the variations in color balance and dimensionality resulting from differences in contrast were much more obvious from across the room. Contrast definitely plays a big role in helping to improve our perception of sharpness and detail, as well as font readability. Despite their inability to produce the finest lines in the target, both the JVC DLA-X790 and Epson HC5050UBe got very high marks for their overall image quality on real content, with the Epson's wide color gamut also a plus. Similarly, although the BenQ HT9060 produced the highest resolution (and luminance) of any of the DLP pixel-shifters, with high color accuracy in the Rec.709 space, its lower contrast allowed the Optoma UHD60—a projector with the same 0.66-inch chip that costs a fifth of its price—to give the Benq a real challenge in perceived sharpness at normal viewing distances. That is the key takeaway for any discussion about 4K resolution: it's not just about pixels.

Comments (34) Post a Comment
Rodney Laney Posted Mar 20, 2020 3:59 AM PST
Excellent review, truly appreciated the depth and images shared. Very informative.

Thank you, Rodney
Jason Posted Mar 20, 2020 4:00 AM PST
Excellent comparison. Better to have such photo shots in each review of the projectors. Thanks.
tom Posted Mar 20, 2020 1:52 PM PST
How did thee projectors compare in terms of fan noise? The specs are confusing, especially the JVC models.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Mar 20, 2020 2:03 PM PST
Tom, I assisted Mike with the testing in his lab, and we did not pay any attention or take any notes about the projector noise levels. All except for the JVC DLA-X790 have been reviewed, however, and the reviews may have some subjective comments or measurements about fan noise.
Duncan Posted Mar 20, 2020 2:50 PM PST
Interesting review. It looks to me that the winner was the Optoma UHD60 since it's photo reproduction was by far the most accurate and closest to the original.
David Rivera Posted Mar 20, 2020 3:17 PM PST
Excellent research, quite informative. Thank you Michael and Rob for the attention to detail and meticulous processed used. The data gathered affirms the fact that a Native 4k projector with excellent contrast and quality lens is by far the way to go, if you can afford it. In my case, I will stand pat with my Epson 5040. I've auditioned the Sony 295 & JVC-NX5. Their perceived image is only marginally better than my calibrated 5040. Now, if JVC would be so kind to drop the price of NX7 down to 5k, then I would jump at it. I know, in my dreams. For those of us who are extremely sensitive to the rainbow effect, all DLP shift projectors with color wheels are out of the question.
Brian Posted Mar 20, 2020 10:18 PM PST
Would love to see how better DLP projectors(and non-XPR) perform with this, Sim2 Lumis or Mico, or 0.95" single chip color wheel with high quality lenses like PD/Barco F35. I have the mico I can test if you can direct towards the test pattern.
Walter DS Posted Mar 21, 2020 2:02 AM PST
I love the thoroughness of these reviews. (And i'm ever so happy i bought the Epson.) Thank you!
Fred Posted Mar 21, 2020 1:59 PM PST
It's all about the complete package. I have an Epson 5050ub at home and I really like it. I tend to like more color and a brighter image.

I do home theater installations for a living and have been a part of a few "no budget" theaters. Brightness always seems to be an issue, even if they're warned. There's nothing worse than a client that is underwhelmed by a pricy Sony or JVC, even though the guidance said no light whatsoever and they want windows unblocked. Even in the best circumstances the best looking PJ to me were the 5050s we installed. I would rather have more options with colors, contrast, brightness, (even if it means a less realistic picture, I can tone it down if I wanted that) and no rainbows over a true 4k picture. Another issue is latency. Some games are cinematic enough for me to play on the big screen; it seems like the Pixel shifters have about half the latency or better than true 4k PJs.

