Why are 4K TV's cheap but 4K Projectors expensive?

D

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,550
I can't seem to find an answer as to why 4K television are for the most part pretty damn cheap now, at least for lower end models, while 4K projectors are so expensive.

To me, a 4K projector on a 150" screen makes so much more sense than a 4K image on a 50" screen... but the market isn't offering anything affordable.

And is this going to change soon?

2.jpg
 
Ducman69 said:
I can't seem to find an answer as to why 4K television are for the most part pretty damn cheap now, at least for lower end models, while 4K projectors are so expensive.

To me, a 4K projector on a 150" screen makes so much more sense than a 4K image on a 50" screen... but the market isn't offering anything affordable.

And is this going to change soon?
Click to expand...
The electronics are more complex, more expensive. 4K LCD TV panels have about the same pixel pitch as your typical consumer LCD monitor, only they're 4x the size, whereas 4K in a projector would require 4x density in the chips. Maximization vs miniaturization. That's about the short of it, from what I can tell.
 
To add to that you have economies of scale. More people buy TVs, more people maintain having multiple TVs. Projectors are a niche product requiring an entire home that will support its installation. I'd love to have a big screen projector, I have absolutely no where to put one. (shallow basement, vaulted and skylights elsewhere)
 
Well, considering we have 4K cellphones being mainstream soon, I hope that changes with projectors. As of right now, the only real TRUE 4K projectors (rather than ones that just take a 4K signal and display it in 1080p or have some gimmick fake 4K) are $25K. :(
 
I thought Sony has been selling true 4K projectors for the home market for under $8K street for a few years now, like the VPL-VW600ES that they introduced in late 2013.
 
Proper 1080p projectors took a damn long time to drop in price. Everything budget has been stuck at 1024x768 forever it seems.
 
sethk said:
I thought Sony has been selling true 4K projectors for the home market for under $8K street for a few years now, like the VPL-VW600ES that they introduced in late 2013.
Click to expand...
Ah, that is cheaper than I've seen. Will have to research if that one is true 4K or one of those "doubling" ones, with supposedly fake 4K since it doesn't actually have 4K pixels to project.

Nevertheless, I need it to be around $2K before I bite the bullet.

On the plus side, 4K content is a pretty rare unicorn right now, so there's no pressing need, but here's hoping for a big price drop by 2017.
 
I too am waiting for 4K pjs to become realisable.
Bulb life and cost needs to be ok too, my pj gets around 4000hrs a year.
Luckily only around £50 a year atm.

Its going to be a long wait, so little competition.
 
Sounds like bullshit to me. Small (28" or less) 4k PC monitors are cheap, so it has nothing to do with pitch or size.

It's just more marketing horseshit. A 4k projector in your home is direct competition for what's in the theaters. They want to keep that shit artificially expensive. All those media companies are in it together. They want you in their shitty theaters.
 
Ducman69 said:
Ah, that is cheaper than I've seen. Will have to research if that one is true 4K or one of those "doubling" ones, with supposedly fake 4K since it doesn't actually have 4K pixels to project.

Nevertheless, I need it to be around $2K before I bite the bullet.

On the plus side, 4K content is a pretty rare unicorn right now, so there's no pressing need, but here's hoping for a big price drop by 2017.
Click to expand...

This series is true 4K. And they are based on LCOS 4096x2160 panels, since Sony also makes a similar line for commercial cinemas. Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

I know what you mean about price - that is quite high. Although a really good home theater 1080p projector is still about 2K (i.e. one with good enough contrast and picture quality to compete with the top of the line stuff). And that's just 'mid range' for home theater. JVC's really good 1080p stuff is still closer to $3K.

Because the market is pretty small, I haven't seen a lot of development there, although if there is going to be a new projector it would most likely be during CEDIA (http://expo.cedia.net/) in September, and a smaller chance of an introduction at CES in January.

