Quantcast

Epson TW9400/7400 information

Luminated67

Well-known Member
I wanted say that picture quality of current 4k native projectors are than not that good at all (if it can compare to 2k with nearly zero visible picture difference)
At what point do you sit at 1m from a screen?

The answer is you don’t, in my case I sit 9.5ft from my 100” 16:9 screen and I can tell you that at such distance the human eye struggles to see the difference between the Epson’s 2K and the Sony’s 4K, this is not the same thing as saying there isn’t a difference just that screen/distance is key.
 

Peeto

Active Member
At what point do you sit at 1m from a screen?

The answer is you don’t, in my case I sit 9.5ft from my 100” 16:9 screen and I can tell you that at such distance the human eye struggles to see the difference between the Epson’s 2K and the Sony’s 4K, this is not the same thing as saying there isn’t a difference just that screen/distance is key.
I sit 12.5ft from my 16:9 100" and although quality 1080p is very sharp, I see that 1440p will help a lot and with 4k I will see just a little difference comparing to native 1440p ...definately, my distance is valid for 4k and not 1080p . Btw you sit much closer than myself, so you definately will see huge difference and will benefit from native 4k.
 

Luminated67

Well-known Member
I sit 12.5ft from my 16:9 100" and although quality 1080p is very sharp, I see that 1440p will help a lot and with 4k I will see just a little difference comparing to native 1440p ...definately, my distance is valid for 4k and not 1080p . Btw you sit much closer than myself, so you definately will see huge difference and will benefit from native 4k.
I am telling you that I did a direct comparison with a Sony 360es in my room, the Sony was a mate’s PJ who wanted to see how it compared in my bat cave. We used a HDMI splitter to feed both PJs the same signal and covered each lens to compare, neither of us could see a difference and he said at the end of the comparison that if he knew then what he now knows he would have saved himself a bucket of money and bought the Epson.

Both of us actually had to move to 7ft from the screen before we started to question if we were seeing a difference but by 6ft we were in no doubt the Sony was sharper.
 

Ramberga

Standard Member
I sit 12.5ft from my 16:9 100" and although quality 1080p is very sharp, I see that 1440p will help a lot and with 4k I will see just a little difference comparing to native 1440p ...definately, my distance is valid for 4k and not 1080p . Btw you sit much closer than myself, so you definately will see huge difference and will benefit from native 4k.
Peeto, with all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about.

The human eye's resolution is about 1 arc minute (1/60th of a degree). At 10 feet distance, 1 arc minute equates to 0.035" or 0.09 cm. With a 100" diagonal screen (about 90" or 228cm screen width), that equates to about 2500 pixels across the screen that your eye can see. And, about 1400 pixels vertically. Beyond that, your eye cannot see any more - it is simple trigonometry and vision.

True 4k has about 3800 pixels across your screen. And, about 2160 pixels vertically. You can only see 2500 of them across at 10 feet and 1400 of them vertically at 10 feet. The rest are thrown away by your eye. That's only 3.5 million actually seen of the 8 million generated by true 4k.

Pixel-shifting 2k puts about 3800 pixels across your screen (diagonally). And, about 1080 pixels vertically. That's about 4.2 million pixels generated by a 2k pixel-shift image. This is still more than what a human eye can resolve.


Luminated67 and my visual comparisons between a true 4k and pixel-shifted 2k image simply confirms what mathematics proves.


This data is for a 100" diagonal screen at 10 feet viewing distance. You say that you are even further from your screen. Good luck seeing the difference.
 
Last edited:

Peeto

Active Member
Peeto, with all due respect, you have no clue what you are talking about.

The human eye's resolution is about 1 arc minute (1/60th of a degree). At 10 feet distance, 1 arc minute equates to 0.035" or 0.09 cm. With a 100" diagonal screen (about 90" or 228cm screen width), that equates to about 2500 pixels across the screen that your eye can see. And, about 1400 pixels vertically. Beyond that, your eye cannot see any more - it is simple trigonometry and vision.

True 4k has about 3800 pixels across your screen. And, about 2160 pixels vertically. You can only see 2500 of them across at 10 feet and 1400 of them vertically at 10 feet. The rest are thrown away by your eye. That's only 3.5 million actually seen of the 8 million generated by true 4k.

Pixel-shifting 2k puts about 3800 pixels across your screen (diagonally). And, about 1080 pixels vertically. That's about 4.2 million pixels generated by a 2k pixel-shift image. This is still more than what a human eye can resolve.


Luminated67 and my visual comparisons between a true 4k and pixel-shifted 2k image simply confirms what mathematics proves.


