Okay fine.

All the top 2008 front projectors and the 2008 Mits RPTVs are being advertised as having DC4. Samsung is saying nothing. The silence is deafening.

Samsung has never advertised what model TI chip they use, so the silence is... ordinary.

Have you seen them side by side in a nice place (like Magnolia)..... the NEW mits looks alot better than the old - the sammys still look great but pretty much like the old mits (sans the red)

I agree. I was at CC and ultimate electronics and from my perspective and the sales people there, the newer mits models blew the sammy's out of the water. the 735 looked really good. But i"ll wait for the laservue if the price is good. I know Mits has been working on laser tech for a long time, hopefully they don't disappoint. otherwise, I'll go front projector. if ithe laservue is going to be around 5 to 6K, the the sony's VW-60 would be a better investment at that price range. I have a 65831 mits diamond right so i'm in no hurry.

How can you make a valid comparison until the set is properly calibrated?

I'll go front projector. if ithe laservue is going to be around 5 to 6K, the the sony's VW-60 would be a better investment at that price range.
I have been thinking about FPs too.
The problem is not JUST the price of the FP...you have to consider the cost of a good screen, anamorphic lens, CIH, lighting, etc.
By the time it is all added up (for a good HT setup), you're talking much more $$ than 5 or 6k.:(

It's a tough decision....

I have been thinking about FPs too.
The problem is not JUST the price of the FP...you have to consider the cost of a good screen, anamorphic lens, CIH, lighting, etc.
By the time it is all added up (for a good HT setup), you're talking much more $$ than 5 or 6k.:(

It's a tough decision....

I can get a motorized screen for about $500. if you're spending 5-6k, might as well spend another $500. if the laservue is the same cost as the vw-60, it's the vw-60 for me. if mits wants the laservue to take off, they must have these under 5k otherwise it will turn most people off from rear projection and go projectors. what do you own now?

Front projection requires total darkness to produce a good image, that’s a significant restriction for many.
I’ll take rear projection over front even if it cost more because it is more practical and will get a lot more use.

How can you make a valid comparison until the set is properly calibrated?


lcaillo

Since you're a tech, I'm still curious as to your opinion on Mitsubishi reliability?

Thanks

Front projection requires total darkness to produce a good image, that’s a significant restriction for many.
Depends on the kind of screen you use. White screens are extremely unforgiving of ambient light.

lcaillo

Since you're a tech, I'm still curious as to your opinion on Mitsubishi reliability?

Thanks

Overall, we have had very good results. I work for a dealer that sells a lot of them and I rarely service the ones that we sell. There have been some points of concern, particularly that they have been peimarily supporting their sets for board level repair only for a few years and there are no parts for light engines. A new technology like the laser stuff is a complete unknown. They could get it right or it could be a mess, time will tell.

It would be a little shocking if Samsung didn't match Mitsubishi in the TI chips.
Samsung has been the king of DLPs over the years IMO.

It is highly likely that they will exit RPTV at the end of this model year. They couldn't axe their 2008s in time after Sony bailed. I imagine they are riding out 2008 and exiting next year. It isn't just Samsung and RPTV. Philips is bailing from the entire North American TV market. Clearly margins are fatter (and warranty work is lower) on panels. And you know how much Samsung wants to be like Sony.

I'm not suggesting the Sammys DO have DC4--Just wondering why we can't get a definitive answer...

If you don't have something you either say nothing and lose a few customers or admit the older technology and lose more. Guess which one gets picked?

Samsung bought lots of market share in RPTV with the DLP product. Why would they bail at a point where the can virtually own it now that others are dropping out.

I see little reason to think that Samsung wants to be Sony. Where do you get that?

if mits wants the laservue to take off, they must have these under 5k otherwise it will turn most people off from rear projection and go projectors. what do you own now?
Have to agree Laservue must be under 5k and preferably a 4k MSRP in order to gain much market.

BTW, I'm hoping they will come out soon with a Laservue FP.
Now THAT could make quite a splash, if the image is eye-popping.

I have a Samsung 56" DLP 720p and am drooling for 1080p.;)

BTW, I'm hoping they will come out soon with a Laservue FP.
Now THAT could make quite a splash, if the image is eye-popping.
A three chip one would be especially nice.

And you know how much Samsung wants to be like Sony.


I don't know actually - Samsung had $8 billion in profit last year, vs $1 billion for Sony. I'm thinking Sony wants to be like Samsung.

I don't know actually - Samsung had $8 billion in profit last year, vs $1 billion for Sony. I'm thinking Sony wants to be like Samsung.
Sony's still living wrapped up in the illusion of their glory days. They have so many research projects going for things that'll never turn a profit.

"Sony's still living wrapped up in the illusion of their glory days."

Amen brother.

I'm going to have to check out my CC and see if the new Mits is on display. They usualyy have a pretty decent viewing room setup. I'm pretty happy with my new Samsung LED DLP though, (miles ahead of my 5 year old 61" HLN DLP). Plus, I got a smoking deal on it, under $1800 after coupons and BB promotions, so maybe $150 less than I could probably get the 65" Mitsu for. Not much price difference, but the picture would have to be significantly better than my Samsung for me to overlook the advantages of the LED (No color wheel whine, no rainbows, fast starting, no bulb to dim, low power use). In fact, maybe I should just not even look, and stay happy!