For projectors there is usually more at CEDIA, with the CES stuff being more "lifestyle" than home theater, or being a US introduction to a CEDIA international launch. If you are interested in home theater projectors, the avsforum under 2k / over 2k forums are the best places for info.
 
N4CR said:
Proper 1080p projectors took a damn long time to drop in price. Everything budget has been stuck at 1024x768 forever it seems.
Click to expand...

For good reason.

The main user and buyer of projectors is probably businesses at a wild guess. And for their usage at a typical viewing distance 4:3 1024:768 is fine. Vertically compact aspect ratio sucks for everything except cinema movies. Chicken and egg. Consumers don't use projectors because they're not built/marketed at them....companies by-and-large don't sell consumer-oriented projectors because no one will buy them.
 
Sorry, not much help but.. After reading all this, I found myself looking at 1080p projectors for 45 minutes. This might be my next TV when the old 52" Samsung takes a dump. (Already had to replace the capacitors in it). Haven't used a projector since borrowing an old crusty from school to add some wow at the Quake LAN parties we used to throw.

The price looks good, and the Wife said "Not bad" so... (y)
 
bigbluefe said:
Sounds like bullshit to me. Small (28" or less) 4k PC monitors are cheap, so it has nothing to do with pitch or size.

It's just more marketing horseshit. A 4k projector in your home is direct competition for what's in the theaters. They want to keep that shit artificially expensive. All those media companies are in it together. They want you in their shitty theaters.
Click to expand...

20.1" LCD has a screen area of 170 in. sq. A 4.5" phone has 8.5 in sq. The 1.5" DLP or LCD chip in a projector has a screen area less than 1 in. sq. Fitting 8.3 million pixels in a space about almost 1/10 the size of a phone screen is a lot harder. Add in the fact that no where near as many people are buying projectors as are buying phones, the cost of manufacturing is substantially higher for a projector.


You also have to think about yields. a flaw in a 4.5" screen that affects one pixel would hardly be noticeable. That same flaw on a projector chip would affect about 100 pixels to be. When you then blow those pixels up to 20x-30x the size of a phone, it becomes extremely noticeable that there's 100 pixel patch in the middle of your movie.
 
Betaboy1983 said:
Sorry, not much help but.. After reading all this, I found myself looking at 1080p projectors for 45 minutes. This might be my next TV when the old 52" Samsung takes a dump. (Already had to replace the capacitors in it). Haven't used a projector since borrowing an old crusty from school to add some wow at the Quake LAN parties we used to throw.

The price looks good, and the Wife said "Not bad" so... (y)
Click to expand...
Even the brightest projectors look like ass when exposed to daylight conditions. You certainly don't have to watch in total darkness, but you have to have light control.

That's why I have a dual setup, where I have a really flat flush mounted (hangs on two pucks with a wire like a picture frame about as flat on the wall as possible) television with daytime brightness settings configured, and then an electric projector screen that drops down right over it.

That way in the evenings I switch to the BIG screen, and there's just no comparison. Even just a 100" projector screen absolutely dwarfs even the big 65" TVs circulating around right now. And of course you can go even bigger, but for 1080p and 4K lumens I thought 100" was a good size (the bigger you go, the bigger the pixels obviously and the less bright since the light is spread out more).
 
ryan_975 said:
20.1" LCD has a screen area of 170 in. sq. A 4.5" phone has 8.5 in sq. The 1.5" DLP or LCD chip in a projector has a screen area less than 1 in. sq. Fitting 8.3 million pixels in a space about almost 1/10 the size of a phone screen is a lot harder. Add in the fact that no where near as many people are buying projectors as are buying phones, the cost of manufacturing is substantially higher for a projector.


You also have to think about yields. a flaw in a 4.5" screen that affects one pixel would hardly be noticeable. That same flaw on a projector chip would affect about 100 pixels to be. When you then blow those pixels up to 20x-30x the size of a phone, it becomes extremely noticeable that there's 100 pixel patch in the middle of your movie.
Click to expand...

