Epson TW9400/7400 information

I agree, as I have seen myself a TW9400 for couple of hours at work. The image was sharp enough for me. It wasn't DLP sharp but it isn't by no means a soft image as Peeto sugest.

Actualy the native 4k content looks the sharpest on this pj, not the 1080p, as he is suggesting. I have seen those things personally so no one can tell me otherwise.

Is it possible that he's projector panels are't very well aligned. From my understanding, aligning corectly the LCD pannels isn't really a coup of tea. It's better to bring a pro to help with such a matter.
 
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!

Is that simply down to the the fact 1080p material is typically encoded in H.264 and UHD is encoded in H.265... H.265 achieves smaller file sizes relative to H.264.
 
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.


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.
 
Ramberga, sharpness and resolution are different things. Sharpness don't come from the number of pixels but rather from how the pixels are shown.

Even if your eyes can't see more details, you will be able to spot the sharper picture.

Again, in our case, the difference is not made really by the number of pixels (4 million vs 8 million) as is made by the technology used to produce the colors (1 chip vs 3 panels).

But there are also downsides. The 3LCD used in both tw9400 and tw7400 can produce much better native contrast than any home cinema DLP , the colors are brighter, the black is far better. In my opinion those things are much more important for the image quality than both resolution and sharpness. A image with poor contrast will be a bad image no matter how sharp and detailed it is.

It's up to us what we value more.
 
Last edited:
The lens is a very important element in a projector, the better the lens the better the image it produces that it’s isn’t just sharpness but also free of variations across the whole screen. You don’t just want the image to be sharp in the center of the screen, you want it to be sharp out to the edges too.
 
That is why Tw9400 measure very good across the screen, even if you use the lens shift.
 
Is that simply down to the the fact 1080p material is typically encoded in H.264 and UHD is encoded in H.265... H.265 achieves smaller file sizes relative to H.264.
Could well be - but could also be down to how it was encoded. Loads of different encoding options that could differ.

It's easy to make - from the same source material - a 4K file that is smaller than a 1080 one.
 
Well, no, sorry : exporting in h265 only reduces the size of the same original 4k file in .mp4 by about 20%, at least that's what I've personally found (Power Director software)
The same goes for a flatbed scanner : digitizing in 48 mbts instead of 24 per color doesn't produce any significant improvement on a photo file.... Anyway, which of you can read the extra small print on consumer products "essential" info labels (ingredients, sugar content..)?? They sure use the best digital printing mode with intent!!
 
No, you misunderstand. I meant if you alter the encoding settings, e.g. in Handbrake, you can change the file size to whatever you want and it will go ahead and (try to) fit it.

I did Aquaman yesterday just to see - 4K went down to 18GB, now I know for a fact I could get a 1080p file larger than 18GB from the HD blu-ray without any trouble at all.

Point is, file size is not a good guide to quality.
 
No, you misunderstand. I meant if you alter the encoding settings, e.g. in Handbrake you can change the file size to whatever you want and it will go ahead and (try to) fit it.

I did Aquaman yesterday just to see - 4K went down to 18GB, now I know for a fact I could get a 1080p file larger than 18GB from the HD blu-ray without any trouble at all.

Im pretty sure that if you download a UHD movie on Sky it’s about 18Gb.
 
Yeah, I haven't tried to compress it to a smaller size (I don't need/want to, I play the disc), and I'm not sure what the 'geek complaining' about file size is really about?

Anyway this isn't the thread for encoding convos.

Going to give the new 9400 another check out tonight. Fingers crossed all is still okay.

Just had a thought - maybe stupid, as I haven't checked - are there any 4K 3D films out there?

Edit: not enough bandwidth yet anyway?
 
are there any 4K 3D films out there?

Not yet. It is very possible to see in the near future, since 3D is still the most immersive tech in cinema business, regardless of the marketing bs. If you see a well made 3D movie with proper setup and large enough screen, you immediately forget all those 4k, 8k, 16k, 24k or any other format that marketing is pushing right now.
 
Last edited:
^ I would be amazed if 3D has a future. Tell me the last time you went to your local cinema a watched a 3D movie?

I can’t recall seeing a recent TV with the 3D option and if they aren’t offering it then it’s highly unlikely that the movie companies will invest in the tech.
 
I never go to cinema, that is why I bought a projector but there are every day 3D movies in the local cinema.

3D on Tv is pointless as the tech itself only make sense on a large screen
 
Yeah, I haven't tried to compress it to a smaller size (I don't need/want to, I play the disc), and I'm not sure what the 'geek complaining' about file size is really about?

Anyway this isn't the thread for encoding convos.

Going to give the new 9400 another check out tonight. Fingers crossed all is still okay.

Just had a thought - maybe stupid, as I haven't checked - are there any 4K 3D films out there?

Edit: not enough bandwidth yet anyway?
4k does not support 3D.
 
Speaking of 3D, I'm much happier with the 9400's 3D performance these days, once I realise to let the projector warm up for a good 30mins !
 
I never go to cinema, that is why I bought a projector but there are every day 3D movies in the local cinema.

3D on Tv is pointless as the tech itself only make sense on a large screen

I think the last time I seen a 3D movie advertised in our local cinema was 3 years ago, the big push now-a-days in Atmos.

Also I don't disagree that 3D and TVs aren't the perfect partner due to size but the reality is they is significantly more TVs sold worldwide than projectors and frankly projector sales on their own wouldn't make a business case for investing in 3D technology for the movie industry.
 
As I said, 3D is not for TV, it's for big screens, cinemas and home cinema.

Also, according to any statistics out there, the vast majority of people that still buy physical media discs (bluray and UHD disc) are home cinema owners. The people who don't own a big screen and watch content on a TV screen, usually use streaming, not physical discs nowdays.

So the fact that TV's dont support 3D has only minor impact on 3D discs sale anyway. If the 3D will make a comeback on UHD discs, it will target the growing community of us, home cinema owners, not TV owners.

In the last couple of years, the community of projector owners has grown very much and this is manly becouse of those chinese affrodable projectors.
 
I never go to cinema, that is why I bought a projector but there are every day 3D movies in the local cinema.

3D on Tv is pointless as the tech itself only make sense on a large screen

I hope for you people that use 3D that I am wrong and the formate continues for years to come but I personally doubt it, especially as 4K becomes more and more popular.
 
What is not to like about 3D ?

We all like better pictures and better and more immersive sound so what is more immersive than 3D, at least until we get holographic videos.
 
pe
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.
perhaps I am too pampered from PC, and switching from even 1440p on pc to projector eshifted 4k just looks not so impressive(downgrade with resolution). For UHD and blurays it (especially blurays), there is that wow effect of super sharp picture. UHD looks also impressive, just due to eshift technology, it soften the picture and although still sharp from viewing distance, I notice the softened image. I think there is no solution for right now, but as I am using my PJ mainly for movies, that looks extremely satisfactory. No of my guests... simple noones, ... If I throw at them 1080p bluray disc with good quality. everyone has jawdropped and no one did not recognised it is not native 4k .... so... ;) (that is what I called "total blur" ... just do not take me so serious... I just see that eshift softening, which should be better ;) ...
 
so guys... AD Astra releasing tomorrow ... Bluray or UHD ? :) that is the question right now.
 
What is not to like about 3D ?

We all like better pictures and better and more immersive sound so what is more immersive than 3D, at least until we get holographic videos.

It's a bit marmite. I dont like it at all. I find it unnatural and distracting . Each to their own though.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom