I have had my 65737 for about a week now and the picture is awesome except for one slight issue. When you see a close up of someones face and they move quickly you see what I would call a ghosting effect or shadow. Very slight, but noticable. Anyone know what would cause this?

Thanks,

so CK007, from what you're saying, the 837 models have superior PQ over the 737's in the whole contrast and dark scene stuff? better shades of the spectrum so to speak in picture detail? i was thinking of the 737 since it's affordable but of course i'd be coming from a 1st gen mitsubishi dlp so i know the jump in quality will be quite noticeable aside from the ridiculous sparkly type screen. they should've stuck with the crystal clear screen. that would be awesome and then it would match up more with the lcd's and such.


Yes......for viewing movies and dark content stuff in a controlled nightime setting, I prefer the diamond models, but itf you mean the 2004 DLP as first gen, I too had one (WD-52525) and todays non-diamonds are a huge improvement over this set in all regards.

I went to an hhgregg store in Orlando tonight and viewed the 65735 and 65736 side by side. The differences between the sets I noticed were: 735 has a silver/gray trim below the screen, on the 736 the trim is black. 736 has an extra HDMI port on the front of the set (total of 4 HDMI inputs), 735 has three HDMI inputs, all in the back.

I also viewed the 73837 (too big for my needs) with a blue-ray source input. The 65 inch sets only had a video feed available which appeared to be SD, although the salesman wasn't really sure. It was the same feed playing on almost all the sets in the store. The picture wasn't very good on the DLPs, and I really hope it was not an HD feed. The blue-ray picture on the 73837 was very good and probably much more representative of the picture quality these sets can produce.

I still haven't seen a 65737 or 65837 in person. I would be interested in reading any personal reviews if you have first hand experience with either or both of these sets.

I guess I'll answer my own post.

I travel a lot for my job. This weekend I am in Oklahoma City and I spent some time in a store called Ultimate Electronics. They have a great selection of Mitsu DLPs in the showroom. I got to see the 65837, along with several other DLPs (including the Laservue). I was very impressed with the 65837, and I got a lot of good info about DLPs, LCDs and plasmas from a very knowledgeable salesman. I think this is my next TV.

Hi Guys,
New to this forum but definitely not new to Mits DLP. I've owned the 927 series, then 833, now I just purchased 65837. I'm picking it up tomorrow. Can't wait to see, I'm hoping, a sharper better image. If everyone would like I'll give my opinion on the 837 improvements if any.

Equipment:
Oppo Bp 83 Bluray
DVDO VP50 processor
Sony 2000es Bluray
Onkyo SR805 receiver

Hi Guys,
New to this forum but definitely not new to Mits DLP. I've owned the 927 series, then 833, now I just purchased 65837. I'm picking it up tomorrow. Can't wait to see, I'm hoping, a sharper better image. If everyone would like I'll give my opinion on the 837 improvements if any.

Equipment:
Oppo Bp 83 Bluray
DVDO VP50 processor
Sony 2000es Bluray
Onkyo SR805 receiver

Please do.

Local Cotsco in Atlanta has Mits WD-73C9 and matching base MB-S73 combo for $1999.. What are the diffrences bewteen WD-73737 and WD-73C9 ??

No SharpEdge, no DeepField Imager. Or as one person said, "nothing you care about anyway".

I guess I'll answer my own post.

I travel a lot for my job. This weekend I am in Oklahoma City and I spent some time in a store called Ultimate Electronics. They have a great selection of Mitsu DLPs in the showroom. I got to see the 65837, along with several other DLPs (including the Laservue). I was very impressed with the 65837, and I got a lot of good info about DLPs, LCDs and plasmas from a very knowledgeable salesman. I think this is my next TV.

How did the 65837 stack up against the Laservue? I have not had the opportunity to view one. Dealers in this area say they are not going to carry them due to the small profit margin, but would like to hear your impressions of the Laservue,

How did the 65837 stack up against the Laservue? I have not had the opportunity to view one. Dealers in this area say they are not going to carry them due to the small profit margin, but would like to hear your impressions of the Laservue,

I've seen the Laservue twice. The first time was it's initial release and it was almost too good(if that's possible). then it was pulled from the market and now it's back. I saw one last evening. By the way a redesign from the original. The picture is nice, maybe stunning. The reds are deep and pure the greens are really green (Mits is famous for inaccurate greens) the color is so vibrant it almost hurts your eyes. The big problem is PRICE. 6K c'mon for 6K this thing better come with an automatic coffeemaker.

By the way a redesign from the original.
r.

?? As far as I know there is only one model in the market and it's the same one originaly announced. Where did you see it ?

I've seen the Laservue twice. The first time was it's initial release and it was almost too good(if that's possible). then it was pulled from the market and now it's back. I saw one last evening. By the way a redesign from the original. The picture is nice, maybe stunning. The reds are deep and pure the greens are really green (Mits is famous for inaccurate greens) the color is so vibrant it almost hurts your eyes. The big problem is PRICE. 6K c'mon for 6K this thing better come with an automatic coffeemaker.

My local Ken Crane's had twp 65 inch Mitsu's next to each other. One was the Laservue and the other the bulb based unit with the iris. I could not tell much of a difference between the two. (perhaps a bit better color accuracy on the Laservue) The salesmen (two) agreed with me and have recently moved the non-Laser into another room specifically so you coulnd't compare the two. I was told that they can't sell the Laser at all. (of course they sell the bulb one at a big discouont and the Laser is at MSRP) My question is has anyone had the ability to compare the two side by side? If so could you list the differences for me so that I could better understand why many folks seem to feel the Laser is substantially superior...

My local Ken Crane's had twp 65 inch Mitsu's next to each other. One was the Laservue and the other the bulb based unit with the iris. I could not tell much of a difference between the two. (perhaps a bit better color accuracy on the Laservue) The salesmen (two) agreed with me and have recently moved the non-Laser into another room specifically so you coulnd't compare the two. I was told that they can't sell the Laser at all. (of course they sell the bulb one at a big discouont and the Laser is at MSRP) My question is has anyone had the ability to compare the two side by side? If so could you list the differences for me so that I could better understand why many folks seem to feel the Laser is substantially superior...

My guess is people who loved the laser are those who care about VERY vivid (and VERY unatural) colors, that's it.

My local Ken Crane's had twp 65 inch Mitsu's next to each other. One was the Laservue and the other the bulb based unit with the iris. I could not tell much of a difference between the two. (perhaps a bit better color accuracy on the Laservue) The salesmen (two) agreed with me and have recently moved the non-Laser into another room specifically so you coulnd't compare the two. I was told that they can't sell the Laser at all. (of course they sell the bulb one at a big discouont and the Laser is at MSRP) My question is has anyone had the ability to compare the two side by side? If so could you list the differences for me so that I could better understand why many folks seem to feel the Laser is substantially superior...

Wow. I had a very similar experience at Ultimate Electronics in Oklahoma City. The salesman told me that they initially had the Laservue and the 65837 set up side-by-side, but there just wasn't enough difference between the two pictures to justify the cost differential, so they moved the Laservue into a separate room. I looked at the Laservue, but it isn't even close to the budget so I didn't spend a lot of time with it. The picture looked good, but I can honestly say it didn't look any better than the 65837. Remember, I didn't see them side-by-side. Both were displaying Blue-ray feeds.

I am just about ready to buy a 65837. None of my local retailers stock this set. I'm thinking about purchasing from an online vendor. Good idea or bad idea? Any recommendations or places to avoid? What should I look for in an extended warranty? The street price seems to be $2199 with plenty of vendors offering free shipping.

I am just about ready to buy a 65837. None of my local retailers stock this set. I'm thinking about purchasing from an online vendor. Good idea or bad idea? Any recommendations or places to avoid? What should I look for in an extended warranty? The street price seems to be $2199 with plenty of vendors offering free shipping.

Bad idea on the 837 right now. The QA on the early 837s (which didn't start shipping until about 6 weeks after the 737s) has been nothing short of horrific (see the 737/837 owners thread) so far. And that means a B&M store is by far the best bet for managing your stress level. I'd be willing to buy a 737 online right now, but not an 837. Maybe a few months from now, but not at the current time. I'd be surprised if UE can't get you an 837. The UEs here in Minnesota carry them (that's where I bought my 737).

georule,

I should have been more specific. I live in the Florida panhandle... no UE in this area. I travel a lot and visited a UE in Oklahoma last week. There are no retailers in my area that stock these sets, which leads me to the online vendors. Thanks for the head's up on the 837s, I haven't heard any of the "horrific" stories yet, but I will keep researching.

I'm just one guy on the internet who doesn't own an 837 --so don't take my word for it.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1142582 It's up to 21 pages now, but you can still get thru it in an hour. It's not so much the individual problems being horrific as the depressingly low rate of delivery of "good" 837 sets on the first try that would be too scary for me to buy one online with the increased time/hassle of getting a replacement if necessary. I was inclined to pass off the first few reports as "bad luck". But the numbers are getting high enough that "anecdotal" is no longer a plausible excuse in my book.

But it is your money and stress level, my friend, and no one can judge that for you but you.

I cant seem to find the bulb ratings for these anywhere. As far as I can tell, it's the same bulb as last year's model, but I can't seem to find THAT rating anywhere either, lol. I read somewhere that these bulbs are 20,000 hours but with no source the large figure hardly seems credible. For some reason I have 8,000 hours in my head when I think about it.

Point is.. anyone know the hours rating for the bulb\lamp so I can estimate how many $100 ones to purchase up front? lol. A source would be appreciated as well, thanks.

6,000 hrs.

Why would you need more than one spare? Then you buy another. . .

Of course, the rub is many people will tell you that waiting for them to die is the road to unhappiness. That you'll want to replace them before then to get your brightness back where you would like it. But, hey, the good news is if you do so you'll have an emergency spare in the closet to tide you over to the delivery of your new one.