This data is for a 100" diagonal screen at 10 feet viewing distance. You say that you are even further from your screen. Good luck seeing the difference.
No problem man, I can understand, what you are trying to defend. Maths confirm opposit what you say with viewing distance and resolution. You can check and confirm everywhere...You are sitting too close for fhd, you will benefit greatly from 4k. Do not compare epson and sony 4k native projector if its not visible correctly. Perhaps source was not shot in 4k, most uhds are not in 4k res... etc. Perhaps we needs to wait for new generations of native 4k projectors. Compare with free mind different platform like TVs and uhd content. I am playing with uhd 65” tv and uhd discs... difference is markant with uhd and is not comparable on pj (when I simulate 65” screen etc.) I agree that if I will upgrade to native 1440p than difference between this and 4k will be nearly nothing from my viewing distance and eye will not be able to recognizable.
Definately it will help a lot, if those 4mil emulated pixes epson is created will be at least native one and not 2mil +the same 2mil eshifted. I see where its softened because of that. Still I do not devalue great picture quality of epson pj, I am very satisfy. I just accept it could be much better if its not eshift.
4mil native will be enough... I agree. 8mil with 4k will not make sense any more. So just... epson give us at lest those half 4k native ones and I will be happy.
 

Attachments

Ramberga

Standard Member
No problem man, I can understand, what you are trying to defend. Maths confirm opposit what you say with viewing distance and resolution. You can check and confirm everywhere...You are sitting too close for fhd, you will benefit greatly from 4k. Do not compare epson and sony 4k native projector if its not visible correctly. Perhaps source was not shot in 4k, most uhds are not in 4k res... etc. Perhaps we needs to wait for new generations of native 4k projectors. Compare with free mind different platform like TVs and uhd content. I am playing with uhd 65” tv and uhd discs... difference is markant with uhd and is not comparable on pj (when I simulate 65” screen etc.) I agree that if I will upgrade to native 1440p than difference between this and 4k will be nearly nothing from my viewing distance and eye will not be able to recognizable.
Definately it will help a lot, if those 4mil emulated pixes epson is created will be at least native one and not 2mil +the same 2mil eshifted. I see where its softened because of that. Still I do not devalue great picture quality of epson pj, I am very satisfy. I just accept it could be much better if its not eshift.
4mil native will be enough... I agree. 8mil with 4k will not make sense any more. So just... epson give us at lest those half 4k native ones and I will be happy.
Source was shot and mastered in 4k. "A Beautiful Planet". Shot with 4k cameras by the ISS astronauts. Math does not confirm the opposite. Not doing the math for "1440p". Doing it for 3840p.
 

Peeto

Active Member
Source was shot and mastered in 4k. "A Beautiful Planet". Shot with 4k cameras by the ISS astronauts. Math does not confirm the opposite. Not doing the math for "1440p". Doing it for 3840p.
Ok ok... I see. 😁 I just need the best, sorry man... does not want arque too much. Check passengers uhd disc... its like 10/10 with uhd quality.... but on pj I do not see it that much sharp. On uhd tv its different story...
 

Graham

Well-known Member
I was wondering this. are there any plans for newer models or a semi-regular release cycle for projectors in the epson world?
I think you’ll probably see successors to the 9400 and 7400 in late 2020 / early 2021, they tend to keep their models for a while
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
I think you’ll probably see successors to the 9400 and 7400 in late 2020 / early 2021, they tend to keep their models for a while

thanks mate. argh that wait is a pain in the butt.

hw40 is still good for me as most of my content is 1080p anime and the odd film. reality creation is good for helping a bit with 4k content.

but for gaming, it really does fall apart and reality creation doesn't save it at all.

i want the epson 9400 but i know if epson release a native 4k pj, it can potentially last me a good few years. as i native game 4k/60fps on my gaming PC a LOT.. i feel maybe waiting for it might be a better shout.

but god damn this pj sounds soooo good.
 

Graham

Well-known Member
thanks mate. argh that wait is a pain in the butt.

hw40 is still good for me as most of my content is 1080p anime and the odd film. reality creation is good for helping a bit with 4k content.

but for gaming, it really does fall apart and reality creation doesn't save it at all.

i want the epson 9400 but i know if epson release a native 4k pj, it can potentially last me a good few years. as i native game 4k/60fps on my gaming PC a LOT.. i feel maybe waiting for it might be a better shout.

but god damn this pj sounds soooo good.
To be honest I wouldn’t worry about that, the faux-4K that these projectors do looks incredible from a normal seated position. I play Death Stranding on my PS4 and that looks incredibly sharp on my projector. Plus with the 9400 you can get HDR and 60fps so to be honest I’d just go for the 9400 if you really want it. Any native 4K from Epson will inevitably be quite a bit more expensive than the 9400 and who’s to say the next one will be genuine 4K anyway?

