Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmone]

Here is a good read on perceived resolutions for Screen Size / Seating Distance - http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

[Hendrik]

Those charts are all nice and everything, but I can sit on my couch and when I really concentrate, I can make out the pixel grid on my 1080p TV. Of course that vanishes if there is any kind of motion, but the fact that I can see individual pixels is a clear indicator that the resolution is not high enough yet.

Of course 4K is not ready for buying yet, but that's another matter entirely.

[glynor]

Those charts are all nice and everything, but I can sit on my couch and when I really concentrate, I can make out the pixel grid on my 1080p TV. Of course that vanishes if there is any kind of motion, but the fact that I can see individual pixels is a clear indicator that the resolution is not high enough yet.

I think the increase in resolution is largely a marketing ploy.  I don't know if it'll work, though I strongly suspect that it will "work" in basically the same way 3D "worked": All TVs will eventually be 4k, but it won't lead to a massive avalanche of sales as people upgrade existing, working sets.  That's a failure as far as the TV manufacturers are concerned, however...

The UHD standard is not just about the dubious higher resolution, and I think far beyond the resolution (which is easy to explain to lay people) this is what most people will "see" when they claim to see the difference between 1080p and 2160p.  There are two other, much more important, changes coming with UHD:

1. Die, interlacing, die.  I don't think much needs to be said here, but there is no more i.  Yay!

2. Rec 2020 has a dramatically increased color space (~76% of CIE 1931 as opposed to ~36%).  This will, in my opinion, lead to the biggest perceptual change in "quality" with 4k native content.  That's what you'll see.  Of course, this will also mean that some lower-end TVs will do terrible things to older 480/720/1080 content in the older color space.  So, it is a double-edge sword.

If it gets a bad rep, leading to failure, it will be that last point.  High end TVs will have nice conversion engines.  Low end TVs like the Sceptre's and crap sold at the local Walmart or Costco?  We'll see, but I'm skeptical.  They could end up shooting themselves in the foot with their cheap sets, which will give the whole thing a stink.

[6233638]

Here is a good read on perceived resolutions for Screen Size / Seating Distance - http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png

I could go into detail about why that chart is wrong, but let's just say that flawed assumptions were used when creating the chart (the idea that you should be able to discern individual pixels) data from more recent studies was ignored, and that viewing distances should be at least twice what that chart indicates.

[glynor]

I could go into detail about why that chart is wrong, but let's just say that flawed assumptions were used when creating the chart (the idea that you should be able to discern individual pixels) data from more recent studies was ignored, and that viewing distances should be at least twice what that chart indicates.

I agree that the chart is a dramatic oversimplification.

That said, there is still very little or no benefit to 4K TVs with current typical display size and seating arrangements.  I also think it is unlikely that we'll see a further dramatic increase in typical display sizes, as you're hitting the limits of what can comfortably fit in rooms.  And, people just don't want to sit that close.

Color gamut matters.  2160p might look better, but the improvement is very marginal until you get to "theater" sized displays.  Certainly not something that the unwashed masses will throw away their working TVs to get.

And that has been the goal of all of the "waves" of "next big things" in display technology (4K the latest in a long string).  Reclaim the "glory days" of the first HD upgrade cycle.  It isn't likely to come again anytime soon (or, at least, not from any of this stuff).

[Matt]

as you're hitting the limits of what can comfortably fit in rooms.  And, people just don't want to sit that close.

I watch on an almost 10 foot screen.  It's awesome.

[glynor]

I watch on an almost 10 foot screen.  It's awesome.

Yeah, I've been known to do that too, sitting "way too close", but we're weird.

[6233638]

That said, there is still very little or no benefit to 4K TVs with current typical display size and seating arrangements.  I also think it is unlikely that we'll see a further dramatic increase in typical display sizes, as you're hitting the limits of what can comfortably fit in rooms.  And, people just don't want to sit that close.

I think it depends on what you consider "typical display size and seating arrangements".
Outside the US, most homes are considerably smaller, so you aren't sitting 15ft away from your TV.
The screens may also be smaller, but relative to the viewing distance are often the same size, and possibly even larger now, considering that displays usually jump from 46" to 55/58" rather than 50" and then from 55" to 65" now.
 
A friend recently upgraded from a 46" 1080p display to a 65" 4K one, and he was a bit underwhelmed.
Not because the difference was so small, but because the pixels are still clearly visible on the display to him, because the size upgrade brought the pixel density back down to about 65 PPI - which isn't that much better than the ~50 PPI he had before. He has had five replacement displays now (yes, really) because they all had dead/stuck pixels that were obvious from his seating position. (along with other issues)
Eventually he dropped from the X-series Sony to the W-series since it uses an IPS panel instead, and while the contrast isn't as good it didn't have most of the defects the other sets did.
 

Color gamut matters. 2160p might look better, but the improvement is very marginal until you get to "theater" sized displays.  Certainly not something that the unwashed masses will throw away their working TVs to get.

I agree that color gamut is a big deal. That, and moving beyond 8-bit to accommodate it. (8-bit wide gamut content is rough)
The current HDMI 2.0 specs are very discouraging. Hopefully HDMI 2.1 or 2.2 will sort things out.
 

And that has been the goal of all of the "waves" of "next big things" in display technology (4K the latest in a long string).  Reclaim the "glory days" of the first HD upgrade cycle.  It isn't likely to come again anytime soon (or, at least, not from any of this stuff).

Manufacturers fail to realize that the big surge in TV sales was nothing to do with HD or 1080p, but simply due to flat panels becoming cheap enough that people could afford to replace their bulky CRTs with one.
Things like size, image quality, and resolution were secondary to that.
 
Unless there is something truly revolutionary—which 3D, curved displays, OLED, wide gamuts, or 3mm thin displays are not—I doubt it will happen again.

[glynor]

Things like size, image quality, and resolution were secondary to that.
 
Unless there is something truly revolutionary—which 3D, curved displays, OLED, wide gamuts, or 3mm thin displays are not—I doubt it will happen again.

+1

[ferday]

 
Unless there is something truly revolutionary—which 3D, curved displays, OLED, wide gamuts, or 3mm thin displays are not—I doubt it will happen again.

i can't find my link to the study, but one of the big makers (IIRC LG) did a big study on what consumers wanted.  the consensus was basically a projecter screen, that could be hung or transported anywhere, but was in actuality a functional TV.  if we could really turn a wall into a TV in minutes, i think the majority of people would jump on the bandwagon even if it went back to 480p

i run a full 12 foot screen with my HDPJ and with my somewhat far viewing distance i don't get any horrifying images or screen door even with 480 TV.  certainly 1080 is much better but i would really hesitate to use overwhelming to describe the difference.  i'm hesitant about 4k and it won't be affordable in projection for quite some time yet...

[JimH]

I think we will see rolls of paper that can be applied to walls to make real TV displays (not projectors) within the next decade.  Imagine even a small room, with three walls papered.

On 4K, I can clearly see the difference at Best Buy.  There are no pixels visible.  I want one.

And then there are the curved TV's that Samsung offers.  Interesting.  I'm not tempted yet.

[glynor]

I think we will see rolls of paper that can be applied to walls to make real TV displays (not projectors) within the next decade.  Imagine even a small room, with three walls papered.

I think paint is more likely.  But either.  Or windows, perhaps.

But, honestly...  I find I use my large display less and less.  I like it, and it still commands the "place of honor" in my living room.  But, I'm old.  I grew up in the "TV" era... I suspect we're moving away from large-scale, fixed devices entirely.  For them to remain viable, they will have to become more integrated into the living space and serve multiple purposes (like wallpaper or paint would).

[stewart_pk]

This change in MC20 should let you automatically use an external player for 3D:

NEW: Possible to configure external playback on the file type bdmv3d

Thanks for the effort and I do have external players (PowerDVD, TMT) but this doesn't really offer me anything in my setup.

[fitbrit]

This change in MC20 should let you automatically use an external player for 3D:

NEW: Possible to configure external playback on the file type bdmv3d

Jim, the problem with TMT is that audio sync continually goes awry with 3D bluRays. Other 3rd party players are similarly afflicted. It's a compliment to MC that I don't want to use any other software for any of my media if at all possible. They simply are not as good as MC, and that's really the only reason I want 3d in MC.
Glasses free 3d sets are around the corner. I think 3d will see a resurgence soon when that happens. SkyTV systems are committing to Ultra-D 3d as their broadcast standard.
For me, my 120" screen (from under 10 ft away), seats with tactile transducers, and 3D makes the most immersive viewing experience I've ever had.

