Tweet BenQ Announces New 4K Home Projector with 3D Support

Part of the press release:

The BenQ HT2550 4K HDR CineHome Projector with CinematicColor™ technology takes the thrill of the home cinema experience to the next level. Gather your friends and family in front of the stunning 4K HDR images and resounding audio enhancement to enjoy an authentic digital cinema experience.
The Article is here: http://www.benq.us/product/projector/HT ... ampaign=cj" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
If you read through the specification, you will see the projector has 3D Blu-Ray support.
http://www.benq.us/product/projector/HT ... fications/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
Price Point: Just under $2000.00 (which is low for a 4K projector)

Most modern movies are still mastered in 2K in final production.
As result most 4K blu rays are jsut a interpolation from a 2K source into 4K.

Just to remamber...

I'm not sure I'd say "most." From what I know, the majority are 4k. Everything I've worked on for the past few years has been 4k. But even if a film was mastered in 2k, remastering at 4k lets you add HDR (depending on the source, naturally).

Of course, 4k at home, other than for HDR, which isn't THAT big a deal, isn't really worth it unless you have a projector. I might look into a 4k projector next year, as I love my 1080 projector but wouldn't mind upgrading when the 4k Lawrence of Arabia comes out.

A few day ago a film restorer who review films told 4K it's too expansive even for most movies.
Blu-ray.com reviews often tells the same, most mastered in 2K.

HDR it's more to try correct the garbage clipped whites and crushed shadows of LCD technology.

Please forgive the words I used, but I'm a bit revolted with the lies of home video industry.

Today we have to worry with:

-View angle. Crap even at 25 degree, but manufacturer told it handle 170 degree.
-Refreshing rate, making blurry textures in low motion from right to left
-Frequency, making problems for games
-Video compression killing a lot image details, specially in broadcast and streaming, and present in lower degree in most blu rays.
-The genocide of gradients, replaced with banding, most times looking worse than a good jpeg image (also 8 bits).
-White clipping and crushed shadows, mentioned earlier.
-Peole buying 2K (almost the same as HD) thinking it's 4K, just to get HDR to avoid crushed shadows and clipped whites.

Projectors only solve some few of these problems.

Home video industry it's a joke.

If there was interest in develop fresnel lenses with higher resolution and higher quality, projector as this DIY 4K could be a good idea :

http://www.instructables.com/id/World-F ... Projector/


For who don't care about the limitations of actual technology...

By the way... Whould peopl,e stop or reduce a lot visits to theaters when 4K 3Dprojector became very affordable to the point almost all homes have one ?
In theaters you have old pop corn (recicled for earlier day) sold for 200% or more of normal price, noise people, bad seats, high price per ticket, need to go out home.




Just to remamber, MOST THEATER'S PROJECTOR TODAY ARE STILL 2K, AND MOST MOVIED MASTERED IN 2K. Some system in theater even have digital image artefacts here and there.

"Just to remamber, MOST THEATER'S PROJECTOR TODAY ARE STILL 2K, AND MOST MOVIED MASTERED IN 2K. Some system in theater even have digital image artefacts here and there."

Maybe in your country. Not here. Here they're mostly 4k projectors. And no, most movies are NOT mastered in 2k.

The guy who worked in the restoration of Lawrence of Arabia told me what I told you.
Sorry, now I don't know more what is right.
Blu-ray.com often states most 4k UHD are conversions from 2K files.

"Just to remamber, MOST THEATER'S PROJECTOR TODAY ARE STILL 2K, AND MOST MOVIED MASTERED IN 2K. Some system in theater even have digital image artefacts here and there."

Maybe in your country. Not here. Here they're mostly 4k projectors. And no, most movies are NOT mastered in 2k.

That restoration was several years ago. Generally speaking, 4K discs that are upconverted are not newer films, they're films that were made before digital cinematography and projection took over. For example, Titanic was 2k, as was the first Harry Potter (maybe the 2nd also). These days, Hollywood films are shot and finished in 4K. They're available in 2k for theaters that need it, but the masters are 4K.