This. How people think phones and projector elements are comparable... that's just further proof they have no idea how the manufacturing process works.

Why does it cost 4x more? Cause it's 4x+ harder to produce and the market is much, much smaller.
 
Bullcrap. We're not talking about 4x more. We're talking about 10-12x more money for a 4k projector. They're thousands of dollars, and 4k monitors are like 500 bucks.

The only legitimate reason it would be that much more expensive is that they just don't sell enough projectors to produce enough to bring the prices down, which seems likely. Even given that, they're still making a killing off them. And once again, it's one of those things where they'd be a lot more common if they were priced better, which would lower the prices on them even more because they could produce more, and so on.
 
There are a few factors....some of them as you would think (greed) but some of them very legit.

1) The optics HAVE to be better. More pixel = you need better optics. Since optics is fundamentally a commodity these days you will pay more.
2) Pixel density is pretty high for something you are pushing major light through. It isn't that it is horrible..it just isn't as simple as comparing it to a phone display. I know people like simply analogies to rationalize a point of view but at least be honest that you aren't comparing apples to apples.
3) LOW VOLUME. Most households have a couple of TV's....almost none have a projector. This means the burden of overhead to support a high end projector line is a much higher ratio than a TV. It makes a HUGE difference in price. Even though they might be nearing volume pricing on piece part components...they aren't there are assemblies.
4) Because they can...why wouldn't you. If you can charge a premium for something and people will pay for it...you would be a fucking idiot to not take the money. Sony made a fortune on the VPL 40-50 ES series because it was a GREAT PJ and they could afford to command premium pricing.

As for the whole "the movie industry is keeping them down"...where is any form of proof. You think they make "real money" off of seeing a few 100 units/year? Makes me laugh.
 
You know what I was just thinking... at our office we use dual stacked projectors for our large conference rooms. They have pixel by pixel movement tweaks in the projector, so you get it really close with the grid, and then you just use pixel shift to move it so its perfect.

Since my PC is using a 290x, I wonder if it would be feasible to use four 1080p projectors on a custom mount to get a really bright 4K screen on the cheap. There are some decent $600 projectors, so could be done for under $2500.

Of course one lame thing would be needing to run additional cables up to the projectors.
 
Ducman69 said:
You know what I was just thinking... at our office we use dual stacked projectors for our large conference rooms. They have pixel by pixel movement tweaks in the projector, so you get it really close with the grid, and then you just use pixel shift to move it so its perfect.

Since my PC is using a 290x, I wonder if it would be feasible to use four 1080p projectors on a custom mount to get a really bright 4K screen on the cheap. There are some decent $600 projectors, so could be done for under $2500.

Of course one lame thing would be needing to run additional cables up to the projectors.
Click to expand...

If you're using it for video, sure. If you're trying to game on it, you'll get even worse performance with multiple displays connected than with a single 4K display / projector.
 
1KW to project an image is quite high, things could overheat easily unless heat is prevented from pooling.
The electricity cost isnt impressive either, it would cost me approx £300 a year extra to run that and another £150 in bulbs!
 
Look into building your own. I made one 10+ years ago by stripping the backlight from a desktop LCD, placing a light source and focusing lens behind it, and covering the thing in a big wood enclosure.
 
I ran a large thread on how to make your own as well, it was mighty fun.
I've still got all the bits.
Did you use a split fresnel? It made a big difference to light throughput and clarity such that I managed to move down to a 150W bulb.
I've since used that lamp for my fish tank but its a bit bright, so now on 40W of LEDs.

To do 4K will require very high quality optics.
I'm not sure its realisable without serious cost.
 
The projector market is getting smaller and smaller as larger and cheaper televisions are made available.
4K projection is something they can sell as a "premium" right now - so they do.
They've probably calculated that the number of projectors sold is so low that they make more money off fewer high-price sales vs many lower-price sales.