[6233638]

I think paint is more likely.  But either.  Or windows, perhaps.

No, I think that's far less likely.
It's a lot easier to build a rollable display (like a motorized projection screen, only it's the TV) than it would be to have you "paint" your display on the wall—unless you're talking about painting a projection surface.
 
Windows as a display is a novel idea, and there have been demos of this, but my concern would be the constant exposure to sunlight breaking it down, broadcasting what you're watching to the world, uniformity problems caused by uneven lighting (if you're using the sun for light) or trying to block out the sunlight with the display, if you aren't. (the sun is really bright compared to what our TVs can do)

But, honestly...  I find I use my large display less and less.  I like it, and it still commands the "place of honor" in my living room.  But, I'm old.  I grew up in the "TV" era... I suspect we're moving away from large-scale, fixed devices entirely.  For them to remain viable, they will have to become more integrated into the living space and serve multiple purposes (like wallpaper or paint would).

I find that projectors are a less social viewing experience, and while I like watching movies in pitch darkness on really high contrast displays, for casual watching or computer use, I prefer to be in a well-lit room as long as there is no light directly reflecting off the display.
 
I would prefer a projection-sized OLED display to an actual projector.
We're getting there with 75" and larger flat panels:

An older shot showing the full room with the previous 52" display
 
The main problem is cost. It's relatively inexpensive to have a huge projection setup, but extremely expensive for a flat panel that size.
You are making a lot of compromises with the projector though.

i run a full 12 foot screen with my HDPJ and with my somewhat far viewing distance i don't get any horrifying images or screen door even with 480 TV.  certainly 1080 is much better but i would really hesitate to use overwhelming to describe the difference.  i'm hesitant about 4k and it won't be affordable in projection for quite some time yet...

Projectors have a much softer image than a flat panel display though, and the optics help mask the screen-door, rather than just softening the image.
SDE is dependent on the resolution of the display, not the source material.
 
The only projectors that are truly sharp, are the high-end single-chip DLPs, since they do not suffer from convergence issues, and high-end glass optics put out a pretty sharp image with little chromatic aberration.
There was a really nice Samsung a few years back that Joe Kane worked on - one of the best examples of this.
It's still much softer than a flat-panel of equal size though, and SDE is a common complaint with DLP. (since they're actually sharp)
 
Even though it's one of the softer projectors (one of the reasons I didn't keep it) my old 1080p Sony SXRD had obvious screendoor on a 10ft screen.

And then there are the curved TV's that Samsung offers.  Interesting.  I'm not tempted yet.

A curve makes sense with 21:9 displays once it is large enough that it's almost reaching your peripheral vision.
It doesn't make any sense on a small 16:9 flat panel, and exacerbates the viewing-angle problem that LCDs have if you aren't buying one of the OLED panels. (of which LG are the only manufacturer now)
And if it's a smaller 16:9 OLED, then you're really just adding distortion to the image.
 
This is probably the only television where having a curved display actually makes sense: http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/64595

[ferday]

 
The only projectors that are truly sharp, are the high-end single-chip DLPs, since they do not suffer from convergence issues, and high-end glass optics put out a pretty sharp image with little chromatic aberration.
There was a really nice Samsung a few years back that Joe Kane worked on - one of the best examples of this.
It's still much softer than a flat-panel of equal size though, and SDE is a common complaint with DLP. (since they're actually sharp)
 
64595[/url]

That's true and probably why I like projection, it is more like 'going to the movies'...or maybe I'm just old and the new resolution craze doesn't do it for me

I used to make projectors when LED was only (commonly) in computer applications, and commercial pj's were really expensive.  I've experimented with many optics and such, back then there was no 1080 content so the quest was always getting the best DVD image.  I guess I just don't care about infinite resolution very much, film always seemed so "real" to me and DIY projection was my only tv source for many years

[glynor]

No, I think that's far less likely.
It's a lot easier to build a rollable display (like a motorized projection screen, only it's the TV) than it would be to have you "paint" your display on the wall—unless you're talking about painting a projection surface.

You misunderstood (because I didn't explain) what I meant by more likely.  I didn't mean "more likely to come first".  I meant "more likely to completely replace current tech".

Large-scale rollable displays, used as wall coverings, are likely to be developed.  They ARE in development now (as are self-organizing nano-paints).  Unfortunately, they will also be incredibly expensive, not just in the short term, but likely permanently.  There are a variety of issues, but the main one is:

They will almost certainly be incredibly fragile and easy-to-damage during installation.  Once installed, I think they'll be able to make them quite robust (eventually), but because of the power delivery and control requirements for building a large-scale array of "strips" it is very unlikely that we will see "install it yourself" versions of these anytime remotely soon.  Of course, some revolution could happen, but the stuff in development now certainly has these issues.

That means, professional installation is required.
That means, it'll be a < 1% of households thing, for the foreseeable future.

Paintable displays could solve this issue, by and large.  Of course, we're talking about things nowhere near production ready, so they may never come to fruition at all.  But... It isn't as far-fetched as it sounds.  All I can say is people I trust, who would have reason to know, have told me as much.

[6233638]

You misunderstood (because I didn't explain) what I meant by more likely.  I didn't mean "more likely to come first".  I meant "more likely to completely replace current tech".

The logistics of being able to literally paint a display on a surface seem like something which is unlikely to ever happen.
I just can't fathom how that would work at all.

They will almost certainly be incredibly fragile and easy-to-damage during installation.  Once installed, I think they'll be able to make them quite robust (eventually), but because of the power delivery and control requirements for building a large-scale array of "strips" it is very unlikely that we will see "install it yourself" versions of these anytime remotely soon.  Of course, some revolution could happen, but the stuff in development now certainly has these issues.

Think of it like a motorized, tab-tensioned projection screen.
All the electronics are in the base, and the screen rolls down from it. (or up)
If you can hang a roller blind, you could install one of these displays. It would arguably be easier than wall-mounting a flat panel.

[JimH]

I think something like flexible OLED will make a lot of interesting things possible. 

[glynor]

Think of it like a motorized, tab-tensioned projection screen.
All the electronics are in the base, and the screen rolls down from it. (or up)
If you can hang a roller blind, you could install one of these displays. It would arguably be easier than wall-mounting a flat panel.

If they can pull that off, perhaps.  But the current tech is flexible only to a point, and certainly cannot be rolled even once, much less repeatedly.  Each pixel needs wiring.

I could certainly be wrong.  Very little of this is based on first-hand knowledge, but... As I said, people whom I know and trust well have worked on these exact technologies in research, are pretty skeptical that flexible OLED will ever get there, like people widely envision.

I don't profess to fully understand how the paint thing would work, but I believe the designs are for a self-organizing mesh network of individual pixels.  They organize themselves into a "display" after application.  I don't understand how power would get to the pixels at all, though (and perhaps that is the biggest stumbling block, in addition to simple miniaturization and manufacturing process, which is always the rub).

[6233638]

If they can pull that off, perhaps.  But the current tech is flexible only to a point, and certainly cannot be rolled even once, much less repeatedly.  Each pixel needs wiring.

There have been prototypes demonstrated of completely rollable OLED displays - not just flexible ones.
 
And it only has to roll up/down once every so often when you actually want to move the display, not every time. (though I can see why people might want that too)
 
Obviously durability needs work, but this was 4 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OvTLg4i2_U
LG demonstrated an 18" rollable display earlier this year.

[bblue]

I watch TV and movies in our theater with a 110" (diagonal, 8' wide) Stewart screen, with a JVC RS-2 DILA projector.  Long before that I had three (different) of the Sony SXRD's which I eventually ruled as unacceptable due to convergence issues on each one.

The screen is a micro-perf type so that the center channel speaker system can be behind it.  At my ten foot viewing distance, the detail is excellent.  At that, if you concentrate you can see the pattern of the micro-perf in the background of the projected image, at roughly the same visibility of the 1080p screen matrix.  It doesn't seriously interfere with picture detail, the difference between 1080i and 1080p (upconverted or originating) is significant and obvious.  Blu-Ray or other 1080p full bandwidth source is spectacular and obviously superior to any lesser format.  480p is all but unwatchable, as are regular DVD's, tapes, etc.

As Jim said, the good 4k's are quite superior.  Even if only correctly upsampled 1080i/p is the source the pixels are so much smaller the detail appears to improve considerably.  Quality of and the algorithms used in the upsampling are key.  And native 4k can be amazing if the originating source is top quality.

But what I've noticed over the years, is that of all the people we've had over to watch a movie or three, none but one of them could actually read text on the screen from a Windows desktop at 1080p.  Glasses or not.  To me (I wear HD lense-type glasses), everything is sharp, clean and perfectly readable, (the movie info overlay on MC's Theater mode, for example, or text under desktop icons).

I don't think many folks realize how limited their vision is, and many of the docs doing the vision exams don't really press for detail (astigmatism correction as well) from their patients.  It slips away from you slowly and until you can really A/B what you're missing, your evaluation/opinion of the difference between 1080i/1080p/4k on good display equipment just isn't going to be accurate.  You just can't see the detail.

For me, 4k on the projector is next up, and I'd *really* would like to get rid of the micro-perf screen for a solid one, but the center channel presents quite a problem, since it would have to be relocated somewhere else (there just aren't that many options).  We have an older Philips rear-projection 64" set in the living room, but it's 1080i only and while really nice in its time (1998) it's not up to snuff now.  It can be replaced with a Sharp 70" 4k flat panel in the same opening, and that would be really nice.  Soon.

--Bill

[JimH]

Nice post.  Thanks.

I looked at 4K at Best Buy again today.  They had two TV's, side by side, 4K and 1080p.  I looked at them from about 10'.  It is a very clear difference.  There is no question whether the difference can be seen.  One has pixels.  One doesn't.

My vision is uncorrected, and it's pretty good for an age challenged person.  I can still pass the flight physicals without glasses for distance.  Reading is a different thing.  I'm lost in a restaurant with dim light unless I have glasses.

[6233638]

480p is all but unwatchable, as are regular DVD's, tapes, etc.

If you aren't already, you should use Red October HQ/madVR.
Configured to the higher quality scaling settings (i.e. NNEDI3) the results with lower quality content can be quite surprising.
Your SD material has to come from a good source though and be unconverted. (DVD to MPEG4 is an obvious degradation at this size)

But what I've noticed over the years, is that of all the people we've had over to watch a movie or three, none but one of them could actually read text on the screen from a Windows desktop at 1080p.  Glasses or not.  To me (I wear HD lense-type glasses), everything is sharp, clean and perfectly readable, (the movie info overlay on MC's Theater mode, for example, or text under desktop icons).

I don't think many folks realize how limited their vision is, and many of the docs doing the vision exams don't really press for detail (astigmatism correction as well) from their patients.  It slips away from you slowly and until you can really A/B what you're missing, your evaluation/opinion of the difference between 1080i/1080p/4k on good display equipment just isn't going to be accurate.  You just can't see the detail.

At least part of this is your projector.
3-chip projectors, the older JVCs in particular, are very soft.
 
Spot the DLP:

(JVC RS1, RS20, RS35, Samsung A900B)

RS20:


A900B:

Reading is a different thing.  I'm lost in a restaurant with dim light unless I have glasses.

That's just due to age (Presbyopia) so there isn't much to be concerned about.

[fitbrit]

For me, 4k on the projector is next up, and I'd *really* would like to get rid of the micro-perf screen for a solid one, but the center channel presents quite a problem, since it would have to be relocated somewhere else (there just aren't that many options).  

I had the same dilemma. I ended up using 4 centre speakers - 2 above the screen, and two below. They're wired in series-parallel, so they present a total 8 Ohm load to the receiver. Dialogue sounds like it's coming from the upper centre of the screen

[bblue]

If you aren't already, you should use Red October HQ/madVR.
Configured to the higher quality scaling settings (i.e. NNEDI3) the results with lower quality content can be quite surprising.
Your SD material has to come from a good source though and be unconverted. (DVD to MPEG4 is an obvious degradation at this size)

I've never tried MC for 480x source and it's been awhile since I've viewed any 480p (other than an occasional 480i broadcast upconvert I get stuck with watching).  But last I did was a professionally produced 480p video on DVD played on a player with pro SDI output directly into my video processor, then driving the projector at 1080p.  That was 'ok', but still coarse.  Sending to projector direct without conversion in the video processor wasn't quite as sharp, but close.