All the best
 

aoaaron

Well-known Member
To be honest I wouldn’t worry about that, the faux-4K that these projectors do looks incredible from a normal seated position. I play Death Stranding on my PS4 and that looks incredibly sharp on my projector. Plus with the 9400 you can get HDR and 60fps so to be honest I’d just go for the 9400 if you really want it. Any native 4K from Epson will inevitably be quite a bit more expensive than the 9400 and who’s to say the next one will be genuine 4K anyway?

All the best

Great points mate. I’ll use my h40 for a bit and ensure I’m actually. Getting good use out of it to facilitate dropping the cash then go for it probably
 

Alaric

Member
it does just mean, that that 4k native projector you compare was with extremely bad quality or PJs just can not do 4k with reasonable image quality.
I am playing with uhd 65” tv and uhd discs... difference is markant with uhd and is not comparable on pj (when I simulate 65” screen etc.)
Reading these two i think you are trying to compare a TV to a Projector and expecting the 4K TV image at 65" to translate to the projected 100" image. You see the TV as sharp and the projectors smoothness as blurry

They are quite different technologies and whilst there are some similarities, a projector will always look like a projector. I mean even when i on occasion go to the cinema (rare) it doesn't look like a giant tv - Actually for the recent star wars i preferred my own picture though it was a general multiplex
 

Stu C

Active Member
Help needed... I want to connect up the 12v trigger between my 9400 and a Spitfire electric screen. The screen was provided with a 3.5mm to 3.5mm mono cable, but it's too short. The Epson manual states you should use a stereo jack/cable.

Is the screen likely to work with a stereo jack/cable, or do I need mono... will mono work with the 9400?

I would prefer to use stereo because 20m stereo cables are cheap and easy to find, but I can't find a 20m mono cable. I know I could make my own, but would prefer a pre-made for convenience and better finish, but can DIY if I have to.
 

Ramberga

Standard Member
Reading these two i think you are trying to compare a TV to a Projector and expecting the 4K TV image at 65" to translate to the projected 100" image. You see the TV as sharp and the projectors smoothness as blurry

They are quite different technologies and whilst there are some similarities, a projector will always look like a projector. I mean even when i on occasion go to the cinema (rare) it doesn't look like a giant tv - Actually for the recent star wars i preferred my own picture though it was a general multiplex
Right. It's not a fair fight.

The pixel density on a 65" UHD TV is about 4150 pixels/sq inch (645 pixels/sq cm).
On a 100" diagonal screen, the pixel density is about 1780 pixels/sq inch (275 pixels/sq cm).

A movie theater screen of 55 feet diagonal (17 meters) has a pixel density of only 41 pixels/sq inch!!! And that is assuming the theater uses a 4k projector.

It's not a fair fight.
 

Peeto

Active Member
Reading these two i think you are trying to compare a TV to a Projector and expecting the 4K TV image at 65" to translate to the projected 100" image. You see the TV as sharp and the projectors smoothness as blurry

They are quite different technologies and whilst there are some similarities, a projector will always look like a projector. I mean even when i on occasion go to the cinema (rare) it doesn't look like a giant tv - Actually for the recent star wars i preferred my own picture though it was a general multiplex
yep, I at least compare apple to apple in regards of different sitting distance to compare 65" vs 100" to be comparable, so I really do not give TV such an advantage here at all. In regards of cinema movies... I always wonder, how sharp and beautifull picture I have on the same movie, comparing to what I see in cinema ;) looks like... so yes, epson is doing amazing job here.
 

Peeto

Active Member
Right. It's not a fair fight.

The pixel density on a 65" UHD TV is about 4150 pixels/sq inch (645 pixels/sq cm).
On a 100" diagonal screen, the pixel density is about 1780 pixels/sq inch (275 pixels/sq cm).

A movie theater screen of 55 feet diagonal (17 meters) has a pixel density of only 41 pixels/sq inch!!! And that is assuming the theater uses a 4k projector.

It's not a fair fight.
thats not what I did.... I can agree only with mention of different technology, but I never give that advantage of smaller screen .... that`s a no from me and it will look much better because of much more pixels per cm if anyone compare with same viewing distance.
 

Alaric

Member
Help needed... I want to connect up the 12v trigger between my 9400 and a Spitfire electric screen. The screen was provided with a 3.5mm to 3.5mm mono cable, but it's too short. The Epson manual states you should use a stereo jack/cable.

Is the screen likely to work with a stereo jack/cable, or do I need mono... will mono work with the 9400?