Which is a shame, because they've now priced themselves out of what many people can afford to pay.
I used to have a really nice 1080p projection setup, back when 1080p projectors were relatively new, but I couldn't afford to have an equivalent 4K setup today. As a rough estimate it would be 2-3x what I paid back then. (adjusted for inflation)

It feels like they're also holding back LED/laser light sources because they've realized that they would be losing a lot of money if they aren't getting $100-200 a year from people for lamps.
I know a lot of people that would upgrade their projector after two or three lamp changes. If they aren't having to change the lamp, they'd probably stick with the projector they have.

Vega said:
You can get native 4K projectors for under $4K now:
4K e-shift4 D-ILA Projector - DLA-X550R - Overview
Amazon.com: JVC DLA-X550R D-ILA projector: Electronics
The only reason I haven't bought one is that the input lag is through the roof. (100+ ms).
Click to expand...
Aren't those e-shift projectors 1080p native?
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Looking at it again, seems they are clever in their marketing:

4K e-shift4 D-ILA Projector - DLA-X550R - Specifications

Uses 3x 1080P chips. So this is like a hybrid, not true 4K, but better than single 1080p.

Now it make sense why they have ridiculous input lag. They can take a native 4K signal, but must split it over 3x 1080p chips as JVC doesn't have a native 4K chip like Sony has.
 
How can they take three 1080p chips and a call it 4K? The best they can do is 3240x1920, which is a quite a bit shy of 4k's 3840x2160.
 
I love how even Sony's 4K projectors are all hobbled by ten cent HDMI 1.4 chips. Could you imagine not putting in a full speed HDMI 2.0 chip into a $10K projector. Just mind boggling what these companies do.
 
Even that 1080p fake 4K pj accepts 4K 4:4:4 60Hz with HDMI 2.2.
Amazing what $4K to 10K doesnt buy you.
 
Vega said:
Looking at it again, seems they are clever in their marketing:
4K e-shift4 D-ILA Projector - DLA-X550R - Specifications
Uses 3x 1080P chips. So this is like a hybrid, not true 4K, but better than single 1080p.
Now it make sense why they have ridiculous input lag. They can take a native 4K signal, but must split it over 3x 1080p chips as JVC doesn't have a native 4K chip like Sony has.
Click to expand...
All LCoS-derived projectors and LCD projectors use a 3-chip design.
It's why they all suffer from convergence issues.
It's a 1080p projector that shifts the image to overlap two frames and create a "4K" resolution.

DLP projectors are the only ones which are truly sharp with 1-chip designs and high ANSI contrast.
Of course 1-chip designs require sequential color, which has its own issues, but after owning a decently high-end 1080p SXRD and seeing friends' JVCs, I wouldn't buy a 3-chip projector again.
 
Interesting. Have you seen Sony's native 4K projector? I wonder what the image is like on that.
 
Vega said:
Interesting. Have you seen Sony's native 4K projector? I wonder what the image is like on that.
Click to expand...
I would avoid SXRD at all costs. Just as the rear-projection TVs had that "green blob" issue years ago, all of their SXRD projectors - at least since they started making 1080p models - have serious issues with the image degrading in a short amount of time.

Sony SXRD Degradation Thread - Effects All Current Sony SXRD 1080p/4K Panels - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
 
Vega said:
Interesting. Have you seen Sony's native 4K projector? I wonder what the image is like on that.
Click to expand...
Sony's 4K projectors all look great. I have seen a few (one of my friends in an HT nut and refreshes his stock regularly). Recently people have been posting that the Sony SXRD panels lose a good chunk of their contrast and / or discolor after several hundred hours of use. I have no idea if this is true, but if so, I guess beware of the SXRD. What's strange is SXRD has been around for 10+ years, and is used in thousands of commercial cinemas, but I guess stranger things have happened.