[QUOTE=mpostgate;16716147]Wow. I had a very similar experience at Ultimate Electronics in Oklahoma City. The salesman told me that they initially had the Laservue and the 65837 set up side-by-side, but there just wasn't enough difference between the two pictures to justify the cost differential, so they moved the Laservue into a separate room. I looked at the Laservue, but it isn't even close to the budget so I didn't spend a lot of time with it. The picture looked good, but I can honestly say it didn't look any better than the 65837. Remember, I didn't see them side-by-side. Both were displaying Blue-ray feeds.

Glad someone else has had the opportunity to compare the Laservue and the bulb Mitsu's next to each other. I thought it was only me that thought there was little difference between the two. Was surprised at the honesty of the salesmen at the store who actually came over and tried to show me what the differences were and then concluded that they just coulnd't find any.

Also, just viewed the Laservue forun here and learned that the new Laservue's have a new (and different) parabolic mirror in them. Why change the mirror unless there was something wrong with the first one? As far as I know the mirror's have NOT been changed on any of this years bulb dlp's.

I,ve had the 837 for about 5 days now. I calibrated it on Joe Kanes disc. The colors can be dialed in spot on except green. However, the green does get a little closer but still off. Anyway, I have it on natural..DD is ON, Temp High, Sharpedge is ON. The set is spectacular. I have run Direct tv, Bluray, HDDVD, VUDU all running into my Onkyo then to the VP50 and onto the set. It is definitely superior to the 833. The picture is sharper, the blacks seem deeper without losing detail, and the colors are vibrant.
I would say right now it's the best RPTV on the market. Had a huge party on Sunday 6/29 and I put on Speed Racer on Bluray. Really was cheating..LOL everyone was glued to the picture!!!

If you are using the high color temperature, your colors are far too blue to be "spot on." You may like it that way, but there is no way that the colors are accurate nor realistic, as all of these sets are far too blue on the high color temperature setting. If you like it that way watch it, but do not confuse your preference for proper calibration. The low color temp setting is usually too red, but not nearly as far in that direction as the blue in the high settings.

[QUOTE=mpostgate;16716147]Wow. I had a very similar experience at Ultimate Electronics in Oklahoma City. The salesman told me that they initially had the Laservue and the 65837 set up side-by-side, but there just wasn't enough difference between the two pictures to justify the cost differential, so they moved the Laservue into a separate room. I looked at the Laservue, but it isn't even close to the budget so I didn't spend a lot of time with it. The picture looked good, but I can honestly say it didn't look any better than the 65837. Remember, I didn't see them side-by-side. Both were displaying Blue-ray feeds.

Glad someone else has had the opportunity to compare the Laservue and the bulb Mitsu's next to each other. I thought it was only me that thought there was little difference between the two. Was surprised at the honesty of the salesmen at the store who actually came over and tried to show me what the differences were and then concluded that they just coulnd't find any.

Also, just viewed the Laservue forun here and learned that the new Laservue's have a new (and different) parabolic mirror in them. Why change the mirror unless there was something wrong with the first one? As far as I know the mirror's have NOT been changed on any of this years bulb dlp's.

If the salesman could not identify differences in the Laservue and lamp based sets he is not well informed. I just got my first look at it and some differences are clear. The whites are brighter, the blacks are blacker, and the colors are far more saturated (not necessarily more accurate, actually less so OOB). I have not been able to calibrate nor measure the set yet, but the differences are clear to the naked eye. Certainly not justifying the price difference for most people, but it is a pretty impressive proof of concept product. The second generation sets should be very interesting and should be a lot lower in price.

The mirror will have to be different for ANY changes in the size or layout of the cabinet. The shape of the mirror is very radical and has to be very precisely matched to the geometry of the design to maintain proper image geometry, so there is not surprise that the new sets will use a different mirror. Whether there are other differences that will minimize the ambient light reflections or make production more efficient is not known.

If the salesman could not identify differences in the Laservue and lamp based sets he is not well informed.
Or, he simply could not see them. I think that's the point.


I just got my first look at it and some differences are clear.
To you perhaps.

But not to everyone.

There are many people besides the person you quoted who have posted after seeing them both, and they could not tell a significant difference. Obviously it depends on the source material, the lighting, and many other factors. But there's no reason to assume somebody is less informed or stupid just because they haven't noticed the same difference you did.

The differences are clear enough that it is obvious that they are present. Whether they are significant einough to be meaningful to anyone in particular is a personal decision.

The differences are clear enough that it is obvious that they are present.
No, I'm sorry, that is not a true statement.

To you, and your eyes, the differences are obvious. << THAT would be a true statement.

For the record, I have no problem with the Laservue.

I just have a problem with condescending attitudes, and what seems like people talking 'down' to others for no reason.

If the differences are obvious to some, then they are likely present. I am sure that when we get to measure them we will see that they differences are present, based on my extensive experience with displays over thirty years or so, and thousands of measurements. What is incorrect is to state that there are not differences simply because one does not think they are meaningful. Differences are to be expected because of the differing technologies, just like there will be differences between lamp based DLP and LCD RP sets.

I am not sure what you consider to be condescending, but if you would be specific I will do my best to clarify my comments without appearing to be so.

Well I'm going to respectively disagree. You must be a calibrator because you all love those warm picture settings. What I see as perfect I guarantee you will not. I like the cooler side of the picture. It appears sharper and more realistic. I calibated the mits to the calibration disk and at the natural setting and temp high you can dial in the colors of red and blue perfectly. The green is way to yellow and even messing with tint and ISF advanced mode I was unable to see green perfectly looking through the filter. So green I just eye-balled it the best I could. But if you watch as much material as I do ,and it is alot, you know what you want to see.

If the differences are obvious to some, then they are likely present. I am sure that when we get to measure them we will see that they differences are present, based on my extensive experience with displays over thirty years or so, and thousands of measurements. What is incorrect is to state that there are not differences simply because one does not think they are meaningful. Differences are to be expected because of the differing technologies, just like there will be differences between lamp based DLP and LCD RP sets.

I am not sure what you consider to be condescending, but if you would be specific I will do my best to clarify my comments without appearing to be so.
You are only talking about the differences in Televisions, without taking into consideration the differences in People. Human beings. With eyeballs.

I don't care what any spec sheet says, or what technology is being used... it's ultimately the consumers who decide the success of a product, and many of those consumers still use their own eyeballs to make the buying decision on the showroom floor. And there's been quite a few people who have said they don't see much of a difference between the Laservue and DLP sets after viewing them both.

Anyway, let's assume the Laservue is a better TV. (I'm sure it is, and at twice the price, it should be.)

That does not make those people 'wrong'.

It does not make those people less informed, or stupid.

It just makes them human beings with their own opinions.

And considering the number of human beings I've seen report the same thing, I don't think the differences between the two technologies are night-and-day, or instantly recognizable as you seem to think... or else everyone would be saying the same thing as you. Wouldn't they?

Well I'm going to respectively disagree. You must be a calibrator because you all love those warm picture settings. What I see as perfect I guarantee you will not. I like the cooler side of the picture. It appears sharper and more realistic. I calibated the mits to the calibration disk and at the natural setting and temp high you can dial in the colors of red and blue perfectly. The green is way to yellow and even messing with tint and ISF advanced mode I was unable to see green perfectly looking through the filter. So green I just eye-balled it the best I could. But if you watch as much material as I do ,and it is alot, you know what you want to see.


What you want to see is fine. It is simply counter to promoting clear understandings of what calibration means to confuse your preference with accuracy. The simple fact is that if you leave these sets on high, virtually any source material that you try to reproduce will not be the color that was recorded or transferred from film. The easiest way to see this is to compare an item such as a jersey from your favorite sports team or a cereal box from a commercial to one you have in your house. You will see that oranges are too pink, magentas are too blue, and flesh tones are more pink than they are in reality. You may prefer this and that is OK.

The filters that you are using to "dial in" your colors are for adjusting the color decoding and not gray scale. The gray scale is the underlying canvas upon which all colors are painted in your set. The color decoding is intended to get the right amount of each color so that the matrix your set uses matches the standards for color reproduction. Unfortunately, the Mitsubishi complicates this with the way that they make adjustments. It is very difficult to get them right without a meter and software that shows both the saturation and luma for each color. If you think that they are right and are happy with the results then you should not be concerned with getting accuracy. Just don't confuse people by suggesting that you have "calibrated" your set. What you have done is adjusted the colors to your preference. That is OK. There is just a difference between that and calibration.

You are only talking about the differences in Televisions, without taking into consideration the differences in People. Human beings. With eyeballs.

I don't care what any spec sheet says, or what technology is being used... it's ultimately the consumers who decide the success of a product, and many of those consumers still use their own eyeballs to make the buying decision on the showroom floor. And there's been quite a few people who have said they don't see much of a difference between the Laservue and DLP sets after viewing them both.

Anyway, let's assume the Laservue is a better TV. (I'm sure it is, and at twice the price, it should be.)

That does not make those people 'wrong'.

It does not make those people less informed, or stupid.

It just makes them human beings with their own opinions.

And considering the number of human beings I've seen report the same thing, I don't think the differences between the two technologies are night-and-day, or instantly recognizable as you seem to think... or else everyone would be saying the same thing as you. Wouldn't they?

If there are differences, and someone said that there are not, that person is wrong. They may not understand the differences, the differences may not be meaningful to them, or they may just not care. The former is wrong, the latter cases are not. Please read what I said.

A salesperson who is doing his job should be able to demonstrate the differences or as least describe them. If he cannot, he is not doing his job. He should be able to qualify his clients and sell them what fits their needs. If they don't see nor care about the differences, he needs to sell them the less expensive set. Dismissing the differences that do exist as not being there is very different from putting them in the proper context.

I have always been very clear that the differences may not be meaningful nor noticed by everyone. I have also always been clear that individual preferences are important in selecting a technology and applying it. Your argument is pointless if you read what I said. We do not disagree other than on the point of whether there are differences. Just because someone cannot identify them or does not care does not change the reality.

They may not understand the differences, the differences may not be meaningful to them, or they may just not care.
Or, they may not see the differences.

It's funny you don't include that option when describing the situation.

Instead you say people "don't understand" or they "don't care".

Dude. Seriously.