I would prefer to use stereo because 20m stereo cables are cheap and easy to find, but I can't find a 20m mono cable. I know I could make my own, but would prefer a pre-made for convenience and better finish, but can DIY if I have to.
You are probably in the realms of experimentation. The signal isn't going to be anything that complex, so i can't see why a cheap stereo cable and a stereo to mono converter jack shouldn't work!
 

Supersonic

Member
Just for completeness, I thought I'd post what happened with my 9400 issue.

The - brand new - replacement 9400 arrived in Thursday. Set it up, and the fringing/CA was worse than the original one. And this unit was noisier too. Heart sank as it has taken loads of chasing, not to mention time, to get this replacement unit. In the end a complaint to Epson customer services helped. Anyway...

I tried all the different settings and panel alignment options - no luck. Got the box back out ready to send it back and for some reason I thought I'd just try it on the old ceiling mount - I built a shelf when I bought the first 9400 to minimise lens shift and the fan noise - and blow me if it wasn't spot on :mad:.

Almost no fringing at all and what there was I could reduce almost to nothing with two clicks of the red panel shift.

Something weird is going on with lens shift. There's a clear difference between the up lens shift and the down lens shift, as the shelf is at the same height as the ceiling mount drop and only one unit width to the left (surely that isn't the cause)? Maybe case flexure?

Right now I'm just going to enjoy the thing where it is for a while. :cool:
 
Last edited:

RussJ

Active Member
Is it possible to connect the BT Box by HDMI, I know downstairs in the main room I have had problems when I connected with optical?

When I get home I will check the audio sync and where it's at but I think off my head it's on auto on the Sony and everything else is at 0. I previously had a Denon 2400h and had to take it off Auto sync as it was slightly out but even then I think it was only at 42ms.
Did you get a chance to check out your settings please?
Russ
 

Harold88

Member
it does just mean, that that 4k native projector you compare was with extremely bad quality or PJs just can not do 4k with reasonable image quality. comparing 4k vs 2k eshifted from 1meter is huge difference in picture quality (especially with sharpness/bluriness.... 4k sharp... 2keshift from 1 meter,.. total blurr/.
Image quality isn't just about sharpness, there are more importand things, like contrast.

The problem here isn't the quality of the Sony Projector, but rather the technology itself used. Both Sony and JVC are using liquid crystal 3 panels for their 4k projectors. Those 3 panels will never be able to deliver the sharpness of a DLP.

So if you want the sharpest 4k projector, you should look for the native 4K DLP projector that have the 1.38" chip.

The problem is that they are very expensive, you will have to pay at last 25000 $ or 30000 $ for an entry level model and much more for a good one.

Sadly I don't think those 1.38" native 4k DLP's panels will come soon on home cinema projectors.

However, I hope to see soon a home cinema projector that is able to project native 2:35:1 content, without the need for an external anamorphic lens. This will be real huge progress couse right now watching 4k movies in 2:35:1 is rather pointless since we are losing 33% of the pixels anyway so the difference from 1080p isn't that big.
 
Last edited:

5KKompat

Standard Member
Recently read a post on another site, from a geek complaining that a 4k file is not double (let alone 4x) the size of a full hd file of the same native source..
I wonder if somebody's eyesight performance allows him/her to count each "addressed", separate pixel of a checkered grid in black and white at -say- 3 mts/yds. I fear the rest is literary comment., which we're all very good at!
 

Luminated67

Well-known Member
Image quality isn't just about sharpness, there are more importand things, like contrast.

The problem here isn't the quality of the Sony Projector, but rather the technology itself used. Both Sony and JVC are using liquid crystal 3 panels for their 4k projectors. Those 3 panels will never be able to deliver the sharpness of a DLP.

So if you want the sharpest 4k projector, you should look for the native 4K DLP projector that have the 1.38" chip.

The problem is that they are very expensive, you will have to pay at last 25000 $ or 30000 $ for an entry level model and much more for a good one.

Sadly I don't think those 1.38" native 4k DLP's panels will come soon on home cinema projectors.

However, I hope to see soon a home cinema projector that is able to project native 2:35:1 content, without the need for an external anamorphic lens. This will be real huge progress couse right now watching 4k movies in 2:35:1 is rather pointless since we are losing 33% of the pixels anyway so the difference from 1080p isn't that big.
This maybe the case that a true Native DLP will indeed be sharpest of them all but what @Peeto was saying was total nonsense. I’m amazed that someone who has a 7400 came out with such a statement.

There is a factor that needs to be addressed here and that is what the human eye is capable of seeing from a distance.
 

Trending threads

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 24th February 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Disney+ announces discount for European launch
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Disney developing AI based video compression
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Vizio announces Disney+ available on SmartCast TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Audio-Technica reveals Kokutan and Asada Zakura headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom