After viewing the Mitsubishi 6000 for a few moments I came to the conclusion that I prefer the skin tones and relaxed feel of LCD over DLP. I realized than accurate skin tones is very important to me, as well as shadow detail. Although the brightness of DLP can make for larger screen sizes the inherent problems of DLP still exist (there just bigger). I watched what is a terrific movie for DLP (Rescue Dawn) with all the high ansi contrast outdoor scences. It looked great, but lacked that extra bit of realism in skin tones.

I for one, will be evaulating which technology works the best for me, before I dive into another digital projector. Comparing one DLP to another DLP is not the best way IMO. One should compare the LCOS, LCD, DILA, DLP,CRT technology to one another first, then choose the best projector for their budget in that technology.


Joey

BTW The Mitsubishi 6000 is very very good. I will give it another look this week.

After viewing the Mitsubishi 6000 for a few moments I came to the conclusion that I prefer the skin tones and relaxed feel of LCD over DLP. I realized than accurate skin tones is very important to me, as well as shadow detail. Although the brightness of DLP can make for larger screen sizes the inherent problems of DLP still exist (there just bigger). I watched what is a terrific movie for DLP (Rescue Dawn) with all the high ansi contrast outdoor scences. It looked great, but lacked that extra bit of realism in skin tones.

I for one, will be evaulating which technology works the best for me, before I dive into another digital projector. Comparing one DLP to another DLP is not the best way IMO. One should compare the LCOS, LCD, DLP,CRT technology to one another first, then choose the best projector for their budget in that technology.


Joey

BTW The Mitsubishi 6000 is very very good. I will give it another look this week.
Every DLP I have ever viewed has had a tendency to make the colors seem colder than LCD, the most annoying of which is how they turn orange-reds into pink-reds. Even the LCOS projectors have done that, with the exception of the Ruby, likely due to its xenon bulb. This is one reason why I may switch from DLP to the new Epson 1080 UB next month.

I like the color saturation of DLP projectors more.

I like not having to worry about cleaning my projector, so DLP for me all the way.

It's a preference thing for sure. I actually prefer LCD myself in the colors regard.

I can say when I had them side by side in my theater with my sources... I would of had a hard time telling them a part in a blind test. I toned the DLP down some with the picture controls though, out of the box? Many of the colors seemed fake, almost claymation even.

I like not having to worry about cleaning my projector, so DLP for me all the way.

No filter cleaning with DLP? That would be a plus.

The Optoma HD7100/7300 only requires occasional vacuuming of the air vents. No filter to wash or replace. :cool:

Wayne

After viewing the Mitsubishi 6000 for a few moments I came to the conclusion that I prefer the skin tones and relaxed feel of LCD over DLP.
You don't suppose skin tones and color performance might vary tremendously based on a large number of factors beyond just "LCD" or "DLP", do you? Factors such as calibration, projector design, source, screen type etc.

For the OP I think you are seeing differences in facial detail and shadow detail - not because of color or gamma which are purely calibration issues - but because of DLP dithering issues - bandwidth near dark or with motion. But DLP's themselves vary - the colorwheels used and the TI chip revision used as well as the projector design itself can impact dithering - as well as the user calibration. I have observed DLPs where I could not see any dithering 1' away from the screen - and DLPs that give you nightmares that ants and mosquitoes are crawling all over you.

To compare technologies - they first must be properly calibrated - the rest of you are seeing calibration issues - not technology issues. Some implementations do not have adequate calibration controls or have color filters that limit the ability to calibrate. Color decoding, color gamut, greyscale and gamma all impact the picture way more than technology differences do - these metrics are achievable regardless of technology. You would be amazed if you did such a side by side with a talented calibrator and PJ's designed to be reference calibration on all those marks - yes there are differences because of technology - but they are more subtle than the OOTB calibration differences.

I am in the process of purchasing my first projector. I agree that you should demo all the different technology's before you begin to decide on which projector to buy. I got to see the RS1 and knew right away that technology wasn't for me because I could see motion blur and that was way unacceptable no matter how good the picture looked. I am waiting to see the epson before making a decision but if I see motion blur with that too then it's DLP by default.

You don't suppose skin tones and color performance might vary tremendously based on a large number of factors beyond just "LCD" or "DLP", do you? Factors such as calibration, projector design, source, screen type etc.

Yes, I do think all those items you mentioned matter, but I also believe that if I was to see properly calibrated images of the different technologies I would be able to tell them apart ans some of the differences might be skin tones and creamyness of their complexition


To compare technologies - they first must be properly calibrated - the rest of you are seeing calibration issues - not technology issues. Some implementations do not have adequate calibration controls or have color filters that limit the ability to calibrate. Color decoding, color gamut, greyscale and gamma all impact the picture way more than technology differences do - these metrics are achievable regardless of technology. You would be amazed if you did such a side by side with a talented calibrator and PJ's designed to be reference calibration on all those marks - yes there are differences because of technology - but they are more subtle than the OOTB calibration differences

I am in the process of searching out blending solutions, as I want to blend two 9 inch CRTs on a ten foot screen. I know that I will have all the particulars that make me happy when watching a movie and will not feel the need to go larger. I'lll take ten feet of CRT bliss over 15 feet of digital any day, but that's just me and I far as I know that's that matters.

joey

Yes, I do think all those items you mentioned matter, but I also believe that if I was to see properly calibrated images of the different technologies I would be able to tell them apart ans some of the differences might be skin tones and creamyness of their complexition
Which is creamier? What about milkiness?