I'm not sure about things like Woody Allen films, for example. I can't really see a need for 4K with something like that. But other than some possible exceptions like that, any major studio release is finished in 4K, so the 4K discs are real 4K.

Of course, for 99% of people watching at home, the resolution of 4K is unnecessary. The HDR might be nice, but even that's probably not even noticed by most people.

And coincidentally, it is when Lawrence of Arabia comes out on 4K disc that I'll upgrade to a 4K projector.

Lawrence of Arabia was restored again a couple years ago or so, digitally, from original camera negative, scanned in 8K, but I'm not sure if was restored digitally in 4K or 8K. The same restorer worked again and helped in this task.

Anyway I don't watch 4K, even with relatives here having a 4K HDRTV, cause I completelly disaprove LCD technology. I sit for 5 min, try to watch, but I can't, I got a feeling of strong repulse & aversion for it and get angry.

MPEG-4 it's a hoax. Every low motion, even a tiny bit that would not defocus image, in a MPEG4 compressed filkm and in a LCD TV, will bluer the image, kill details in specially horizontal motion. It also have digital artefacts and banding effect instead of natural gradients. It's only 4K while nothing moves. Even films shot digitally, which would have much less blur from motion than a cinema film camera, have such problem.
Also the TVs can't be watched from close, to get the 4K details (when not with relvant motion) cause the screen it's not even in light uniformity, unless you move very far away, and very far away it's enough to make almost no difference from 4K to 1080p.

I challenge anyone in this planet to prove I'm wrong.
Digital TVs and digital video compression, it all together make the suposed HD technology a hoax, a fraction of the quality that should be.

By the way, even worse and even bigger hoax, it's extreameing and Youtube service to rent films. Even move compressed, even more artefacts and garbage gradients.
I don't accept the excuse to blame 8 bits images, cause they look far worse in gradients than 8 bits JPEG images.

There is a versionof Lawrence of Arabia to rent in 4K, but it probably it's no better than the 1080p blu ray.
http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/lawrence-of-arabia/

1) It's the recent Lawrence restoration that I'm talking about-- that one was a few years ago.

2) Something must be seriously wrong to the theaters and TV where you are. I don't think anyone else on Nitrateville shares your experience.

3) Thanks for the Lawrence link! I'll take a look.

Sure, all about hundred TV I saw on store was wrong...

I think people accept too much deffects on image. I'm feeling like around blind people.
Or they don't care, ot they don't see, or they don't want to see, ot they sit too much away from screen.

I repeat : MPEG4 IT'S A GARBAGE.

1) It's the recent Lawrence restoration that I'm talking about-- that one was a few years ago.

2) Something must be seriously wrong to the theaters and TV where you are. I don't think anyone else on Nitrateville shares your experience.

3) Thanks for the Lawrence link! I'll take a look.

"I repeat : MPEG4 IT'S A GARBAGE."

MPEG4 is a container. What codec do you mean? What bit rate?


And yes, there's a good chance all the TVs in the store looked bad. Stores usually split the signal to go to all the TVs, and that looks terrible.

https://www.wondershare.com/dvd-tips/bluray-codec.html

"MPEG-4 AVC

It's the informal name of H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 or AVC (Advanced Video Coding). MPEG-4 AVC is the most widely used video codecs in Blu-ray discs. It supports 4096x2304 pixels in resolution and up to 26.7 Mbps for bit rate. This is the optimized video codec for Blu-ray, which delivers high quality picture even at the low bit rate than MPEG-1 in VCD.
Besides used in Blu-ray discs, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) codec is also widely adopted to stream online videos, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and the iTunes Store."

Anyway it's horrible as codec, all broadcast look artefacted, loose a lot of details and textures with minimal lateral motion, even when the camera itself it's fine. Creates banding instead of gradientes, and much more banding than fine 8 bits JPEG images. The best youtube video have all that.
Even Blu-Rays have artefacts and loss of textures and details. It had terrible shaddow details compared to most DVD, since the shadows always get more artefacts.