Regarding people's visual acuity not being as good as they think it is (or that it should be):

At least part of this is your projector.
3-chip projectors, the older JVCs in particular, are very soft.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with people squinting or moving forward a couple of feet (or more) to read what I am clearly reading at my 10' position.

Spot the DLP:

(JVC RS1, RS20, RS35, Samsung A900B)

RS20:


A900B:

In those pictures there are significant and obvious differences.  However, the first three are both out of registration and focus.  The accompanying windows screen shot for the RS20 is not of any one of the individual units shown, but also one out of registration and focus.  (the color offsets are reversed between sets).  I've spent much time tweaking RS-2's (especially) and found for focus, you focus for sharpest screen not fonts, and you pick a projector with good registration (where the individual colors are right on top of each other through the majority of the screen.  It's a manufacturing tolerance issue.

I've watched an a900b before, but it looked like most DLP's to me.  Sharp, but a flawed overall presentation in terms of color uniformity and tracking.  I didn't like the auto iris activity either.  But that may be just me.     Since Samsung doesn't appear to be in the projector business anymore (no new projectors), I'll probably stick to the JVC line.  On one of those with the Stewart true-white screen, color rendition is excellent, detail is very good, and even subtle variations in source are quite obvious.  But I'm open-minded.  If something comes along that is superior in all regards, I have no reason not to change.

Regarding help with reading glasses:

That's just due to age (Presbyopia) so there isn't much to be concerned about.

It may be just that, but may not as well.  Mine is partially Presbyopia, but mostly astigmatism.  Uncorrected astigmatism is like viewing two separate images (per eye) that are not lined up with each other, either vertically, horizontally, both, or some combination.  Even if your vision is crystal clear (no Presbyopia or Myopia) you still see a very confused or fuzzy looking image.  Sometimes you can tilt your head one way or the other and see an improvement, depending on the angles.  I went to a total of three ophthalmologists before (finally) the third one really GOT good vision and how to really dial in the settings to achieve it.  He did so by listening to how I described what I saw in various tests and recognized what they were caused by.

Now, for just plain reading I can get by with medium reading glasses (1.75 I think), but for real detail, I need correction of both.

--Bill

[bblue]

I had the same dilemma. I ended up using 4 centre speakers - 2 above the screen, and two below. They're wired in series-parallel, so they present a total 8 Ohm load to the receiver. Dialogue sounds like it's coming from the upper centre of the screen

Yeah, something like that would be my only recourse, but!... The screen rolls up to the ceiling when not in use, so there's no place for an upper center speaker, and a lower only puts the point of origin too low.  Right in the face of those in the front row of seats, and somewhat buried for those in the back row.

Also, the phantom center produced by two top/bottom or l/r speakers, is decidedly 'softer', less of a point-source.  That center is supposed to be full range for dialog and effects/music so is large.  I don't really want to go with just narrow range dialog in the center because you lose a lot of impact in some shows.  Oh well.  I'll maybe figure out some workable solution.

[6233638]

In those pictures there are significant and obvious differences.  However, the first three are both out of registration and focus.  The accompanying windows screen shot for the RS20 is not of any one of the individual units shown, but also one out of registration and focus.  (the color offsets are reversed between sets).  I've spent much time tweaking RS-2's (especially) and found for focus, you focus for sharpest screen not fonts, and you pick a projector with good registration (where the individual colors are right on top of each other through the majority of the screen.  It's a manufacturing tolerance issue.

The site claimed that they were focused as well as could be, and were in favor of the JVCs.
The difference between a single-chip DLP, and three-chip D-ILA is significant.
Here is an image taken from a different RS35 which shows the same softness as all LCoS-based projectors I have used.
It's worth mentioning that LCoS seems to have difficulty displaying 1px-wide lines. Once you get to 2px wide (like this image) it looks much sharper.
 

 
SXRD is generally a bit sharper than D-ILA, but still puts out a soft image - assuming you even get a projector with good convergence that is.
 
Here are shots from my old SXRD. (P.S. never buy a Sony SXRD projector - if you want LCoS, buy a JVC)
Again, note that these are 2px thick, the 1px thick lines in the corner are not well resolved at all.
 
No Correction, 1px Correction, 0.1px Correction:

 
JVC Projectors, at the time anyway, only offered full 1px correction rather than subpixel correction.
While it doesn't look good in test patterns, subpixel correction is significantly better with actual images.