Stop implying everyone who says they don't see a significant difference between DLP and Laservue is either stupid or careless. THAT's a good example of condescending. I should probably let this go, but you really do seem to have a Know-it-all attitude, and frankly I find it irritating.

I had no intention of implying that at all, hn. If people do not perceive a difference it may as well not be there. That does not make them stupid, nor careless. Not caring about someting or not noticing it is not an inherently bad thing. It also does not mean that there is not a difference. Please do not attribute meaning that I do not intend. You are making an argument where there is none.

I had no intention of implying that at all, hn. If people do not perceive a difference it may as well not be there. That does not make them stupid, nor careless. Not caring about someting or not noticing it is not an inherently bad thing. It also does not mean that there is not a difference. Please do not attribute meaning that I do not intend. You are making an argument where there is none.

Here's where you get off base...your right about the calibration aspect. According to the grey scale your colors are exactly as intended. What you fail to realize is the human eye changes. It's fine if your colors are "perfect" but if your color blind, well, it means ****!. The human eye changes as we age. Things that look brilliant red may look bright red when your 40. So you have to "calibrate" your set to the individual viewer. If I use joe Kane's calibration disc (I know it's not the best) but dial in so that to my eye sees the picture perfectly then that picture IS perfect. The grey scale does not take into account that each pair of eyes see things differently. You should be calibrating to preference not a fixed scale. It's like audio. What is great sounding to me, may sound like crap to you. But if it's my room, should I care that it sounds bad to you. I know your pointed out the difference between preference and standard. But what you should be pointing out...is...preference is standard.

Here's where you get off base...your right about the calibration aspect. According to the grey scale your colors are exactly as intended. What you fail to realize is the human eye changes. It's fine if your colors are "perfect" but if your color blind, well, it means ****!. The human eye changes as we age. Things that look brilliant red may look bright red when your 40. So you have to "calibrate" your set to the individual viewer.
That just doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that the colors of objects in real life (viewed directly by your eyes) don't look right, but you calibrate your TV to make things "look right" to you, even though everything else you view with your eyes looks off? It doesn't matter what kind of condition you have with your eyes, there is only one "correct" color calibration: that's where the color represented on the display matches the color of the object that was captured. If you are color blind (I am), you may not see things the same way most others do, but that doesn't change the fact that a certain object in real life looks a certain way, and if a display is calibrated as close to "correct" as possible, it will appear correct when you view it on TV. Now, if you prefer to have things looks a little different on TV, that doesn't mean there are two "corrects". That simply means you prefer something other than correct.

If I use joe Kane's calibration disc (I know it's not the best) but dial in so that to my eye sees the picture perfectly then that picture IS perfect. The grey scale does not take into account that each pair of eyes see things differently. You should be calibrating to preference not a fixed scale.
Somehow I expect that you don't understand what he's talking about in respect to "gray scale". The point is: when you use the colored cellophane strips with a calibration disc, you aren't doing a "full" calibration. You are essentially calibrating only at certain specific points. It's better than just using your eyes, but it's rather simplistic compared to a full calibration with good equipment that actually analyzes the output under the full range of hues and luminosities. Using the strips assumes that the set is already calibrated to have linear output.
But what you should be pointing out...is...preference is standard.
You've posted not only that what you see as perfect someone else may not, and that your own eyes change over time. So how can an individuals fluctuating preference be a standard? Somehow I think you and I have a different definition of what constitutes a "standard". :confused:

Here's where you get off base...your right about the calibration aspect. According to the grey scale your colors are exactly as intended. What you fail to realize is the human eye changes. It's fine if your colors are "perfect" but if your color blind, well, it means ****!. The human eye changes as we age. Things that look brilliant red may look bright red when your 40. So you have to "calibrate" your set to the individual viewer. If I use joe Kane's calibration disc (I know it's not the best) but dial in so that to my eye sees the picture perfectly then that picture IS perfect. The grey scale does not take into account that each pair of eyes see things differently. You should be calibrating to preference not a fixed scale. It's like audio. What is great sounding to me, may sound like crap to you. But if it's my room, should I care that it sounds bad to you. I know your pointed out the difference between preference and standard. But what you should be pointing out...is...preference is standard.

I do not fail to realize it at all. I am fully aware of changes in both vision and perception, both short term and long term. What is laking in your post is acknowledgement of the the difference between what is produced by the display and the perception of what is produced. Liking what you see may make the experience perfect in your mind, but does not mean that the display is producing accurately what is input.

There are multiple goals for calibration, in spite of the limited view that many calibration specialists promote. One goal is to make the display (and system associated with it) a neutral presentation of the signals that are provided. This gives the best chance, in most cases, of reproducing what was recorded, intended, or transferred from film. It also assures that the perceptual accomodations that one's brain and vision system have produced remain consistent. Someone who is colorblind has adapted to perceive things a certain way. If what is produced on the display is very different in color or in luma response from reality, that person is just as likely to find it unnatural as someone with perfect color vision. They may depend more on different colors, and more on the response to stimulus level, but they have adapted a certain response based in what they see in the real world. Reproducing things that way on a display is still of great value.

With respect to aging, I am more aware than most. I do not see blue as well as I did when I was younger. If I calibrate a set visually, I tend much more toward making it blue than I did 10 years ago. I can still tell the difference between a display calibrated too blue and the rest of the world, however. My adaptation applies to both.

Now there is the rest of the story that most calibrators don't want to get into, and that is the matter of personal preference. There is nothing at all wrong with someone wanting to watch a display that is not producing colors accurately. If the user feels that a gray scale of over 10000K looks "better", "perfect", or more "natural", then that perception and preference is perfectly valid FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. What is wrong is to confuse this preference with accurate reproduction that can be measured. There is a big difference. That difference may not be meaningful to you or someone else, and that is a valid view. That person should not pay to have a display calibrated unless they have a need to have it adjusted to some bias, which is usually pointless. It makes more sense for this person to simply adjust it visually if that makes a result with which he is happy.

In many cases, once shown the differences that a calibrated display provides, these people begin to appreciate the accuracy. Sometimes not. This is where a real professional makes decisions about how much to educate a prospective client and/or when to suggest that they not have the display calibrated.

Arguing that preference IS standard is simply silly. We have standards in order to have the best chance of reproducing things with consistency. If we simply reject standards in favor of preference, every program that we watch would have even more variability than they do now. Understanding the difference between accuracy as defined by standards and perceptual preference is very important to the industry in general. The very reason that we have so many really good displays today is largely due to the efforts of those like JKP and ISF. It may not matter to you as an individual, but to argue that it is not significant outside of your own frame of reference is simply wrong. It is misleading, at best not useful, to those who choose to look for greater understanding of what they see.

You obviously know what your talking about. I think we are talking about two different things. I am over simplifying your science. Let me say this, if you are calibrating a display for a large audience as a movie theater, then yes a standard calibration is required because it's not an individual prospective. Now take a home theater: First When I look at high def material say a baseball game at Citizens Park in philly, Ive been to that park several times so when I watch on TV, I hope to see the park as I recall. I'm hoping I see nothing that stands out as "off". Now does that mean maybe the artificial turf is off its green by 1/1000 on a shade, maybe. But to the naked eye, it wouldn't be important. So you say it's not preference it's correct science. Nothing is correct science. I'm a nurse I know nothing is 100% equal in all cases. So, again, if I'm watching a game and my set seems perfect to me. Oh, and I am looking for perfect, Then do I really need to call you guys in to get that picture a micro fraction more "correct". Or should I do the best with what I have, see that it appears natural without actually seeing something live, and be happy.

Read what I said. I have said many times here on AVS and elsewhere, and above, that not everyone should have a display professionally calibrated. If you are happy with what you see, then be happy and there is nothing wrong with that. The purpose of home entertainment systems is to use and enjoy them. Just don't claim that it is correct outside your personal preference if it does not meet industry standards. That is not a criticism nor a negative characterization of you nor your preference. It is simply a matter of correctness in discourse that is reasonable on a "science" forum.

As a nurse you also know that science is very important. You don't apply guesswork nor personal preference when providing medication and making measurements of your patients' condition. You use standards. You also use judgement, and this is no different from what a calibration specialist does. We start with standards and apply them to the best use for the conditions and the needs of the individual.

The fact is that if you leave gray scale on high, colors will more likely be incorrect, grass will look more like artificial turf, aqua will look too blue, flesh tones wil be more pink than natural, and oranges will be shifted toward magenta/blue. It is simple color science. If you like it, use it that way. I'm ok, you're ok, but do not mistake that you are talking about a preference and I am using a reference standard.

Well put...point taken. I have only two questions. When you have a set professionally calibrated do they leave you with some settings in case your tv goes off and it automatically resets to factory settings?

Secondly, The bottom of your post?....does this make me the lower half?

Yes. I do.

No. Unless you are incapable of articulating your position and respecting that of others.

This is a lively back and forth, and lcaillo, you might want to tone down teh condescension a bit. There's a fine line between being knowledgeable and helpful - and just being smug and arrogant for spite.

In all of your wonderful explanation of reference standards vs. personal preferences, and 6500k vs. 9300k/over 10000k and speaking so authoritatively about needing to set your DLP to Normal/Low to achive perfectly accurate white levels - you unilaterally failed to respect the very real possibility that someone's DLP set may well have shipped with abnormal/inaccurate color temp settings out of the box, and setting the set to Normal/Low may well result in lower than 6500k white levels and equally inaccurate color.

It's nice to know what you're talking about, and to be able to speak intelligently on the science of TV calibration. It's another thing to throw it in people's faces when talking about someone's set you've never actually seen yourself.

In the immortal words of on Sgt. Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

[QUOTE=ordo;16720338]

If the salesman could not identify differences in the Laservue and lamp based sets he is not well informed. I just got my first look at it and some differences are clear. The whites are brighter, the blacks are blacker, and the colors are far more saturated (not necessarily more accurate, actually less so OOB). I have not been able to calibrate nor measure the set yet, but the differences are clear to the naked eye. Certainly not justifying the price difference for most people, but it is a pretty impressive proof of concept product. The second generation sets should be very interesting and should be a lot lower in price.