Nobody will convice me this technology it's true, good, with true HD details, cause a good deal of detail and tecture of it it's lost somehow.
And please don't tell me that I need to watch it 4 meter aways to do not see the defects, cause 4 meter you will not see much difference comparing 4K to 1080p.

About TV, all stores I went have the same issue. Many TVs had their own DEMO indvidual video running a 4K. It's like damn LCD PC monitor, you sit in fornt of it 90 degree, straight, and the center looks brigther than the side, so you move to one side, still straight, and the side got brighter than the center and than the other side. You turn 20 degree and the entire screen turns with a different contrast. Even the crap IPC tecxhnology have this issue, despite lie about stating it's free from distortions. Pure lie, pure crap.

I refuse to watch movies or even watch TV in this technology.
I only use a LCD (LED backlight) for PC cause I'm forced, since there is no 16:9 CRT monitor. But if I stop to think about I feel desire to do the same as Elvis did to his TV (shoot it). Luckly I don't have guns and don't loke guns...

OLDED TV are no solution. It's a lot more expansive, have a 50% lispam in comparissom, making it 4 more expansive for year of life use. It have burn in prob,ems and have inferior brightness capability.

HDR don't impress me, It looks like a Photoshop expanded Dynamica range image. Even HDR have white clipping when we increase contrast, despite need less contrast adjust to look not faded.

It's just a scam world of home video.

And the ecologic argument it's another scam. People replaced their CRT for much larger LCD TVs, and these hugher sizes take as much or more energy as the CRT TVs they had before.

MPEG4 is a container. What codec do you mean? What bit rate?

And yes, there's a good chance all the TVs in the store looked bad. Stores usually split the signal to go to all the TVs, and that looks terrible.

Do it have a option to turn UV filter On and Off ???

Too expansive

Anyway you would need a AllDarcUltraBluTrueMedia to have image free of artefact, free of banding, free of loss of textures in low motion due compression.

I know you think I'm crazy. But what I'm trying to say is that there is no combination of media (to carry film) and display, that really display a HD or a 4K image. What there is is just fake resolution, fake quality, fake rendering.

People watching 2K film interpolated to 4K media, and thinking it's 4K. And it's not even 2K, since compression reduce details.
And on Japan companies trying create 8K, while we don't even have a decent 4K and most times even a decent HD 1080p for broadcast. No decent gradients, no decent textures in low motion, and they talking about 8K. What a helll... This need to stop.

I know you think I'm crazy. But what I'm trying to say is

No, not at all old chap. We each have our peccadillos. You just have to remember that when I was a boy we didn't have television at all - we just sat around listening to the wireless. Then, in 1956 we got a black and white set......all a far cry from what we have today. I suppose I am just grateful with what I do have!

I never said I wished a cinema theater in home.

I was almost happy with a Sony Trinitron 29 inches TV, and the first digital sat paid TV service.
Then I heard of DVD technology, that supoosed would be better, not like VHS or web videos (very bad and low resolution at the time).
Short time latter the quality of the Digital Paid TV Service started to gradually drop away, since they start to put more and more channels, and the compression started to became heavier, like dropping bitrate, and artefacts start to appear more and more.

When I got my first DVD I got few disapointed, as it have some few artefacts, but wasn't a huge disapontment, since gradients wasn't so sh... like many HD services today.
The first PC DVD kit was a big disappointment, sinc it looked soft in PC Monitor (CRT), and all video signals on a PC monitors looked faded, even with monitor in maximum contrast adjustment, and the Power DVD software adjust (contrast/brightness) didn't help any sh... cause it killed details on highlights and shadows.

I told myself I would never watch a entire film on PC for entertainment. The CRT TV was far better thasn such washed DVD playing on Power DVD.. On PC there was a lot of great looking JPEG image, with great definition, great contrast and great dynamic range, but in the same PC monitor the DVDs looked as sh....
The contrast standart for TV (at the time) and PC monitors, was different, and as result what looked good in a TV looked bad in a monitor, in terms of video signal.