I've watched an a900b before, but it looked like most DLP's to me.  Sharp, but a flawed overall presentation in terms of color uniformity and tracking.  I didn't like the auto iris activity either.  But that may be just me.    Since Samsung doesn't appear to be in the projector business anymore (no new projectors), I'll probably stick to the JVC line.  On one of those with the Stewart true-white screen, color rendition is excellent, detail is very good, and even subtle variations in source are quite obvious.  But I'm open-minded.  If something comes along that is superior in all regards, I have no reason not to change.

DLP should have much better uniformity than liquid crystal-based designs. (LCD/LCoS)
Single-chip projectors do have temporal issues, but if you can ignore them you get a much sharper, more uniform image.
 
On-Off contrast is a lot better on the JVCs, though ANSI contrast is much better on DLPs.
It's the lack of sharpness more than anything else that I dislike about them. If they were able to sort that, or offer some kind of manual panel adjustment rather than software-based correction, I'd probably own one.

The accompanying windows screen shot for the RS20 is not of any one of the individual units shown, but also one out of registration and focus.  (the color offsets are reversed between sets)

It's probably just taken from the other side of the screen.

[astromo]

Here is a good read on perceived resolutions for Screen Size / Seating Distance - http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Hey jmone, do you think you could get that chart in metric? All that feet stuff does my head in?   

[bblue]

The site claimed that they were focused as well as could be, and were in favor of the JVCs.
The difference between a single-chip DLP, and three-chip D-ILA is significant.
Here is an image taken from a different RS35 which shows the same softness as all LCoS-based projectors I have used.
It's worth mentioning that LCoS seems to have difficulty displaying 1px-wide lines. Once you get to 2px wide (like this image) it looks much sharper.
 

The only time I've seen line thicknesses as wide as some of those pictured, it was because the pj was not properly focused.  It's really easy to miss the mark if not watching very closely.  And you have to take all colors into consideration in the screen center and other target areas.  Usually, you can find a point where at least two of the colors are razor sharp -- well within one pixel width horizontally and vertically -- with one a little softer.  I'm sure it varies from pj to pj, but that's how my RS-2u behaves.  Three being razor sharp, would be ideal, of course.

I was looking at this year's models (RS49u, RS4910u, RS57u, RS67u and RS6710u) and they all have convergence adjustments to 1/16 pixel width, 6th generation LCoS Panels (same .7" size), but include native 4k input and a very clever method of upshifting 1080p content to 4k display (called eShift3) that is very convincing and with no introduced artifacts.

In looking at some other projectors, including some DLP's, the biggest deal breaker is the position of my projector relative to my screen, 144" back for a 110" screen.  The JVC seems to be the only one with sufficient zoom range to operate full screen in that configuration.  So that seems to greatly reduce my upgrade possibilities.  I'm currently leaning toward the RS57u with a native contrast of 120,000:1 and dynamic contrast of 1,200,000:1.  Though it might be worth waiting a few more months for next years' models to see what changes.

[bulldogger]

The screen is a micro-perf type so that the center channel speaker system can be behind it.  At my ten foot viewing distance, the detail is excellent.  At that, if you concentrate you can see the pattern of the micro-perf in the background of the projected image, at roughly the same visibility of the 1080p screen matrix.  It doesn't seriously interfere with picture detail, the difference between 1080i and 1080p (upconverted or originating) is significant and obvious. But what I've noticed over the years, is that of all the people we've had over to watch a movie or three, none but one of them could actually read text on the screen from a Windows desktop at 1080p.  Glasses or not.  To me (I wear HD lense-type glasses), everything is sharp, clean and perfectly readable, (the movie info overlay on MC's Theater mode, for example, or text under desktop icons).

For me, 4k on the projector is next up, and I'd *really* would like to get rid of the micro-perf screen for a solid one, but the center channel presents quite a problem, since it would have to be relocated somewhere else (there just aren't that many options). --Bill

The only AT screen that really does not have visible perforations or pattern is the Screen Excellence Enlightor 4K. It's a microfiber, and has a much smoother surface than woven type screens. The downside is that it is very low gain. IF you have a bright enough projector, it's as close as you can get to a screen being AT and at the same time looking like a sold screen. See if you can get a fabric sample and compare it to your microperf.