The 3 chip 1080p LCOS projectors (JVC) look really really good. The reason for the 3 chip or 3 x 1080p is each chips is essentially monochrome (R, G and B), and combine to give a full color image. This is the equivalent of an LCD monitor claiming '6.2 million sub-pixels' because they have 3 x 1080 x 1920 r,g, and b sub-pixels in each display. Only Sony has the true 4K, but the JVCs look good enough too, and have the best contrast of any projectors available today - much better than anything you've seen in a commercial cinema.

Most modern projectors have digital convergence fix which works really well, to shift the picture in 1/3 pixel increments to get essentially perfect alignment. If it can't be made perfect via digital alignment, your dealer with take the pj back and swap it for a good one. Both JVC and Sony will do that for their PJs. DLPs are good in their own way, but the real world contrast is much much better on the Sony and JVC projectors - except in some extreme simulataneous ANSI contrast test patterns, and even there on the newest projectors they are pretty good. DLPs are closer to movie theater level contrast, but in a good home theater with a high end DLP you will probably do better than most commercial theaters. I would still pick a Sony or JVC, as would most professional HT reviewers at this time, if money is not a limiting factor in your choice.

Because I did have a budget my projector is a single chip DLP, but the next one I buy will be a 3 chip LCOS.
 
Last edited:
sethk said:
Recently people have been posting that the Sony SXRD panels lose a good chunk of their contrast and / or discolor after several hundred hours of use. I have no idea if this is true, but if so, I guess beware of the SXRD. What's strange is SXRD has been around for 10+ years, and is used in thousands of commercial cinemas, but I guess stranger things have happened.
Click to expand...
Commercial projector designs are very different from consumer projector designs due to the massive difference in light sources being used. It's entirely possible that this is only an issue with their consumer designs.
I'm not sure if the specs have changed recently, but theaters used to be specified to only 2000:1 contrast too - so the issue would be far less noticeable.
It's a very real problem as I experienced it within the first year of owning my SXRD and Sony refused to admit fault.
There is speculation now that it's an issue caused by humidity, but I don't see how that would have been the issue in my case.

sethk said:
[...]the JVCs look good enough too, and have the best contrast of any projectors available today - much better than anything you've seen in a commercial cinema.
Click to expand...
Much better than a commercial cinema for sure - however as with all LCoS-based technologies, they have the best on/off contrast. They do good black levels, so dark scenes look great.
They have weak ANSI contrast, so bright scenes look flat compared to a DLP with meager contrast specs.

sethk said:
Most modern projectors have digital convergence fix which works really well, to shift the picture in 1/3 pixel increments to get essentially perfect alignment. If it can't be made perfect via digital alignment, your dealer with take the pj back and swap it for a good one. Both JVC and Sony will do that for their PJs.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've actually had to deal with this as a problem.
Sony offer 0.1px adjustments with their controls, not 1/3 of a pixel.
The problem is that if you are using anything less than full pixel adjustments, you end up with non-linear scaling being applied to the image which softens it and can cause artifacts to appear.

The larger issue is that misconvergence is not a two dimensional problem. It's a three-dimensional problem.
If you can adjust things so that convergence is perfect in one area of the screen, it is not going to be perfect across the entire image as a result of this.
With the trend towards larger aperture projectors to maximize light output, you can also have focus issues along with your convergence issues if the panel is misaligned. E.g. half of the blue panel is always slightly out of focus.

I can't speak for JVC, but what Sony consider to be "in spec" is not what I consider to be acceptable.
I'm sure you'll get a new projector if the alignment is so bad that it cannot be corrected for at all with the digital controls. However if you're able to bring them within at least a pixel of alignment (probably more) they will consider that "in spec".

