BenQ W11500 4k UHD HDR DLP projector

[Ruined]

Really excited about this one! Finally an affordable 4K UHD HDR projector that has 8.3M (4k) active pixels!

What we know so far:

* Launching Q4 2017

Specs:
* TI 4K UHD XPR 0.67" DMD
* CTA and PMA true 4K UHD certified
* Input resolution: 3840x2160
* Native resolution: 2716x1528
* Pixel-shifted optical composite resolution: 5432x3056
* 8.3M active pixels (about same number of pixels a native 3840x2160 display would have, but with overlap so not quite as precise)

New confirmed features of 2nd gen 4k dlp:
* HDR, likely HDR10
* Better dynamic iris, likely to reduce/eliminate iris pumping artifacts noted in reviews of 1st gen W11000

What will likely stay the same:
* Same chassis, lens, basic design of W11000/HT8050
* Rec709 colorspace, apparently a limitation of consumer lamp-based DLP (due to issue of color wheel + P3 filter) - will tone map bt2020 to rec709

What we don't know yet:
* 3D - but probably won't have this
* Lumens/contrast - but probably will be in same ballpark as W11000, perhaps improved if lightpath is optimized further. Likely 2200 Lumens, good for up to 160" with tons of brightness. Likely ~4000:1 dynamic on/off contrast, but very high ANSI contrast (much higher than lcd/lcos) for HDR.
* Input lag - likely will be 50-60ms unless low latency game mode is added
* Price - but street price will probably be in $4500 range

*****

This should prove to be an interesting projector to DLP enthusiasts. While it likely won't have a stunning on/off contrast, its high resolution and pixel density should provide enhanced sharpness for this price point vs the competition. Additionally, the high ANSI contrast combined with HDR should offer some stunning performance with HDR 4K UHD BDs.

Might be my next projector!

[DJR662]

No 3D and WCG would already be a dealbreaker for me.

From what I understand, decent HDR implementation on projectors is still a long way off. I was looking to upgrade my Sony VPL-HW55ES with one of the higher end Sony 4K models but ultimately found them just a bit too expensive. Also after reading about lacklustre HDR performance, I dropped the 4K PJ upgrade idea in favour of getting the 65Z9D.

Maybe in a year or two there will be more affordable (Sony) 4K PJs with better HDR performance. If I had the dough, I might have gone with this one:

http://www.sony.com/electronics/projector/vpl-vz1000es

Unfortunately I don't have that kind of money so I'll just wait a couple of more years until something more affordable pops up.

[Ruined]

3D really only works well on DLP projectors IMO. LCD/Lcos either have low refresh rate (under 120hz), crosstalk, or both. DLP is only tech that delivers 3D on par with theaters. I will likely keep my W7000 DLP for 3D and maybe down the line if a 4k DLP with 3d and 0.95" DMD surfaces upgrade to that.

HDR is more important than WCG, IMO, and this has double or more the ANSI contrast of LCD/LCOS projectors. Which means for scenes that make effective HDR usage you will get far better HDR effect than LCD/LCOS projectors where it is kind of dull as you noted. Low ANSI contrast is a limitation of lcd/lcos like low on/off contrast is a limitaton of DLP; although keeping in mind this w11500 will have double the on/off contrast that movie theaters have (movie theaters are limited to 2000:1 on/off contrast by law).

Also note this will accept bt2020 and tone map it to rec 709 so the colors will be correct. LED/laser DLP will additionally offer p3 but also be much more expensive.


So overall not perfect, but looks pretty great if you don't want to wait another 2-3 years.

[DJR662]

I'm quite satisfied with my PJ's 3D performance actually, there's the occasional crosstalk here and there but nothing unacceptable. I've never seen a working home cinema DLP projector though, so I can't comment on that but I can only imagine it must be great having theater quality 3D at home.

Yeah the main issue with Sony 4K PJ HDR performance was a rather dull picture, not comparable at all to the HDR which we're getting from 4K TVs these days. I've read about people switching back to SDR because of that.

It would be interesting to see how things will progress regarding 4K/HDR projectors and also whether 3D will remain a feature present on future projectors. I've never really looked into the possibility of getting a DLP though. I might do some more background reading on it once the time is right to upgrade to a 4K PJ but my 1080p one will have to do for the time being.