The mirror will have to be different for ANY changes in the size or layout of the cabinet. The shape of the mirror is very radical and has to be very precisely matched to the geometry of the design to maintain proper image geometry, so there is not surprise that the new sets will use a different mirror. Whether there are other differences that will minimize the ambient light reflections or make production more efficient is not known.

WOW WHAT A STIR I STARTED WHEN I COMMENTED ABOUT THE TWO SALESMENM AGREEING WITH ME THAT THERE WAS LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BULB AND LASER. I DIDN'T MEAN TO...

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT WHAT ALL THREE OF US SAW. THE SALESMEN ALL CLAIMED TO HAVE 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE SELLING TV'S. THEY SELL AT A CHAIN THAT HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR AT LEAST THAT LONG A TIME. WE ALL CONCLUDED THAT CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT THE BLACKS WERE NOT BLACKER AND THE WHITES WERE NOT WHITER BETWEEN THE TWO LIGHTING SOURCES. THE DIFFERENCES (LITTLE IF ANY) WERE NOT OBVIOUS TO THE NAKED EYE AS YOU CONTEND UNLESS YOU CONTEND THAT THREE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS ALL THOUGHT OTHERWISE FOR SOME REASON OF THEIR OWN. I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT LIKELY SINCE THE TWO SALESMEN HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SELLING A MORE EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGY. (SALESMEN HERE ARE ON COMMISSION)

[QUOTE=lcaillo;16753259]

WOW WHAT A STIR I STARTED WHEN I COMMENTED ABOUT THE TWO SALESMENM AGREEING WITH ME THAT THERE WAS LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BULB AND LASER. I DIDN'T MEAN TO...

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT WHAT ALL THREE OF US SAW. THE SALESMEN ALL CLAIMED TO HAVE 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE SELLING TV'S. THEY SELL AT A CHAIN THAT HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR AT LEAST THAT LONG A TIME. WE ALL CONCLUDED THAT CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT THE BLACKS WERE NOT BLACKER AND THE WHITES WERE NOT WHITER BETWEEN THE TWO LIGHTING SOURCES. THE DIFFERENCES (LITTLE IF ANY) WERE NOT OBVIOUS TO THE NAKED EYE AS YOU CONTEND UNLESS YOU CONTEND THAT THREE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS ALL THOUGHT OTHERWISE FOR SOME REASON OF THEIR OWN. I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT LIKELY SINCE THE TWO SALESMEN HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SELLING A MORE EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGY. (SALESMEN HERE ARE ON COMMISSION)

If this is the case then there is no reason for you to do anything but be happy with the lamp based set.

Well, I spend a good part of the weekend playing with the Mitsubishi 65837 trying to get the perfect picture. Icaillo, you were right about the the grey scale and how the 'high" causes the grey scale to shift towards blue and the "low" shout be closer to 6500K. I finally decided to watch Joe Kane's disc instead of jumping right to the patterns as I always do. The problem is How close to the magic 6500K am I with the Mits set. Its low setting may be below 6500. Anyway I started at low with the brightness set at "bright" If I set it at "natural" it's way to earthy. Brilliant, is way too blown out. So, from Low temp with bright settings I tried to get as close as I could according to the disc. The picture is nicer, the reds are slightly hot but in all the TV looks pretty good. So thanks for the tip. Anyway, the Mits 65-837 is a nice set. with a puchy picture when set properly. It also includes a ISF menu that a calibrator could access to get as close as the set will allow. So in all ,I love the Mits and would strongly recommend if your looking for bang for the buck!

Mitsu's manual claims that Natural *and* Low is what produces the closest to 6500k, not just Low.

I'd be very interested to see what a calibrator with tools thinks of that claim, and even color temp readings for all 6 combinations: Brilliant/Low, Bright/Low, Natural/Low, Brilliant/High (Out of Box settings), Bright/High, Natural/High.

Mitsu's manual claims that Natural *and* Low is what produces the closest to 6500k, not just Low.

I'd be very interested to see what a calibrator with tools thinks of that claim, and even color temp readings for all 6 combinations: Brilliant/Low, Bright/Low, Natural/Low, Brilliant/High (Out of Box settings), Bright/High, Natural/High.

Right Gio, I'm just saying after exhausting playing, that Bright /Low was as close to looking natural. However, Bright/ High or Natural/High looked good as far as crispness

Most mits sets have high ct around 12000k and low around 6000k.

Most mits sets have high ct around 12000k and low around 6000k.

I believe the high end I bet the low setting is around 5500. It just didn't seem that the low setting on a natural picture setting seemed right. it just looked to red to me. The Mits manual states that the low is the closest to 6500K.

Right Gio, I'm just saying after exhausting playing, that Bright /Low was as close to looking natural. However, Bright/ High or Natural/High looked good as far as crispness

I dragged out the x-rite last night just to check my 65737.

Natural/Low is indeed too low. It was around 5800.

Bright/Low looks closest to the mark at around 6700, but the colors were a bit too intense.

Natural/High was crisper, but a bit washed out. It was up around 9300.

The big noticeable difference is obviously the whites/greens. On high, greens skew towards blue/aqua, and on Low, White isn't white. It's yellow.

You can get it close to perfect fiddling with the ADV picture settings, but even still, that's a lot of tweaking for sets that have a pretty great picture at any setting.

Most mits sets have high ct around 12000k and low around 6000k.

So by your own admission, new Mits sets on Natural/Low would NOT be D65/6500, but significantly lower at 6000 +/-.

I would not call it an admission at all, just information. I have always said that Low is closer to D65 but is typically too red or yellow (usually slightly yellower than D65 due to needing a little blue). In fact, in other threads I have said for years that most mits sets can get much closer to D65 simply by increasing the blue in the low CT, and for many people, this is adequate, if not a true calibration. The sets are rather consistent in this bias, though the more recent sets seem to have low calibrated a little closer than those of a few years ago.

I believe the high end I bet the low setting is around 5500. It just didn't seem that the low setting on a natural picture setting seemed right. it just looked to red to me. The Mits manual states that the low is the closest to 6500K.

And the Mits manual is correct, because it is far closer. It usually needs some blue in most sets. The used to come in with low set between 5000K and 6000K, now they rarely come in below 5500K and are usually closer to 6000K. They do still vary quite a bit.

Remember, the color temp numbers really do not tell the whole story, as they are ambiguous. The color is precisely specified by the x,y coordinates, not the color temperature. I use the CCT because people seem to generally get the idea of how it relates to the color of white better. The truth is that you could have a very green or magenta looking white at 6500K.

And the Mits manual is correct, because it is far closer. It usually needs some blue in most sets. The used to come in with low set between 5000K and 6000K, now they rarely come in below 5500K and are usually closer to 6000K. They do still vary quite a bit.

Remember, the color temp numbers really do not tell the whole story, as they are ambiguous. The color is precisely specified by the x,y coordinates, not the color temperature. I use the CCT because people seem to generally get the idea of how it relates to the color of white better. The truth is that you could have a very green or magenta looking white at 6500K.

Well I agree and respect your expertice. I'm sure a "proper' calibration would be the way to go. However, since I'm not going that way I have finally settled on Bright/High settings. it looks the best to me. I watched each setting for days and different material on each, and I still like the Bright/High on this set. Your probably cringing in your seat but it does look the best!

Well I agree and respect your expertice. I'm sure a "proper' calibration would be the way to go. However, since I'm not going that way I have finally settled on Bright/High settings. it looks the best to me. I watched each setting for days and different material on each, and I still like the Bright/High on this set. Your probably cringing in your seat but it does look the best!

It amazes me the way people assume conflict. I have no reason to cringe at your preference for how you watch your set. Please do not confuse trying to inform with trying to enforce standards for people who do not want to use them. If you like it that way feel free to watch it no matter what anyone else says.

It amazes me the way people assume conflict. I have no reason to cringe at your preference for how you watch your set. Please do not confuse trying to inform with trying to enforce standards for people who do not want to use them. If you like it that way feel free to watch it no matter what anyone else says.

I'm pretty sure people assume conflict coming from your posts because of the nasty, condescending manner in which you present said "information".

Your snotty "I'm smarter than most of you!" signature quote isn't helping matters, either.

You sound like you certainly understand the science behind HDTV calibration; but you have a tendency to get very demonstrative and overbearing in how you correct people, and present the facts, or rather - your personal interpretation of them.

I do not intend conflict, nor condescension. If someone disagrees with my interpretation of the facts I am very willing to be corrected. If someone simply has a different perspective and priorities, I readily acknowledge that they have the right to that view. Facts are facts, however, and some may prefer not to have them pointed out. Generally, however, I think most people who come here would rather have the correct information and have opinion qualified as such. I try to be informative, as I do have a bit of experience in this field. As for my sig, it is a fact that half of the population is below average in any measure you take. I think it is also reasonable to assume that most posters at AVS are in the upper half. I believe that the quality of posts are often below the capacity of the poster in terms of the ability to communicate in a clear and civil manner. If you perceive anything else in mine, I will try to do better.

Now can we stay on topic?

I do not intend conflict, nor condescension. If someone disagrees with my interpretation of the facts I am very willing to be corrected. If someone simply has a different perspective and priorities, I readily acknowledge that they have the right to that view. Facts are facts, however, and some may prefer not to have them pointed out. Generally, however, I think most people who come here would rather have the correct information and have opinion qualified as such. I try to be informative, as I do have a bit of experience in this field. As for my sig, it is a fact that half of the population is below average in any measure you take. I think it is also reasonable to assume that most posters at AVS are in the upper half. I believe that the quality of posts are often below the capacity of the poster in terms of the ability to communicate in a clear and civil manner. If you perceive anything else in mine, I will try to do better.

Now can we stay on topic?
OK fella's lets not turn this into a penis swinging contest. I understand Icaillo's point. What I do in nursing, only a handful of the profession can do. So when nurses of less skill, in my area, begin to tell me how things should be done I tend to feel "aggravated" that we waste time discussing this. I think it's age as you get older and become an expert in something your tolerance for lesser skillsets becomes strained. OK so back on topic which is mitsubishi DLP. This is the 5th DLP set I have owned from Mitsubishi. I will go on line to say it is the best of the lot and the mere fact that it offers ISf calibration menu's is a big step. My curiosity is what's next for Mits. Is there going to be a set beyond the 837 series. Are they out of the RPTV business next year?.
The laser set is interesting but is it worth producing?..anyone have any views on this?

I think until flat panels can be produced competitively with the larger (65"+) sets, there will be a place for RP. The same can be true of laser... if they can get the production cost close to that of bulb based sets, there would be no need for the bulbs. But that's going to take a lot of work. By the time that happens, flat panels could be competitive in those sizes. I just don't see laser based rear projection surviving against flat panels without a price advantage. Personally, I would expect to see Mits continuing the bulb based sets with little to no significant changes, until laser or flat panels become price competitive with them. Pretty much like they did with the current sets... the differences between the '08 and '09 appear to be mostly in the upstream electronics (minor changes in image processing features, etc.). The actual image producing aspects seem mostly carried over. I doubt they'll make any huge investments in significant upgrades to the bulb based sets. They'll probably focus more on the laser until it's more practical, or give up on it and move on to a new technology.

I think until flat panels can be produced competitively with the larger (65"+) sets, there will be a place for RP. The same can be true of laser... if they can get the production cost close to that of bulb based sets, there would be no need for the bulbs. But that's going to take a lot of work. By the time that happens, flat panels could be competitive in those sizes. I just don't see laser based rear projection surviving against flat panels without a price advantage. Personally, I would expect to see Mits continuing the bulb based sets with little to no significant changes, until laser or flat panels become price competitive with them. Pretty much like they did with the current sets... the differences between the '08 and '09 appear to be mostly in the upstream electronics (minor changes in image processing features, etc.). The actual image producing aspects seem mostly carried over. I doubt they'll make any huge investments in significant upgrades to the bulb based sets. They'll probably focus more on the laser until it's more practical, or give up on it and move on to a new technology.
Your so right Darin. Mitsubishi went on the line putting out those laser sets but what they failed to realize is not many TV watchers will shell aout 6-7K for a rear projection. it's a damn nice set, but until you can get it to the 3-4K area your just not going to sell alot. The bulp DLP's will stay for a while. its a great size/price ratio. The picure is improving and when your the only company left that produces them, you may have an advantage.

I was in a room at Fry's today and saw the 65" Laservue next to the WD-73737, and in all honesty couldn't believe that they were selling it for $5499. The sales guy didn't even mention it to me as we walked into the room, he sort of shrugged his shoulders at it. They also had a WD-82837 in the main area next to a WD-73837, the WD-73837 looked like the set I would get. Not sure if it was they way they set the 82", but it looked a bit dimmer to me then the 73" next to it. Not to mention a whole lot cheaper.

I was in a room at Fry's today and saw the 65" Laservue next to the WD-73737, and in all honesty couldn't believe that they were selling it for $5499. The sales guy didn't even mention it to me as we walked into the room, he sort of shrugged his shoulders at it. They also had a WD-82837 in the main area next to a WD-73837, the WD-73837 looked like the set I would get. Not sure if it was they way they set the 82", but it looked a bit dimmer to me then the 73" next to it. Not to mention a whole lot cheaper.

I too experienced the 73 inchers next to the 82 inchers and have to agree with you. The 82 inchers were a whole lot dimmer and not only that I thought they lacked the same contrast and resolution. Another forum member who also saw what we did suggested that perhaps they were not using the same TI darkchip4 used in the other models. This seemed at the time to me to not make a lot of sense but now I'm not so sure. Without opening one up can anyone find out or does someone out there already know the answer? If so could you enlighten us???

Also, if it is not in the chip coult the use of the same 180W bulb make that kind of a difference between the 73's ad the 82's??

ordo

Thanks for your comments. I was starting to think I'm getting too old since I was the only person to find the 82 a whole lot dimmer. If you didn't have the opportunity, like I did, to play with the remote, you probably saw it in brilliant mode. In natural mode is much worse.

Also, if it is not in the chip coult the use of the same 180W bulb make that kind of a difference between the 73's ad the 82's??

Certainly... the 82" has 26.2% more screen area. With the same bulb power, the 73" will have 26.2% more lumens/in² than the 82". That's nothing to sneeze at. They should both be able to resolve the same level of detail, but if the brightness is having to be pushed up to counter the less powerful bulb, that could result in less contrast in use (but the same absolute and ansi contrast, because the 82" should have darker blacks along with the dimmer whites). Lower contrast may make the detail more difficult to see, even though it may be there. In a completely dark room, where the full brightness of the 180w bulb in the 73" is overkill, the advantage could switch to the 82". But that's just conjecture... I have an '08 73". I've never seen the 82".

ordo

Thanks for your comments. I was starting to think I'm getting too old since I was the only person to find the 82 a whole lot dimmer. If you didn't have the opportunity, like I did, to play with the remote, you probably saw it in brilliant mode. In natural mode is much worse.

Yes switching from brilliant to natural mode was a real killer. The picture was so dark that it was literally all washed out. Colors were "gone" "grey" whites and nothing I could do to help out. Tried the "bright" setting it helped but as my goal was the get white whites and black blacks I was just out of luck. There was a mercury car ad on hdtv for the 4th of july. The salesman just stood in front of three cars, one red one white and one blue. I had plenty of time as he talked to switch modes and never got the whites as seen in the adjacent 73727. They always stayed grey... And yes I almost forgot they were always dim in all modes.

Certainly... the 82" has 26.2% more screen area. With the same bulb power, the 73" will have 26.2% more lumens/in² than the 82". That's nothing to sneeze at. They should both be able to resolve the same level of detail, but if the brightness is having to be pushed up to counter the less powerful bulb, that could result in less contrast in use (but the same absolute and ansi contrast, because the 82" should have darker blacks along with the dimmer whites). Lower contrast may make the detail more difficult to see, even though it may be there. In a completely dark room, where the full brightness of the 180w bulb in the 73" is overkill, the advantage could switch to the 82". But that's just conjecture... I have an '08 73". I've never seen the 82".

Have always appreciated your comments on these threads, thanks. Did try to increase the brightness (82837) level to compensate. Had no effect on contrast. Instead all it did was "wash" the picture out and perhaps even "wash" some of the contrast out. I tried lowering the contrast. It did not make the detail any better. In fact nothing I could do helped with that. The area I viewed the sets was fairly dark and at the far end of the showroom. On entering from across the room you could see the brightness of the 73837's and see the obvious opposite for the 82837's. This was so evident that the salesman said they were going to get the mitsu guys in soon. I went across the street to another place where they had the 73737's and 82737's next to each other. I found the exact same thing...

Did try to increase the brightness (82837) level to compensate. Had no effect on contrast. Instead all it did was "wash" the picture out and perhaps even "wash" some of the contrast out.

Yes, that's exactly what would happen, and exactly my point. "Brightness" and "Contrast" in TVs are kind of misnomers. When you adjust brightness, you are effectively setting black level (how dark the darkest shades are). When you adjust contrast, you are adjusting white level (how bright the brightest shades are. Contrast, in reality, is determined by the difference between these two settings. If you increase brightness, you are making the darkest shades lighter. Since they are now closer to the whitest shades than they were with the lower setting, the resulting contrast level (range between black and white) is now lower. Since the 82" has lower potential light output per square inch, shadow detail may be harder to see in rooms with ambient light. You would effectively have "black crush". Therefore, you have to raise the brightness level up to keep the darker shades of gray from being lost in the ambient light. And since the potential light output/inch is lower, white level (labeled contrast) may already be maxed out, so you can't increase it any further to maintain the same dynamic range. Hence, the washed out look.

And you can't necessarily know that you are comparing apples to apples if you set the 73" and 82" to the same brightness and contrast levels. They aren't necessarily absolute numbers. Mitsubishi could have very well set a brightness setting of "31" to a higher level on the 82" than it is on the 73" to compensate for the lower bulb power/in. Without having seen one, I still suspect that the 82" could be fine in a home with light control. Big store showrooms are typically much MUCH brighter than most home theaters, and therefore a poor place to judge displays.

Yes, that's exactly what would happen, and exactly my point. "Brightness" and "Contrast" in TVs are kind of misnomers. When you adjust brightness, you are effectively setting black level (how dark the darkest shades are). When you adjust contrast, you are adjusting white level (how bright the brightest shades are. Contrast, in reality, is determined by the difference between these two settings. If you increase brightness, you are making the darkest shades lighter. Since they are now closer to the whitest shades than they were with the lower setting, the resulting contrast level (range between black and white) is now lower. Since the 82" has lower potential light output per square inch, shadow detail may be harder to see in rooms with ambient light. You would effectively have "black crush". Therefore, you have to raise the brightness level up to keep the darker shades of gray from being lost in the ambient light. And since the potential light output/inch is lower, white level (labeled contrast) may already be maxed out, so you can't increase it any further to maintain the same dynamic range. Hence, the washed out look.

And you can't necessarily know that you are comparing apples to apples if you set the 73" and 82" to the same brightness and contrast levels. They aren't necessarily absolute numbers. Mitsubishi could have very well set a brightness setting of "31" to a higher level on the 82" than it is on the 73" to compensate for the lower bulb power/in. Without having seen one, I still suspect that the 82" could be fine in a home with light control. Big store showrooms are typically much MUCH brighter than most home theaters, and therefore a poor place to judge displays.

If what you are saying is true and there is nothing wrong with the set and it is working as it's supposed to then the set is not for me. I have room for an 82 but would not be interested in what I saw. That is how dramatic the differences were between the sets. The 73's were extremely acceptable (I liked both 73737 and 73837) and a pleasure to watch. Yet the 82's were such a different picture that one might suspect they are using a different chip. I have heard this rumor form another forum member. Is it possible that it's not just the larger screen and the too dim bulb that is causing all that I saw???

Darin

I'm looking forward to your comments as soon as you have an opportunity to see the 82. I agree 100% with ordo's opinion and, trust me, I wanted to like the 82 and had it on the top of my short list to replace my 73927.