It doesn't sound like much, but half a pixel of misalignment is hugely noticeable on a projector.
Here's the best convergence I could achieve at the center of the screen with full 1px adjustments. Still very noticeable even though the error should be half a pixel at most.
And here's the full panel convergence before/after subpixel adjustments. Upper-Left(1) / Right(2), Center(3), Lower-Left(4) / Right(5).
That was "well within spec". If you look at blue in particular, you can see the horizontal misalignment of the panel, where it is mostly in focus at the left of the screen (1 & 4) but out of focus at the right. (2 & 5)

It's an older comparison now, but can you guess which one of these four projectors is the $10,000 JVC, and which is the DLP?
All three on the left are JVCs.
Don't get me wrong, the JVCs have excellent black levels and they're probably the best non-DLP projector, but I'd personally never buy one. I've had too many problems with 3-chip projectors, I still think the image is lacking in brighter scenes due to the low ANSI contrast, and motion on LCoS is poor.

sethk said:
DLPs are good in their own way, but the real world contrast is much much better on the Sony and JVC projectors - except in some extreme simulataneous ANSI contrast test patterns, and even there on the newest projectors they are pretty good. DLPs are closer to movie theater level contrast, but in a good home theater with a high end DLP you will probably do better than most commercial theaters. I would still pick a Sony or JVC, as would most professional HT reviewers at this time, if money is not a limiting factor in your choice.

Because I did have a budget my projector is a single chip DLP, but the next one I buy will be a 3 chip LCOS.
Click to expand...
DLPs are certainly far from perfect. But spending big on an SXRD was my biggest regret in home theater. I got a lot more enjoyment out of lower-cost DLPs even if their on/off contrast could have been better. Black level was the only thing which I felt actually improved. Resolution, motion handling, ANSI contrast etc. was all a step backwards - even though I was going from a budget DLP to an expensive SXRD.

If you only plan on using it to watch films, where motion is already compromised by the 24p format, and nothing is ever perfectly sharp anyway, perhaps you'll be happy with a 3-chip LCoS-derived projector.
If you plan on using it for gaming, you might end up disappointed, especially since you currently own a DLP - I certainly was.
 
A quick word from the wise.

My Optoma DLP projector has developed a fan fault (noisy fan) after just over 2 years.
It happened not long after I replaced the first bulb, that is the time frame of use before the failure.

They want £170 to fix it.
Under UK law they should repair it for free as it is still within a reasonable time the projector should last.
I informed them it is still under warranty by law.
They responded they provide 1yr warranty on the projector, 6 months / 1000hrs on the lamp and refuse to budge.

Rather than spend a lot of time without the projector and hassle taking them through small claims court, I am fixing it myself.
Also I wouldnt trust that they dont screw something up deliberately in spite afterwards.
The fan is only £15 ordered from the US. Its a bit tricky for Joe Public to fix though.
But for over a 90% reduction in cost, I'm game as its my kind of work anyway.

If you use the projector a lot, expect to pay more than the purchase price to own an Optoma.
 
Nenu said:
A quick word from the wise.

My Optoma DLP projector has developed a fan fault (noisy fan) after just over 2 years.
It happened not long after I replaced the bulb, that is the time frame of use before the failure.

They want £170 to fix it.
Under UK law they should repair it for free as it is still within a reasonable time the projector should last.
I informed them it is still under warranty by law.
They responded they provide 1yr warranty on the projector, 6 months / 1000hrs on the lamp and refuse to budge.

Rather than spend a lot of time without the projector and hassle taking them through small claims court, I am fixing it myself.
Also I wouldnt trust that they dont screw something up deliberately in spite afterwards.
The fan is only £15 ordered from the US. Its a bit tricky for Joe Public to fix though.

If you use the projector a lot, expect to pay more than the purchase price to own an Optoma.
Click to expand...
I have an Optoma, used daily for 3-years now, no problems.

I don't think a sample size of one says much about any brand.
 
The warning is that if it fails after 1 year, you foot the bill unless you are prepared to force them.
 
Nenu said:
The warning is that if it fails after 1 year, you foot the bill unless you are prepared to force them.
Click to expand...
Thats normal everywhere outside the EU. In North America if we want longer warranties, we just spend a few extra bucks for a squaretrade warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top