[Ruined]

3D is possible with 4k DLP DMD but a significant expense and at this time they are trying to hit lower price points instead. 3d on a decent dlp is literally perfect - high refresh, literally zero crosstalk.

At this point 4k dlp is bringing to the table more exciting and contrasty HDR through high ANSI contrast and 8.3M active pixels which normally costs 10k with competing tech (under 10k jvc/epson "4k" eshift projectors only have 4.1M pixels which is more like 3k, and fail cta 4k uhd certification)

In summary, Lcos has a more contrasty picture for SDR while DLP has more contrast for HDR.

Wcg is nice but keep in mind p3 is not full Wcg. You need led or rgb laser for full bt2020 Wcg. So in reality we are probably still 5 years away from 4K projectors that meet the UHDBD spec to fullest extent and also cost under $10k.

[Mobe1969]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but what is the downside of their existing model, the the certified, 3D, DLP uhd projector, the w11000?
I did search the forum, but had no hits.

[HDTV1080P]

That DLP projector only has a native 2716 x 1528 resolution, therefore all 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray discs would be downscaled to the projectors native resolution which is somewhere between 1080P and 4K Ultra HD quality.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

That DLP projector only has a native 2716 x 1528 resolution, therefore all 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray discs would be downscaled to the projectors native resolution which is somewhere between 1080P and 4K Ultra HD quality.

Ah right. So they aren't using some sort of interlacing style trick to do all pixels.

Same deal with the X12000?

I guess I might just wait until their is a full UHD pixel array. Shame it isn't there yet

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

That DLP projector only has a native 2716 x 1528 resolution, therefore all 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray discs would be downscaled to the projectors native resolution which is somewhere between 1080P and 4K Ultra HD quality.

This is not correct. For *all* consumer 4k DLP projectors the native is 2716x1528, yes. (except for Barco's $50k 4k projectors that use an 0.95" 2560x1600 DMD) But it is displayed and shifted 2x per frame, for an optical composite resolution of 5432x3056 and a total of 8.3 million pixels as I noted in the specs above. The algorithm takes the 3840x2160 input and manipulates the pixels in the 2 subframes of that optical composite to very closely approximate a native 4k signal (not the same as, but kind of like super sampling anti aliasing on video cards). It is not 100% exact, but it is extremely close. In fact, it trades blows with the $15k native 4k Sony LCOS projectors depending on the scene. It actually looks better than the native 4k Sony on some content as there are no panel alignment artifacts with single chip DLP unlike LCOS.

You can scroll about halfway down this link to see comparison close-up pictures of the Acer v9800 (4k DLP, similar to W11500) vs the Epson TW9300 (euro version of 5040UB) and vs the Sony VW550 (native 4k).

http://cine4home.de/test-premiere-ac...eback-von-dlp/

In summary, the DLP 4k tech completely destroys the Epson in every picture. In the two vs. the Sony, the Sony shows some more microdetail in the first shot, but in the 2nd shot the DLP shows about the same microdetail but has tons less artifacting due to no panel alignment errors. So a draw. Not bad for 1/4th the price! And this is why the tech was CTA-certified as true 4K UHD despite not being native 4k.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Ah right. So they aren't using some sort of interlacing style trick to do all pixels.

See my above post

Same deal with the X12000?

I guess I might just wait until their is a full UHD pixel array. Shame it isn't there yet

You are going to be waiting a long, long time. The X12000 and all consumer DLPs will use this tech which is certified by CTA as true 4K UHD despite not being native 4k, even the $60,000 Barco Loki DLP uses it. Native 4k pixel array is too dense for a consumer DLP under $10,000. If they use native 4k contrast will be terrible because it will be too many micromirrors in too small of a space. That is why they came out with this chip in the first place for consumer displays and not a native 4k. A native 4k array has existed for a while for pro, but the chip is 4x the surface area of this one (0.67" vs 1.38") and requires a massive expensive lens - cheapest projector using it is over $100,000.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Ruined

See my above post



You are going to be waiting a long, long time. The X12000 and all consumer DLPs will use this tech which is certified by CTA as true 4K UHD despite not being native 4k, even the $60,000 Barco Loki DLP uses it. Native 4k pixel array is too dense for a consumer DLP under $10,000. If they use native 4k contrast will be terrible because it will be too many micromirrors in too small of a space. That is why they came out with this chip in the first place for consumer displays and not a native 4k. A native 4k array has existed for a while for pro, but the chip is 4x the surface area of this one (0.67" vs 1.38") and requires a massive expensive lens - cheapest projector using it is over $100,000.