LCD TVs was my nigtmare. They did the worse thing from my worse nightmare!!! They "took the garbage image contrast of Power DVD kit and played for TVs", or maybe homologate things or turn closer one to another, and now all images got faded or with clipped whites and crushed shadows. THIS TRULLY REVOLTS ME A LOT!!!
It's like my worst nightmare. I was expecting new TVs to be better, but it was worse in all aspects, like designed to made me sick. I could not tolerate it. With years the LCD technology claimed to get better, but every single model I saw each time I went to TV shop was a garbage to my eyes, revolted me. I asked myself how could people pay a lot for such trash.

Then they start to talk about IPS TVs, but when I checked it on store it was nearly the same garbage, depite the promotional video states it had no view angle problem of light uniformity problem. Again I felt tricked and revolted.
The HDR was other disapointment, since it also had some white clipping, and the view was just like looking a extended dynamic range image from Photoshop. No big deal, a feature made to try compensate the garbage they created with white clipping and crushed shadows. And worst, it required videos mastered in HDR.

The HD1 080p and even Blu Ray was another disapointment, another feeling of draw back, since the detail loss comparing uncompressed with compressed looked weven worse for HDTV than DVD, and in motion it was a joke, like watching a 35mm film projection jump to 16mm every time a single low motion moviment was made. The HD broadcast for me was worse then the SD before they started to add many channels in the same band space, and then they added HD channels and the compression for SD worsenedin a hell's way, and the HD channels it's like 20 times worse than youtube. The giant artefacts and disgusting banding instead of decent gradients...
The Blu Ray also have defects, despite a lot less trhan HD Broadcast here, most have artefacts and banding. Poor shadow tones.

Netfix was another deception. All images I watched on it had poor gradients and had large artefacts for shadows, despite both be less visible for colorfull bright scenes like Dispey kids series shot with a lot of light.

4K encodings, another deception since it's worse than Blu-ray in terms of gradients and artefacts. The 90 seconds best sample from TV brand website had 1GB. It's almost 1GB for minute, and still had artefacts and banding instead of gradients, even with the camera stopped and just few thing moving in the frame. WHat could I say for scenes with motion and much less bitrate. So again technology was insulting me. And 4K TVs could not display homogen light distribution in the distance required to see the 4k details, or "details" (loss due conmpression), since the corners became very darker than center quite a lot, if youy stand somehow near it.

Like you see Donald, I'm not complaing that I didn't got what I wanted, but I'm most complaining for what I losted.
Technology for me became, in someway, worse than before. I can't sit and watch something that it's worse in many aspects. My brain do not accept it, do not accept that today these aspects are worse than before. It's like technology it's insulting me everytime I try to watch such f... TV and f... HDTV broadcast combined.

Donald paid a lot for this car :




But the seller gave hin this :



But it's ok for Donald, he don't care. He says that's better than walk in a hot australian day.



Sorry the joke, but it's how I feel about the HD broadcast and HDTV LCD. I can't accept be tricked.

I am quite fond of my motor-car (as pictured above) - at least it goes. Why, I only changed the rubber band in it yesterday!

But you paid right for it, and not for a Ultra Super Mega futurisstic car.
That's whay Im trying to say, the technology it's a lie.

It destroyed my home movie entertainment.

Did you read my long text post before the car's joke ?

I am quite fond of my motor-car (as pictured above) - at least it goes. Why, I only changed the rubber band in it yesterday!

Did you read my long text post before the car's joke ?

I did, but I must admit I didn't understand a lot of it - all those technical terms and whatnot get lost on me.

I think he's saying hamster that runs around the wheel isn't as fast as the salesman said it would be.

But you never expected it to be that fast anyway, did you old boy?

As for me, I can't figure out how they shrink the people to get them into the box. If you're up by Ayers Rock, you must ask one of the old fellers if they know

Bob

The mproblem is that something suposed to be better is indeed worst in many aspects.
That's what revolts me a lot.