Comments on: JVC DLA-X70 Projector – Comments on 4K

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:34:22 +0000

Hi Mark,
First thing is LED light sources have not yet hit the big time in projector land. There are few with any dramatic brightness, which becomes a double problem with 3D.
There are only a few LED powered projectors. More common have been hybrids like Casio and some others – LED and Laser. Those, however, haven’t had great color in general. They haven’t yet figured out how to pack a lot of lumens from LED into a really small area. I don’t follow advanced tech too deeply. 3-4 years ago, I would have guessed that 1/3 of today’s projectors would already not be using conventional lamps. Goes to show ya, the real number is more like 1 or 2%.

Well, the 250dpi is along the lines of the iPad’s “retina” display. I figure true, 4K projectors will start to surface in a year and a half. Should be little challenge for the manufacturers. TI and Epson have been producing 1080p resolution chips in volume for almost 5 years. Let’s face it 1080p projectors can be had for $700, So, no reason why, when 4K content comes out, that the projectors shouldn’t be far behind.

And if anyone can appreciate 4K it’s projector owners. Like you really need 4K to watch a 50″ LCDTV – well, you do, if you like to watch it from about 2 feet away. -art

By: Art Feierman

Art Feierman — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:23:51 +0000

Hi Matt,

Sorry, I missed your post somehow, and just came across it. I never paid attention really to DLP big screens, and was totally unfamiliar until I just read your points.

I assumed that modern DLP “Big Screens” (and they are still out there, are using DLP chips of HD resolution. The concept of “wobulation” seems useful, and it seems to be about what JVC’s doing here, but for the 90 degree angle shift. But, ultimately it comes down to 1:1 pixel mapping. As soon as you stop doing that, you have some blurring. You cannot get 4K out of a 2D device, the pixels are too large. If the JVC could support a 4K input, the end result would be far closer in appearance to 2K, then it could be to 4K. Just draw out some pixels patterns and see what happens. ie. alternating columns of red, green and blue, each one pixel wide. That is simple enough, yet even there some problems become obvious. Once you start getting complex, more issues. But, you do get to effectively hide all the pixel structure giving a smoother image. But then, so does defocusing the lens slightly, but, best I can tell, no one’s calling that 4K… Like I said, ultimately the image is very sharp, as good as any non-DLP we reviewed, but I still don’t think it’s quite as sharp as the best 1080p DLP’s. -art

By: Matt P

Matt P — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:42:28 +0000

Is JVC’s technique any different from the wobulation technique used in most rear projection DLP sets? From what I read, I figured it was wobulation, and from my understanding, this has generally been considered a technique that gives resolution equal to double the pixels. Typically it was only in one dimension, say 960×1080, and it doubles the effective pixels from 960 to 1920. From what I gather, JVC shifts at an angle, in order to give the effect of double the pixels more H and V. Is there where the concern is? Is it simply the use of wobulation at all? If thats the case, then no DLP rear projection set ever made could have been consisered HD. If I recall correctly, reviews of the RPTV’s also showed they could resolve 1080P images perfectly fine, no evident loss of resolution from the technique.