So the E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD isn't a real 3840x2160 either?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

So the E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD isn't a real 3840x2160 either?

Nope it uses XPR, same native 2716x1528 chip as W11500. Native 4k doesn't make sense for consumer DLP since lens for 1.38" DMD would make projector unaffordable and contrast with native 4k 0.67" DLP would be unwatchable - and xpr looks extremely similar to native 4k. Similar number of pixels projected just not quite as precise; but since no panel alignment errors it competes with native 4k lcos.

Only native 4k is DPI Insight which used the 1.38" pro chip and is $100k. And the 1.38" will never be affordable because the price of the massive lenses needed for the 1.38" is not going to drop.

[img eL]

Que the Sony announcement that will compete against the BenQ W11500
I will be very surprised if Sony lets DLP via BenQ, Optima, Vivitek have this segment all to them selfs.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by img eL

Que the Sony announcement that will compete against the BenQ W11500
I will be very surprised if Sony lets DLP via BenQ, Optima, Vivitek have this segment all to them selfs.

I don't think Sony has anything to compete in the near future but it certainly puts pressure on them to develop something. But if they do so they will cannibalize their $10k+ market which is a problem for them. They will likely try to ride that train as long as possible.

[Mobe1969]

It just seems like the projector market just missed the boat for home theatre. And I got to say I'm pretty annoyed with the deceptive advertising of specs.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

It just seems like the projector market just missed the boat for home theatre. And I got to say I'm pretty annoyed with the deceptive advertising of specs.

If you mean the resolution, it is not deceptive advertising because the CTA (formerly CEA Consumer Electronic Association) certified DLP 4K UHD XPR output as true 4K UHD. These DLPs passed their certification program and has their stamp of approval, can use the official 4K UHD logos, etc, because the output looks similar to native 4k even though it uses a different method to get there. CTA/CEA basically controls the consumer electronics marketing/advertising standards.

So when the DLP manufs advertise these projectors as true 4K UHD, they are correct as per CTA/CEA certification standards. Nothing deceptive about it, at all. On the other hand, Epson/JVC can't advertise their eShift projectors which accept 3840x2160 as true 4K UHD per CTA, nor can they use the 4K UHD logos, etc, because JVC/Epson only produce 4M pixels and come nowhere near native 4k's 8M pixels in image detail.

Projector market did not miss the boat for anyone who feels 80" is *way* too small like myself. 120" is where I find that image stops looking like a TV set and starts looking like a movie screen.

[HDTV1080P]

This BENQ is not a true 4K Ultra HD DLP projector.The specs would say native 3840 x 2160P.

The projector companies are going in the right direction. It might take a few more years to get low cost native 3840 x 2160P DLP projectors. Some other projector technologies like SXRD and LCD are rumored to be offering true native 3840 x 2160P resolution for under $10,000 as soon as this year.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If you mean the resolution, it is not deceptive advertising because the CTA (formerly CEA Consumer Electronic Association) certified DLP 4K UHD XPR output as true 4K UHD. These DLPs passed their certification program and has their stamp of approval, can use the official 4K UHD logos, etc, because the output looks similar to native 4k even though it uses a different method to get there. CTA/CEA basically controls the consumer electronics marketing/advertising standards.

So when the DLP manufs advertise these projectors as true 4K UHD, they are correct as per CTA/CEA certification standards. Nothing deceptive about it, at all. On the other hand, Epson/JVC can't advertise their eShift projectors which accept 3840x2160 as true 4K UHD per CTA, nor can they use the 4K UHD logos, etc, because JVC/Epson only produce 4M pixels and come nowhere near native 4k's 8M pixels in image detail.