I had plenty of time to mess with almost everything on the settings. I know the differences between contrast/brightness black/white levels and nothing would make the set with decent blacks and whites.

The room was very large with the traditional track lighting, not very dark but not very bright either. The 82 was next to a Panasonic 65" plasma and the 73837. Obviously the plasma had a much better picture but the 73837 was also pretty good.

Does anyone know what TI chip they are using on the 837 series? I have not heard they switched to the Darkchip4. Thanks for the info on the 82". have not physically seen the set yet . And, why is it so much heavier?..any observations?...different screen?

Darin

I'm looking forward to your comments as soon as you have an opportunity to see the 82. I agree 100% with ordo's opinion and, trust me, I wanted to like the 82 and had it on the top of my short list to replace my 73927. Yes, I don't doubt that the 82" is paling in direct comparison to the 73"... there's been plenty of reports of it in the other thread too. I'm simply saying that the cause could be the fact that the 180w bulb is just being stretched too far for 82", at least in applications where there's a decent amount of ambient light. There have also been reports of less detail, which simply shouldn't be, but I could see a washed out picture making it appear that there's less detail.

As far as it being due to a different chip: I haven't seen that post, and don't know what the source of the information was, but on the surface that seems highly unlikely. It would probably cost them more to go back to the older chip for the 82", since that would mean designing (and building, and stocking) a whole different light engine for the 82" than all the others. Companies just don't build products like that. They try to keep components as common as possible. The same wattage over more screen area is the most logical explanation to me for what people are seeing. There is someone in the owner's thread that just recently got an 82". I think he mentioned he was going to have it professionally calibrated. If so, it will be interesting to see what the results are.

When these were first announced, I immediately had size envy (even though my 73" is already shoehorned into the spot it's in). But I get a decent amount of ambient light in that room during the day, so the 82" probably wouldn't be for me anyway. At least that's what I'll keep telling myself. ;) Still, I'll have to see if I can find a place around here that has these on display, just for curiosity. There's a Best Buy near my office with a built-in Magnolia, maybe I'll try there. They had the Mits sets last year; the 735 in the BB area, and the Diamond in the Magnolia area (which also happens to be much more dimly lit - more similar to a home environment).

Does anyone know what TI chip they are using on the 837 series? I have not heard they switched to the Darkchip4.
Mitsubishi switched to the Darkchip4 last year. That is probably why they were able to hold their own in many people's eyes against the LED Samsungs. The Mits had the newer chip, and the Samsung had the newer light source. The Mits had better ANSI contrast, while the Samsung had better absolute contrast. In the end, it was about a wash. As far as the weight, I'm sure it's just a size issue. Weight doesn't always scale linearly with size. It may simply be that this thing is just so large, it needs extra bracing to keep it from flexing too much. Or maybe it's just people think a $4k TV should be heavy.

Mitsubishi switched to the Darkchip4 last year. That is probably why they were able to hold their own in many people's eyes against the LED Samsungs. The Mits had the newer chip, and the Samsung had the newer light source. The Mits had better ANSI contrast, while the Samsung had better absolute contrast. In the end, it was about a wash. As far as the weight, I'm sure it's just a size issue. Weight doesn't always scale linearly with size. It may simply be that this thing is just so large, it needs extra bracing to keep it from flexing too much. Or maybe it's just people think a $4k TV should be heavy.
"Where did you find that....is it heavy,......."yes".....then it's expensive put it back" (Jurassic Park). I guess your right about the size thing. However, I saw nothing denoted the use of the Darkchip4. I have read talk of putting the chip in the RPTV but as far as I knew it's only in projectors....Have you read something?

Yes, they've been known to be using the DC4 ever since the 2008 units. Look halfway through the second post in the 2008 owner's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1024421). There are other mentions too if you search around lonog enough.

Yes, they've been known to be using the DC4 ever since the 2008 units. Look halfway through the second post in the 2008 owner's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1024421). There are other mentions too if you search around lonog enough.

Of course that post/article also says their 120hz does de-judder. :)

I'm still wondering what happened to "Tru1080p" going from 2008 to 2009. Just decided to stop marketing it, or some actual change in what they're doing?

Yes, they've been known to be using the DC4 ever since the 2008 units. Look halfway through the second post in the 2008 owner's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1024421). There are other mentions too if you search around lonog enough. I've seen speculation on this however, TI nor Mitsubishi confirm. The reason why I'm surprised is because the DC4 has been touted as a big improvement to the DLP. So it surprises my that it wouldn't be mentioned on their website or anywhere by the company.

I've seen speculation on this however, TI nor Mitsubishi confirm. The reason why I'm surprised is because the DC4 has been touted as a big improvement to the DLP. So it surprises my that it wouldn't be mentioned on their website or anywhere by the company.

I've never seen them mention when they improved to DC2 and DC3 either, but that doesn't mean I believe they are still on the original generation chip. ;) They do get more specific on their projectors, they probably just assume that "TV buyers" are less tech savvy, and don't know or care what DC4 is. Instead, they just apply a bunch of cool sounding marketing names to every day features. But there are PLENTY of reputable reporting sites (like the TWICE article I linked to earlier) that list lots of details about changes to the new year's models, details that they couldn't have just made up on their own. That article had several references to the fact that the info was coming from Mitsubishi, and even quoted a Mitsubishi rep. Yes, the "de-judder" comments are a bit misleading, but they never came out and said that they have 5:5 pulldown and eliminate film judder. It's all just marketing speak. But saying "The UHP-lamp-based DLP line will include three series this year including the 735, 736 and 835 series. All offer 1080p HDTV resolution, Texas Instruments’ new Dark Chip 4 digital micromirror device...", that's very specific. And as I said, there's plenty of other references too. If you look at another example from HD Guru (http://hdguru.com/the-madness-continues-part-ii-2008-mitsubishi-panasonic/230), they say:
There are seven DLP HDTV rear projectors in the Mitsubishi 2008 line. Improvements for 2008 include the latest Texas Instruments Dark Chip DLP chip, thinner frames, and an improved light engine with 18% greater brightness. Mitsubishi moves from a 6-color wheel to a 5-color wheel, while maintaining its 6 color signal processor. The rear projectors are available in 60”, 65” and 73” sizes.

All models are equipped with an infra-red emitter jack for use with 3D glasses (not included) for upcoming 3D discs. All models are shipping this month.

...

All models include 1080p, x.v. color, Deep Color, Color 4D noise reduction. Diamond models add high gloss finish, Smooth 120Hz to ‘optimize fast action” and Dark Detailer “for higher contrast” (according to the press release).

It seems obvious to me that these sites are getting specific info from Mitsubishi. They may not choose to use all those details in their consumer marketing, but it seems clear to me that the details do occasionally get released, and they are coming from Mitsubishi.

georule: as far as Tru1080p, I don't know why they've stopped marketing it, but I certainly wouldn't worry about it. All it is is a fancy way of saying they can handle 1080p content without downconversion, which you can bet is still the case with the current models. If it weren't, it would be very obvious. ;)

You guys need to relax and enjoy your TVs... I don't think there's any major conspiracies going on here. :D Deepdiscount.com is supposed to have a 25% off sale starting tomorrow. Go buy some blu-rays, and enjoy. :)

georule: as far as Tru1080p, I don't know why they've stopped marketing it, but I certainly wouldn't worry about it. All it is is a fancy way of saying they can handle 1080p content without downconversion, which you can bet is still the case with the current models. If it weren't, it would be very obvious. ;)

:)

The Tru1080P was just another Mitsubishi way to mislead customers. The first Mitsu 1080P DLPs could not take a 1080P input , only 1080i although the native resolution was 1080P. In other words, they sold "1080p" sets which were not 1080p capable unless using a PC as source with the high-end model (xx927) . Next year they came up with this BS, Tru1080p or in plain English a TV which is a real 1080P and not a 1080i processed to 1080p.

Perhaps you are saying the same thing with other words.

Has anyone seen either of the 82" models on display anywhere on Long Island. I went to 6th Ave Electronics today and they just have them in the warehouse (15 for the entire chain) and when I went to PC Richard a couple of weeks ago, I was told that they were only getting 10 for the chain. So it would be very unlikely that they would have any display models anywhere.

A friend of mine and I are both debating between the 73" and 82". Mine will go into a finished basement, which is relatively dark. So, even if it's not as bright as the 73", it's probably OK. Her family room is pretty bright. She wants the 82", but I warned her that it may not be bright enough. I think that it really makes a lot of sense for us to both see this TV in person before deciding to purchase it or not.

Has anyone seen either of the 82" models on display anywhere on Long Island. I went to 6th Ave Electronics today and they just have them in the warehouse (15 for the entire chain) and when I went to PC Richard a couple of weeks ago, I was told that they were only getting 10 for the chain. So it would be very unlikely that they would have any display models anywhere.

A friend of mine and I are both debating between the 73" and 82". Mine will go into a finished basement, which is relatively dark. So, even if it's not as bright as the 73", it's probably OK. Her family room is pretty bright. She wants the 82", but I warned her that it may not be bright enough. I think that it really makes a lot of sense for us to both see this TV in person before deciding to purchase it or not.

All I can tell you is that I and several other members of this forum have seen them in different stores. For me I can assure you that there is a great great difference in brightness between the 73 and 82 inchers. Please see them together before you decide. I did see that a member who has a dark basement placement thought that the brightness was ok for him. I do know that the same 180w bulb is in each. A member posted that according to his calculations the screen size created a 26%+ difference simply because of the difference in screens between the 73's and 82's. Maby that's all it is I don't know but I also noticed a difference in contrast and resolution. Someone thought it might be a different chip inside the 82's but no one has confirmed or denied this rumor. Good luck...

A friend of mine and I are both debating between the 73" and 82". Mine will go into a finished basement, which is relatively dark. So, even if it's not as bright as the 73", it's probably OK. Her family room is pretty bright. She wants the 82", but I warned her that it may not be bright enough. I think that it really makes a lot of sense for us to both see this TV in person before deciding to purchase it or not.

I saw the 82837 next to a 73837 (and a LaserVue) at a brightly lit Fry's and I didn't see this huge difference in brightness that other forum members have experienced. I was braced for it to be awful after all the posts I've read here but to my untrained eyes it looked great.

I saw the 82837 next to a 73837 (and a LaserVue) at a brightly lit Fry's and I didn't see this huge difference in brightness that other forum members have experienced. I was braced for it to be awful after all the posts I've read here but to my untrained eyes it looked great.

Just talked to a guy at my local Fry's. He claims that none of them carry the Laservue. Which Fry's was it and do you know if other Fry's in your area carry them. I'm thinking that maby it's a local thing. (I am in Calif.)

Also, I am one of the members that saw the 73's and 82 inch Mitsu's and saw a great difference in them. Could it be the source? Could you state what was showing on the 73 the 82 and the Laservue? (hi def cable, blue ray whatever...)

Just talked to a guy at my local Fry's. He claims that none of them carry the Laservue. Which Fry's was it and do you know if other Fry's in your area carry them. I'm thinking that maby it's a local thing. (I am in Calif.)

Also, I am one of the members that saw the 73's and 82 inch Mitsu's and saw a great difference in them. Could it be the source? Could you state what was showing on the 73 the 82 and the Laservue? (hi def cable, blue ray whatever...)

It was Fry's in Dallas, Texas. Curiously they didn't have the 82737 in stock at all. At another store in town called MODIA that specializes in home theater products they had the 82" in 737 but not 837.

I think the feed was a Mitsubishi demo. It reminded me of the one that shipped on the internal hard drive of my old 73927 - race cars, sporting events and nature shots.

Just talked to a guy at my local Fry's. He claims that none of them carry the Laservue. Which Fry's was it and do you know if other Fry's in your area carry them. I'm thinking that maby it's a local thing. (I am in Calif.)

Also, I am one of the members that saw the 73's and 82 inch Mitsu's and saw a great difference in them. Could it be the source? Could you state what was showing on the 73 the 82 and the Laservue? (hi def cable, blue ray whatever...)

Fry's doesn't carry the Laservue, yet. Only the higher end stores like Modia and Bjorn's carry the Laservue. Fry's has moved upscale in the sound space reselling Adcom and Martin Logan. If I see Arcam or Meridian there, I know they've arrived. I think the highest end brand that Modia sells is Classe. (They also sell B&W and Rotel.)

Fry's doesn't carry the Laservue, yet. Only the higher end stores like Modia and Bjorn's carry the Laservue. Fry's has moved upscale in the sound space reselling Adcom and Martin Logan. If I see Arcam or Meridian there, I know they've arrived. I think the highest end brand that Modia sells is Classe. (They also sell B&W and Rotel.)

Well the Fry's near me carries the Laservue and has for weeks.

I saw the 82837 next to a 73837 (and a LaserVue) at a brightly lit Fry's and I didn't see this huge difference in brightness that other forum members have experienced. I was braced for it to be awful after all the posts I've read here but to my untrained eyes it looked great.

I was at Fry's again today to pick up the "Watchmen: Director's Cut" BD and decided to take a second look at those sets. Having looked closer I must admit that while the 73" doesn't necessarily seem brighter it is a bit sharper. I didn't mess with the picture settings on the 73837 to see if they were they same as the 82" but I guess I can see what Ordo and Slimoli and others were talking about - just not as much "pop" on the larger set.

They did have a 3D demo connected to the 82837 and I checked that out. Very cool.

I've seen the Laservue and the 60737 next to each other. No comparison the Laservue has so much more umph! Could the fact that 82" is just too huge to get that real sharp look to it. I mean on the inside is a projector sending the image to a large area. I don't think an 82" DLP would be a great choice simply because they have to have a 'saturation" point. Unless you change the projection system how can you project onto a screen of unlimited size without losing clarity. Maybe 73" is the best you can do in size?

All you need to project to a larger size is more light output. Of course, since we are dealing with a fixed resolution source, that also means you have to scale your viewing distance proportionately to the screen size. Like this (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html).

Fry's doesn't carry the Laservue, yet. Only the higher end stores like Modia and Bjorn's carry the Laservue. Fry's has moved upscale in the sound space reselling Adcom and Martin Logan. If I see Arcam or Meridian there, I know they've arrived. I think the highest end brand that Modia sells is Classe. (They also sell B&W and Rotel.)
the above has been confirmed as mis-information.
Fry's does carry the laservue.

the above has been confirmed as mis-information.
Fry's does carry the laservue.

Have several Fry's in my area and no Laservue's. I had him check his computer just in case mine just didn't have one. Nope none in the state.

However, they did have a big sign stating that Mitsu was having a 3-D presentation starting first part of August on an 82 inch bulb type dlp.

Have several Fry's in my area and no Laservue's. I had him check his computer just in case mine just didn't have one. Nope none in the state.

However, they did have a big sign stating that Mitsu was having a 3-D presentation starting first part of August on an 82 inch bulb type dlp.

Thanks for the heads up on the 3D presentation. I'll keep it in mind when August rolls through. WOW! this summer is going by much too fast.

I searched some and couldn't find the exact answers to what I'm wondering so any help here would be much appreciated. I have a budget of around $1500 and have decided on a Mitsu DLP. I current;y have a Sammy LN40A550 and I love it, but I finally got a real nice sound system and it just makes the TV feel so small, lol. So we're intending to put that LCD in the kids playroom or in our bedroom and get a *real* TV for our HT. :D

I had my mind set on the 60737 as it was the latest model and a great price ($1299 everywhere and sometimes significantly cheaper). However after browsing these forums I've noticed that the DarkDetailer Iris is practically the only Diamond series feature that was not passed down to the 2009 737 series. Looking back it seems that the 835 series has it and perhaps even more models. I don't know that I *must* have it, but it's always about getting the best\most for your money. Also someone told me that theyd purchase the 65835 over the 60737 if given the chance. So here are my questions in numbered form for easier response:

1. What other previous models have the iris? 835 I know, but what about 836 (is there an 836 series)? 834? 833? I'm not very familiar with all the previous DLP lines. If the 737 doesnt have it than I doubt any previous ones do (i.e. 736, 735, 734, 733, etc).

2a. What other previous models are 120hz? I know that most are split on Mitsu' implementation of this feature and whether it's best on or off, but I'm just wondering.

2b. My Sammy LCD is 60hz but accepts 24fps signals and plays them flawlessly. I've never seen any judder and none of those other wierd playback issues that I see in store displays or others have complained about. Please tell me the same experience will be true with my Mitsu DLP purchase? If not, please tell me which models to avoid.

3. Without attempting to argue the merits of it, which DLP models do NOT have HDMI 1.3 inputs? Where is my cutoff point (X33x=, X34, etc)?

4. Are there any features or improvements or *fixes* that are exclusive to the X37 2009 series? What am I missing out on by perhaps getting a 65835 for example?

5. Is there a website or article that has a comparison between the 2009 line and previous Mitsu DLP lines? I googled a bit and couldnt find anything.

Thanks for your time as always. Given a $1500 budget, knowing you use PS3 and Uverse HD almost exclusively with your TV, and the info above.. what would you purchase?

I was at Fry's again today to pick up the "Watchmen: Director's Cut" BD and decided to take a second look at those sets. Having looked closer I must admit that while the 73" doesn't necessarily seem brighter it is a bit sharper. I didn't mess with the picture settings on the 73837 to see if they were they same as the 82" but I guess I can see what Ordo and Slimoli and others were talking about - just not as much "pop" on the larger set.

They did have a 3D demo connected to the 82837 and I checked that out. Very cool.

I saw that demo at the Frys in Downers Grove, IL and it was exactly like I hoped it would be (full color, resolution, contrast).

I searched some and couldn't find the exact answers to what I'm wondering so any help here would be much appreciated. I have a budget of around $1500 and have decided on a Mitsu DLP. I current;y have a Sammy LN40A550 and I love it, but I finally got a real nice sound system and it just makes the TV feel so small, lol. So we're intending to put that LCD in the kids playroom or in our bedroom and get a *real* TV for our HT. :D

I had my mind set on the 60737 as it was the latest model and a great price ($1299 everywhere and sometimes significantly cheaper). However after browsing these forums I've noticed that the DarkDetailer Iris is practically the only Diamond series feature that was not passed down to the 2009 737 series. Looking back it seems that the 835 series has it and perhaps even more models. I don't know that I *must* have it, but it's always about getting the best\most for your money. Also someone told me that theyd purchase the 65835 over the 60737 if given the chance. So here are my questions in numbered form for easier response:

1. What other previous models have the iris? 835 I know, but what about 836 (is there an 836 series)? 834? 833? I'm not very familiar with all the previous DLP lines. If the 737 doesnt have it than I doubt any previous ones do (i.e. 736, 735, 734, 733, etc).

2a. What other previous models are 120hz? I know that most are split on Mitsu' implementation of this feature and whether it's best on or off, but I'm just wondering.

2b. My Sammy LCD is 60hz but accepts 24fps signals and plays them flawlessly. I've never seen any judder and none of those other wierd playback issues that I see in store displays or others have complained about. Please tell me the same experience will be true with my Mitsu DLP purchase? If not, please tell me which models to avoid.

3. Without attempting to argue the merits of it, which DLP models do NOT have HDMI 1.3 inputs? Where is my cutoff point (X33x=, X34, etc)?

4. Are there any features or improvements or *fixes* that are exclusive to the X37 2009 series? What am I missing out on by perhaps getting a 65835 for example?

5. Is there a website or article that has a comparison between the 2009 line and previous Mitsu DLP lines? I googled a bit and couldnt find anything.

Thanks for your time as always. Given a $1500 budget, knowing you use PS3 and Uverse HD almost exclusively with your TV, and the info above.. what would you purchase?

Iris models: 2009-837, 2008-835, 2007-833 and 734 series, 2007-831(my set) and 732. Last years 835s are virtually the same as this year's 837s and some good deals can be found. Good luck hunting!

Can I ask you guys with the 83" something?

Why did you choose to get a set this big rather than do a front projector? I have a spare room that is 12 x 13. I was thinking about going front projector with it. Light is no problem, however the more I think about it the less I like the idea of having to be sitting in a pitch black room. Also I dont want to block the screen when My friends and I are standing up playing the wii.

I saw that demo at the Frys in Downers Grove, IL and it was exactly like I hoped it would be (full color, resolution, contrast).

Just saw (probably) the same 3d demo at my Fry's on an 82 inch Mitsu dlp. It was very very dark. The demo was a montage of cartoons, movies and other items. I was unable to see the settings of the set but was told by the employee that all of the settings were the "default" as set by Mitsubishi. Since you thought the picture was good did you have a chance to see if they did anything to the settings?

Also, next to the 82 inch demo set they had a 73737 playing a compilation of pre-recorded cartoons, sporting events and even movie clips which were substantially brighter and had some "pop." I did get a chance to see that the settings were right from the factrory pre-sets. So I assume that they did likewise on the 82 incher.

Did you get a chance to compare the 82 incher with any others and what, if any, differences did you see as to brightness and resolution?

Can I ask you guys with the 83" something?

Why did you choose to get a set this big rather than do a front projector? I have a spare room that is 12 x 13. I was thinking about going front projector with it. Light is no problem, however the more I think about it the less I like the idea of having to be sitting in a pitch black room. Also I dont want to block the screen when My friends and I are standing up playing the wii.

I went with the rear projection 82" because there is a lot of light in the room, also it's in our den and it's easier for the wife and kids to work then a projector, but mainly because it's a bright room during the day.

So initially I was pretty set on a 60737, but after reading some more and comparing I've made the following determinations:

- I don't feel the DarkDetailer Iris is worth the cost for me and my budget, and therefore will not be looking at an 837 (or an 835).
- I can't seem to find a real reason to get a 2009 model (C9\737) over a 735\736. Does anyone have one? The 2009 models all say they have improved versions of the features (such as SharpEdge enhancement, and "Plush" 1080p), but do they really? And if so.. how much of an improvement? Are there other reasons I could be unaware of? Does anyone have a reason for me to get a 737 over 736\735?
- All the features of the 73X line don't seem to interest me. DeepField Imager seems to be similar to Dynamic Contrast, which I don't like, and the rest seem like similar image porcessing features that mean a non-consistent image experience and more delay in source-to-eye. Am I wrong in my assessment? Does anyone actually use those features and if so, what are they like and how much do you like them?
- Are there any unlisted reasons why I shouldn't get a C9? The price draws me in, but immediately makes me wary that it's a bargain-bin version of the TV and that I'll be getting less build quality and reliability or something to that effect. Surely the differences aren't all software and there are some hardware difference to speak of? Yes? No?

Basically.. I'm torn between a 65736 for $1300 or a 65C9 for $1300. The 65737 is just out of my price range. I've also considered a 65735 for similar price, or a 60737\60C9\60735 if price becomes a limiting factor (theyre all about $100-$200 cheaper). I would love to hear some input and suggestions. Other than a remote I will end up replacing anyway, less shelf\build life, and the comfort of knowing I have a "newer" and seemingly improved product.. what should prevent me from getting a 735\736 for the same price? And other than software features I will probably leave off anyway.. what should prevent me from getting a C9 over 737?

Thanks for your time

Say, hey! Anyone know how the Atlona In-Line Pro 2 or Ex or Pro 3 Scalers does compared to this 837's own Plush 1080p up-scaler?

Also say I was wondering. Calibration is expensive and I will have to do the calibration to see just how beuitful this tv is afterwards.

Um, seeing how the bulb needs to be replaced, doesn't that screw up that pro calibration? Anyone know if you can back up your calibration settings that you paid 400 hundred bucks for or do you have to pay for another calibration?
Like if you can backup those settings to a usb thumb drive then anyone experience having used this yet? Is the picture as good still as it was on the first calibration after the backup and new bulb?

So here.

#1 Atlona Scalers... Compared to Plush 1080p

At-Line Pro 2 does 3:2 and 2:2 Pull down
At-line Ex
At-Line Pro 3
Do these things make standard def and old Super Nintendo look un-pixelled and clear and HD on the new sets as advertised? Or is the Plush 1080p do as good as possible and can't get better? Or is Atlona or Embery scalers better than Plush at making SD un pixelly and clean and beutiful?
Is the Atlona scalers better than the Plush 1080p on these sets?


#2
We able to back up the Pro ISF calibration after paying for one after a bulb replacement?

#3
After the back up with the new bulb is the picture as good as before?

#4
Anyone have any Atlona At-Line Pro Scalers and tried them on these Plush 1080p sets yet? I want to know if these 500 - 755 doller hd scalers are worth the money and if they make a difference seeing how the 837 has Plush 1080p and all that.

Ok, I have to share this or I am going to explode. Conn's has the 65C9 for $999!! Yes, the 65" C9 for $999. That's the $300+ cheaper than anywhere online, and thats $500 cheaper than Best Buy (who btw, refused to price match because the price was too low). They have fliers up in the store, and its also online:

http://www.conns.com/mitsubishi-wd-65c9-65-home-theater-dlp-hdtv.html

Insane deal. In the store they have the 60" C9 or 737 right next to it for $1199. Ridiculous. Prices good from 9\23-9\27 so I think it was unadvertised. I'm purchasing mine later this evening, I suggest all those on the fence do the same! Even with shipping costs it's an insane deal.

I know this thread hasn't been posted on for a few months but I just wanted to tell my story. I currrently have a WS-73907 RPTV. A few months ago, I decided to upgrade to an 82 Mitsu. I threw my old tv on Craigslist just to see if there was any interest. I got many emails telling me they wanted my tv. So, I decided to run off to Best Buy and check out the 82's before I sold my old unit. There we sat, my wife and I watching Wall-E on BD on the 82. I was underwhelmed. I turned to my wife and said "How does that tv look to you?" She said, not so good. The salesman and his manager were standing behind me telling me how you have to view it in a dark room and how they 'tweaked' on the tv for an hour the day before.

I drove home with my tail tucked between my legs. Removed my ad from Craigslist and proceeded to find alternative to making my current 73 look better. Well, I decided that was too much and set out to check out the new 73 DLPs. My brother in law has a new 65 Mitsu DLP and it is beautiful. That is why I decided to look at the 73s. I knew the 73s and 82s had the same bulb.

Ok, so fast forward to yesterday. I walk into a store near my office called Independence Audio. The first room I walked into had the 82737. I glared at it and later it became a stare as I was now questioning my first decision to pass on this tv. They were playing a Samsung LED demo DVD at 1080i resolution. After asking the salesman, he said they had all the tv's hooked up on the same source and some were only 720p machines. That's why they were only viewing at 1080i.

I was so impressed, I bought the tv and a new BD. I left the store dumb fat and happy that I had ended up getting it the way I had originally wanted. The tv won't be here for a week.

So, today I run back into the store with my wife as I'm looking for a nice stand for the tv. When I go into the room where the 82 is residing, they are playing a college football game. I immediately notice that the tv seems darker. On the adjacent wall, there is a 50" plasma. Yesterday, while the Samsung demo dvd was playing, I was comparing the 82 to the plasma and was amazed at how little difference in brightness there was. With the football game on, there was quite a larger gap between the two. So, I asked the salesman to put a DVD back in, the difference immediately went away and my wife was very happy with the picture.

I know I'm no where near as into the technical side as you guys and only go mostly by what my eyes see.

What do you think is causing this? Is it that the demo dvd's have so much color that you don't notice the difference in brightness or is it an issue with the source?

Now I'm sitting here second guessing my purchase and my wife is wondering why I'm doing so.


Ok, and here comes the newbie question. I'll put on my flame suit. Why can't one just put in a more powerful bulb to compensate for the difference in brightness? (flame away)

What do you think is causing this? Is it that the demo dvd's have so much color that you don't notice the difference in brightness or is it an issue with the source?

Now I'm sitting here second guessing my purchase and my wife is wondering why I'm doing so.

Ok, and here comes the newbie question. I'll put on my flame suit. Why can't one just put in a more powerful bulb to compensate for the difference in brightness? (flame away)

I would also be interesting in hearing some educated responses to these questions. I'm considering both the 73" and 82" sets.

I guess I'm gonna just bring it home and check it out in my home environment. I already talked to the salesman about swapping it out for a 73 if I'm not satisfied with the picture. Stay tuned.

Well, I've had my 82737 for a few days now. This tv is magnificent. I'm so amazed that they can make such a large tv so vibrant, colorful and clear.

I'm just in awe and absolutely love it. My wife said it is the best thing I've purchased in a long long time. :D

Btw, she hates my cars so that isn't such a surprising statement. :p

http://performin.homeip.net/hometheater/2.jpg

^^^^ Sweet!! ^^^^

Here's another pic. I looked for site rules on pics posting but wasn't sure of the size requirement. Sorry if it's too big.
http://performin.homeip.net/hometheater/3.jpg

I really love the look of it. Very nice.

I'm glad you love it as I am thinking hard about getting rid of my 120" projector setup and getting this 82 incher.

Well, I've had my 82737 for a few days now. This tv is magnificent. I'm so amazed that they can make such a large tv so vibrant, colorful and clear.

I'm just in awe and absolutely love it. My wife said it is the best thing I've purchased in a long long time. :D

Btw, she hates my cars so that isn't such a surprising statement. :p



GMC Syclone FTW!!!!!

GMC Syclone FTW!!!!!

Do you have a Syclone?

Do you have a Syclone?

Nope but I lusted for one back in the day :cool: I'd stop by a GMC dealiership after work just to look at them. I think they're damn cool trucks and still unique since no one has built anything like it since its demise. I still see one every once in a while here in Tampa and give the guy thumbs up :)

Nope but I lusted for one back in the day :cool: I'd stop by a GMC dealiership after work just to look at them. I think they're damn cool trucks and still unique since no one has built anything like it since its demise. I still see one every once in a while here in Tampa and give the guy thumbs up :)

I've owned 4 Syclones but no Typhoons. I have buddies that live in Tampa that drive SyTy's. Makes me wonder if you seen them.