I do have to wonder how much of a difference image enhancement settings have on these tests, though. On my 5050 the image enhancements bring out enough detail to actually change the way light reflects on surfaces and materials, such as patterns on clothing in the Witcher series. It was very noticeably a different image with image enhancement all the way up compared to off.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Mar 21, 2020 2:19 PM PST
Interesting observations, Fred. I've spent a fair amount of time in my studio with the 5050UB and 4010, and the JVC X790 is my day to day reference projector. I'd say that among these, the Epson's, featuring their most up to date pixel-shifting, provide the sharpest image, but both the Epsons and the JVC both provide a nice crisp picture with UHD content from about 10 feet back. The Epson's image enhancement settings are easier to work with and can be cranked higher than the JVC's various settings before edge enhancement becomes too obvious to be tolerated. But turning enhancement off basically turns the projector into 1080p, so it's not desirable. I've found that the number 3 setting, one notch up from the default, was often a sweet spot with most content. Sometimes as high as 4...
Dan Posted Mar 21, 2020 6:39 PM PST
Why does ProjectorCentral always use the lower-end Optoma projectors. When they have UHZ 65, and the UHD 65. And love to show hi-end current Epson models. Both the 65 projectors are better in almost every way over the 60. UHZ 65 would have been a great comparison being a laser projector. Not comparing a almost 3 year old bottom end Optoma 4k model against some of the newest projectors on the market. People expect better when doing a comparison.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Mar 22, 2020 7:25 AM PST
Dan, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure where the "always" part of this comes from as we have indeed tested the UHD60 and UHZ65 in the past, and apparently skipped the UHD65 which is not appreciably different from the UHD60 beyond having 10-bit color processing and lower lumen output; all three projectors you cite were released between June and October of 2017, so all are older models now but remain current in Optoma's line. Only the UHD52ALV, which we currently have in evaluation, constitutes an update (to the UHD51ALV), and beyond this we have the CinemaX P1 that we're also reviewing now. We have a request in for the new UHD50X gaming projector.

As for this particular comparison, you and others may be missing the point, and I want to stress to readers that this was not about arranging for any particular brand to go head-to-head and "beat-out" the other brands and be named the "resolution king." This was really about gathering up representatives of different imaging technologies at different price points and with different levels of optics to see what we could learn about how all the factors involved affect resolution, and particularly, to see how well the pixel-shifters (both the DLP XPR models at the two chip sizes and the 1080p models) did against a native 4K projector...both in terms of the up-close resolution on the screen and the perceived detail with real content as seen from viewing distance. Frankly, we simply gathered up what we were lucky enough to have around at the same time and did not specifically request any products from the manufacturer for this test. I think the results were very thought-provoking though difficult to draw any very firm conclusions from.

My one regret is that we did not have one more conventional home theater model available with which to check the performance of the 0.47-inch DLP XPR chip. It was interesting to see how the sacrifices made with optics and light engine to achieve portability in the ViewSonic X10-4K can have an effect on resolution(note that LED projectors we have tested generally have not shown themselves to deliver particularly high contrast) , but in retrospect we should have added another model with the same chip that boast better dark-room performance, such as ViewSonic's well-reviewed PX727-4K or BenQ's recent HT3050 model. This would have really rounded out the mix. The good news is that reproducing our test environment with new models going forward should be easy, and we can at some point round up a bunch of other projectors whose results we can cross-reference to the existing results here. So a follow-up at some point is definitely in the cards.
Daniel Posted Mar 24, 2020 11:59 AM PST
It would have been interesting to see the test pattern on one of the projectors with 4K enhancement/eshift turned off (i.e. native 1920x1080.) This way it would be a little more informative for those of us with native 1080 projectors wondering how much of a step up shifted 4K vs true 4K is. Which is the larger step? The one from native 1080 to shifted 4K, or the one from shifted 4K to native 4K?

I keep vascillating between the X790 with its superior contrast and black levels and the NX7 with its native 4K but inferior contrast and black levels. (Of course, there's also the NX7's dynamic tone mapping, faster HDMI handshakes, etc.) It would be nice if they would update the X790 into the "NX3"... all the bells and whistles of the NX5/7, but with the lower cost and higher contrast of the native 1080 panels and e-shift.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Mar 24, 2020 12:38 PM PST
Daniel, if your budget permits and you care deeply about image quality, I don't think there's any question here that the NX7 is the more modern up-to-date image with the much sharper image. The NX7 still delivers outstanding blacks and contrast next to anything out there, and the sacrifice in deep black level compared with the older X790 is minimal and not worth giving up both the sharper picture and, more critically, the truly outstanding HDR performance you get with the NX7.
Tom Posted Mar 30, 2020 6:48 AM PST
Great review. Please continue the same verification with other projectors.
Roderick Posted Apr 5, 2020 11:15 AM PST
You mention the 3d effect in the epson 5050. What will cause an projector to appear less flat or more 3d? I find myself looking at films i really did not care for in the past because of this 3d effect. Great review.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Apr 5, 2020 12:58 PM PST
Roderick, you may be misinterpreting what Michael meant here by "3D." What's being referenced here and is also similarly referenced in some of our reviews by other contributors is really meant to mean dimensionality, or the effect of objects simply looking more realistic and its depth more apparent. This is a desirable characteristic that is most often associated with high resolution as well as good contrast associated with a projector's superior black levels and also the correct application of gamma. With all these elements in the right place, objects and the edges that define them become more pronounced and more solid, and less washed out and flat-looking.

The 3D effect we are talking about here is something separate from the 3D effect associated with viewing Full 3D content, which we discuss separately in our reviews, and also separate from the so-called "soap opera effect" or video effect that makes film-based 24-frame-per-second content look more like a video news or sports broadcast. SOE is caused by the application of frame interpolation, which smooths motion and provides less blurring on moving objects, but which does add this artificial look to movies. Most TVs today come with interpolation turned on, and some projectors that offer this feature do as well. But it's easily turned off by selecting the Movie or Cinema picture preset or just diving into the menu and turning off the "motion" or FI feature.
Roderick Posted Apr 7, 2020 12:31 PM PST
My interpretation was dimensionality and you explained this characteristic. Please keep up the shoot outs Thank You!
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Apr 7, 2020 12:38 PM PST
Glad to help, thanks.
Norm Posted Apr 24, 2020 7:17 PM PST
I wanted to confirm the signal that was being sent. In P1, it stated it was a UHD60 signal, which using RGB is ~6Gbps/channel but limited to 8bpc. However, using 10bpc, you must either drop down to YCC422 or YCC420, which means chroma-subsampling artifacts might be introduced, correct?

On the wire, YCC422 would use the same BW as RGB 8bpc, regardless of the of the data quantization placed into YCC422 because the container is always 12bpc. The real data is just "left justified" and the unused bits cleared, but those bits are still transmitted.

For YCC420, 8bpc requires 50% as RGB, but increasing this to 10bpc requires 25% more BW. Compared to RGB, this is approx. 375/600 = 62.5% of the BW, or ~11.25Gbps. Since you quoted 12Gbps, I assume you used YCC420.

Any thoughts on how this could have affected resolution results (or not)?
Faisal Posted Jun 6, 2020 4:25 AM PST
Was the Nx7 wide color filter enabled during the test?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Jun 6, 2020 9:39 AM PST
No, it would not have been for this test. But we were testing for detail, not color per se.
Mike Garrett Posted Jun 8, 2020 8:06 AM PST
Why is the pixel grid missing in your NX7 photo? The NX7 is perfectly capable of showing the grid, if image is in focus and your screen is a smooth material? Since grid shows in some of the other pics, that eliminates the screen. Looks to me that the NX7 pic is out of focus. Can you add a pic that is focused enough to show the grid?
Randall Norris Posted Oct 5, 2020 8:10 AM PST
Good morning Rob I appreciated your comments regarding the JVC NX7 vs the JVC X790R with the former representing the more modern up to date sharper image. My question is if I already own the 790 is an upgrade to the NX7 worth it? I sit about 9 feet from a 100 inch screen in a bat cave light controlled room. Thanks.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Oct 5, 2020 12:03 PM PST
Randall, I do believe it is worth an upgrade -- not just for the additional sharpness in images but for the outstanding frame-adapt dynamic tone-mapping of HDR you get with the NX7, which will actually be further improved later this fall with a significant firmware update.
Max Pow Posted Jan 4, 2021 1:36 PM PST
Would like to have seen JVC LX-NZ3 projector. I am trying to find two projectors suitable for passive 3D projection on a 2m wide screen with lens throw at least 4.5m that won't break the bank for New Zealand 3D Society. Regards Max
Jose Luis Pelaez Posted Apr 15, 2021 3:20 AM PST
Very good comparison. It would have been of interest to display also the image of this 4k pattern on a cheap 4K TV set to compare. I would like to see the new JVC-NZ3 and LG HU810 how they compare in this test too.
yuya Posted Apr 18, 2021 5:43 AM PST
I would like the third installment of this review. What happens with the NX9's 8k e-shft in the same photo
Stephen Posted Jul 14, 2021 3:46 PM PST
I ran into this article last night, read pt 1 and 2. Something I haven't been able to understand or find an answer specific enough is pixel size comparison. Example. If you had a projected image where the vertical size was 1080cm, a 1080p image, each pixel would be 1cm. And a proper 4K image, 3840x2160, each pixel would be 0.5cm. So, with these projectors using lens shifting, or whatever else they want to name it, what size is each pixel? Will the ones with 1080p chips that show 4 times per frame still be 1cm? Or are they showing smaller? 0.5cm? or somewhere in between?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Jul 15, 2021 9:15 AM PST
Stephen, the size of the pixel that's being shifted will depend entirely on the size of the native array from which the process starts. So native 1080p chips as found in either Epson's 3DLP projectors or JVC's older 1080p pixel-shifting model would have a pixel size pursuant to the image size as you suggest. Same for the 4K-resolution 0.47-inch DLP chips with XPR pixel switching, which start with a 1920x1080 DMD (digital micromirror device) array before applying a 4-phase pixel shift. The larger 0.67-inch 4K DLP chip starts with a 2716x1528 DMD, which gets doubled to reach the full 4K resolution, so it starts with a smaller pixel. Ultimately, the apparent pixel area on the screen, if you could see it, is larger because of the overlap of the two (or four) sets of pixels created by the shifting.
Stephen Posted Jul 15, 2021 4:19 PM PST
okay, sorry, but that didn't really answer my question clearly. With pixel shifting a 1080p native chip, shifting 4 times a frame, covering each quadrant, it is possible to create a pixel that would be 0.5cm. Or are they just overlapping 1cm pixels? Someone with photophobia and sensitivity to frequencies could have a really hard time with pixel shifting. This whole thing with all these companies claiming UHD and/or 4K, and all kinds of marketing BS is really annoying and extremely frustrating. I've tried to understand the pixel shifting, but whenever I ask these companies, they don't give a straight answer. And whenever I use the analogy of the pixel size, they either don't give me a straight answer, or don't answer at all.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Jul 16, 2021 6:49 AM PST
Stephen, I apologize but I'm not exactly sure what answer you're looking for, so I will take another stab at it here. I haven't done your math so I can't verify your pixel size figure for the image size you quoted. But what I was trying to make clear is that, to my understanding at least, a pixel at any given moment on the screen will always be the same physical size based on the size of the native resolution of the imaging device and the projected image size. It doesn't matter whether you pixel shift twice in the course of a full frame of video, four times, or 50 times -- a pixel at any given moment will always be the same size. The amount of screen area you cover in the course of adding shifted pixel sets overa frame of video will obviously be more spread out than an individual pixel because, yes, they are overlapping the pixels in succession, typically a half pixel down and offset to the right or left. If you've ever gotten your nose close up to a pixel shifted image to examine the structure you can see that the edges of the individual pixels are less defined or indistinguishable than with a non-shifted native array. But the size of the pixel is fixed when pixel-shifting is performed; they just move it.

If a person has physical issues viewing a pixel-shifted image -- something I've yet to see or hear about, by the way -- I suppose they would have to stick with a native 1080p or native UHD/4K projector such as those from Sony and JVC. (I'd be surprised if pixel shifting is something that would affect someone with photophobia; more likely the brightness of the image coming off the screen would be the big concern.) But I think the question projection enthusiasts have to ask themselves about pixel-shifting is not whether pixel-shifting a chip to achieve an equivalent of 4K resolution is "real" 4K or not, but rather, how does it look in typical viewing conditions and does it provide me with a sharp, high-value experience that is clearly superior to native 1080p and the equivalent or close to what a true native 4K chip would provide (at much higher cost in most cases). Regardless of how you interpret the manufacturers "marketing BS," I think most readers who have upgraded to 4K DLP would say yes. And although there are many other variables that affect image sharpness (as Mike describes in detail in his article), I think most people at regular viewing difference would likely have a hard time telling the difference between a true native 4k imaging chip and a DLP XPR image (other things being equal with optics, processing, etc.).
Neil Posted Aug 19, 2021 2:17 AM PST
Thanks for performing these comparisons, they are very interesting to me. I would really love to see closeup images like this become part of your standard testing procedure for all new projectors.

While I accept that resolution isn’t everything, for some use cases it is important, and seeing such closeup images of the projected image is useful in conveying things like lens quality (sharpness, uniformity, chromatic aberrations), pixel fill factor, and the pixel level “micro contrast” of a projector in addition to the resolution.

Many of us don’t have the luxury of viewing all of these projectors first hand and therefore base our purchasing decisions on the information we can find in reviews such as the ones on this site (which IMO is the best resource for projector reviews on the web). So it would be great if you could include closeup shots like this of a standardised test image (with lots of fine, pixel level detail, including text) as part as of your reviews going forward.
Mark Posted Sep 11, 2023 6:25 AM PST
The fact that you didn't realize the rs540 had by far higher contrast and deeper blacks than the nx7 makes this "comparison" questionable at best.

Post a comment

Enter the numbers as they appear to the left