Projector market did not miss the boat for anyone who feels 80" is *way* too small like myself. 120" is where I find that image stops looking like a TV set and starts looking like a movie screen.

I truly am confused. I see so much conflicting info. Someone on another thread said "E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD that is based on a 1 chip design and it has a native resolution of 3840 x 2160P", but you said no, and I can't read the manufacturer site specs and figure. Irrespective of the CTA info, they really are making it as clear as mud.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

I truly am confused. I see so much conflicting info. Someone on another thread said "E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD that is based on a 1 chip design and it has a native resolution of 3840 x 2160P", but you said no, and I can't read the manufacturer site specs and figure. Irrespective of the CTA info, they really are making it as clear as mud.

I might need to take the time and email Digital Projection INC. Their customer service is excellent and even better then OPPO.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

I truly am confused. I see so much conflicting info. Someone on another thread said "E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD that is based on a 1 chip design and it has a native resolution of 3840 x 2160P", but you said no, and I can't read the manufacturer site specs and figure. Irrespective of the CTA info, they really are making it as clear as mud.

Its not too hard to figure out once you know the DMD details.

There are currently 3 DMDs being manufactured by Texas Instruments for use 4k DLP:

1. 0.67" XPR - 2716x1528 native w/ XPR processing for 4K UHD (consumer & commercial)
2. 0.95" XPR - 2560x1600 native w/ XPR processing for 4K UHD (consumer & commercial)
3. 1.38" - 4096x2160 native (commercial only)

A manufacturer cannot make their own DMD, they have to buy it from Texas Instruments. So it will be one of these three as these are the only three options from TI.

All of the projectors under 50k use #1 including DPI E-Vision Laser, Sim2 Nero4, Optoma UHD65, BenQ W11500, Vivitek HK2288, etc
Barco uses #2 in their Loki laser projector ($60k)
DPI uses #3 in their Insight series (over $100k)

The reason for the extra cost is not just the DMD, but the lens size. The bigger the DMD, the larger, more complex, and much more exponentially expensive the lens becomes - and lenses don't drop in price over time. Sometimes they even increase in price over time.

Regarding the E-Vision UHD Laser, a quick trip to the spec sheet tells the story:
http://www.digitalprojection.co.uk/d...c-u.php?id=862

"Display Type:
1 x 0.67" WQXGA+ TRP UHD DMD™"

This is the giveaway. Texas Instruments has not developed a native 4k 0.67" DMD as the contrast would be abysmal due to micromirrors being too densely packed. The only native 4k DMD that exists is 1.38". You really don't have to read any further than this in the spec sheet to know this projector is not native 4k.

But, there is another giveaway as well:
"Display resolutions 4K-UHD (3840 x 2160)
or WQXGA+ (2716 x 1528)"

So display resolutions, note one option is 2716x1528. This is the same resolution as the 0.67" XPR DMD, and the spec sheet already said it used an 0.67" XPR DMD. This is the projector's native resolution, it is simply saying it is giving you the ability to display XPR and use native resolution. "4K-UHD" mode is simply XPR turned on. There is no way that a projector would randomly pick 2716x1528 as a possible display resolution if it were actually native 4k.

They can call it 4K-UHD without it being native 4k because the output of XPR is so close to native 4k that it passed CTA/CEA certification for true 4K UHD based on the quality of its output and # of pixels being displayed (over 8M pixels displayed per frame, just like native 4k). Thys manufacturers of XPR projectors are free to market them as 4K UHD, use the official 4K UHD logo, etc, because it looks like native 4k even though its not and produces over 8M pixels just like native 4k (and unlike Epson/JVC eShift which only produces 4M).

It looks like DPI also renamed "XPR" to "TRP" to distance themselves from cheaper projectors like the $2500 Optoma UHD65 (instead of this projector's $19999 price) that uses the same DMD, same resolution and same 4K UHD processing technology.

What you are paying extra for with the E-Vision Laser 4K over Optoma UHD65 or BenQ W11500 is not native 4k, you are paying for 3D capability, better video processing (deinterlacing, scaling, etc), and a 4700-7500 lumen solid state light source (depending if you get the high brightness or high contrast model).