Also, something to be aware off.
Projectors can't do HDR.
They just don't have the brightness, and they might never have it. Just adding a more powerful light source will destroy black levels, and thus any point of HDR.
They can, you just need to spend hundreds of thousands to get it. Go see a Dolby Cinema (dual stack Christie 4K laser), it blows all TV's & projectors out of the water by today's standards. If you are ever in Holland the one in Hilversum is spectacular. Or if you ever fancy a weekend away tie it in with a trip to Amsterdam.
No but it does a clever trick in producing a very convincing full resolution image that from normal viewing distances is hard to distinguish from the native 4K Sony which I tested together for the reviews. So while what you suggest in term of new additional pixels is technically correct, the end result with the Epson and JVC is very good indeed.No, shifting a pixel half a unit diagonally doesn't create '3840 x 2160 resolution'. It creates two overlapping 1920x1080 images. Not the same thing. The overlapping areas don't constitute additional pixels.
Projectors can't do HDR.
...but I'm just guessing.
Try and find a dealer who will give you a home demo is the best bit of advice. However, the Epson would perform well in your room as you describe it as the black floor is obviously raised compared to a bat cave room. The others will also work but as you suggest you will be missing the absolute best in terms of contrast when not used in the optimum environment. Which is why I despair when I see some journalists reviewing these machines in bright white rooms, or rooms with just black around the screen. They deserve to be tested and viewed as intended. A good dealer is hard to find, but home demos would be the best way to actually test.I'm sure this is a stupid question, but it's never stopped me before so...
I have a neutral colour lounge (off white, slightly darker), so does that mean it's pointless looking for a projector with decent blacks? The Tw7300 looks really promising, but I can stretch to something more expensive (say with a better contrast ratio/shadow detail) but would it actually be beneficial or does the lack of a "bat cave" nullify the difference?
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.No but it does a clever trick in producing a very convincing full resolution image that from normal viewing distances is hard to distinguish from the native 4K Sony which I tested together for the reviews. So while what you suggest in term of new additional pixels is technically correct, the end result with the Epson and JVC is very good indeed.
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.
Yes, I agree that the JVC provides a very good image. Being a pedant, I believe it's important to use terms such as 'resolution' correctly in order to avoid confusion. It doesn't provide 'a very convincing full resolution image'. It provides a non-full resolution image which is hard to distinguish from a full resolution image. If I have a plastic veneer that looks like wood, that doesn't make it wood.