One thing that bothers me about these Mitsu's - why does only the high end get 120 Hz video processing? I'll most likely never use the 3d features that this allows, but every time I play a Blu Ray, it would get used to display the 24fps without judder. Or, do these Mitsus have some way of dsiplaying the 24fps film stuff without havving to do any 3:2 processing??

Samsung bought lots of market share in RPTV with the DLP product. Why would they bail at a point where the can virtually own it now that others are dropping out.

I see little reason to think that Samsung wants to be Sony. Where do you get that?

Agree on both points. As to the latter, Samsung is Korean, Sony Japanese. These nations are NOT the same, and are not completely thrilled with each other. Samsung is Samsung and no one else.

Samsung bought lots of market share in RPTV with the DLP product. Why would they bail at a point where the can virtually own it now that others are dropping out.

I see little reason to think that Samsung wants to be Sony. Where do you get that?

The purpose of business is to make money. Margins are higher with panels and the percentage of TV buyers choosing RPTV is in the single digits and shrinking. In addition, repair rates for RPTV are between 11-18% versus single digits with panels. Sony did the math and said adios to the entire market. A market that many would argue they dominated with their excellent SXRD product.

The problem with RPTV is that the tradeoff of getting a bulkier and less attractive (and less reliable and bulb consuming) is that larger displays are possible at very attractive prices. Before the 2008 Samsung's arrived a 61" LED could be had for about $1500 - an amazing bargain. Now we are seeing plasma begin to fill the gap of a large screen at bargain rates and that technology is also in decline (although that doesn't make sense to me - maybe it is the power consumption?). From the other direction, we are seeing front projection plumetting in price. Decent 1080p projectors can be had for $2000-$3000. Add a gray screen for a semi-lit room and a huge image can be had for an excellent price.

Now in comes Laservue. Now, just what market is it trying to appeal to? A $4000+ price tag is clearly not going to turn mass-market heads, especially with a 61" Samsung next to it for half the price. The people who can afford it already have a Kuro in their living room and a PJ in the theatre, so all it is going to do is cannibilize their loyal Diamond-class consumers.

Samsung has been trying to compete (and often beat) Sony in every market they possibly can. Example - Sony buys Minolta and sells DSLR cameras soon after Samsung partners with Pentax and does the same. And comparing revenue isn't quite fair. Samsung does a lot more than Sony ie - building boats and other heavy industries. Of course their profits are higher.

Now in comes Laservue. Now, just what market is it trying to appeal to? A $4000+ price tag is clearly not going to turn mass-market heads, especially with a 61" Samsung next to it for half the price. The people who can afford it already have a Kuro in their living room and a PJ in the theatre, so all it is going to do is cannibilize their loyal Diamond-class consumers.
When you look at it that way it makes no sense, agreed, but it makes sense from Mitsubishi's perspective.

The company cannot compete with major players like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic and LG in terms of margins at a given price. Look at the pricing of their LCD TVs; nice screens, they compare favourably with Samsung and Sony's sets, but there is this big price discrepancy between them that seems to net no actual benefit (unless you count not buying from Samsung or Sony as a benefit in itself, of course :D). I'm not as up on the current state of the DLP market given my dislike for rainbows, but my understanding is that there is a similar situation there too. So for Mitsubishi to even find staying in the display market worthwhile they need to find a way of competiting someway other than price. Laser based RPTVs are probably never going to be a high volume product, but if the margins are as high as suggested and no one else competes with them on price then that is a potentially lucractive niche for them.

This is of course assuming that the small group of people they're marketing to (us) find the set to perform as well as it should.

...repair rates for RPTV are between 11-18% versus single digits with panels....

Be careful here. First, these are consumer-based stats (primarily from Consumer Reports) and questionable because they include things like lamp replacement which is routine maintenance rather than repair (CR has never attempted to measure whether lamp replacement is premature). What would be more relevant is company-based figures on warrentee claims which are never released.

But more important is not the overall average, which includes earlier models sets which are less reliable, but what problem rates are expected from newly produced sets. That's what a company would consider when trying to decide whether to make TVs today.

Almost all technologies get better with time and experience, and everything I see indicates that this is occurring with HDTVs too. Most of the problems with the latest generation of Samsung LED sets seem to hinge on one software bug, being fixed by a firmware upgrade. Similar problems are reported on flat-panel sets too, if you follow the discussions on those sets on AVS.

You keep insisting that the price gap between flat-panels and RPTVs is going away. This may at some time happen, but for the moment in larger sizes (say over 55 inches) only second-rate FPs are anywhere close. I'm watching the market for LCD and plasma FPs of 57+ inches for the day when my beloved D-ILA needs replacing and right now the price gap for premium brands between FPs and RPTVs is enough to buy a half-decent used car. We'll see what happens when the new generation large panel manufacturing plants kick in around 2010.

Samsung has been trying to compete (and often beat) Sony in every market they possibly can. Example - Sony buys Minolta and sells DSLR cameras soon after Samsung partners with Pentax and does the same. And comparing revenue isn't quite fair. Samsung does a lot more than Sony ie - building boats and other heavy industries. Of course their profits are higher.

The $8 billion profit is for Samsung Electronics, but more importantly, they made that profit on only 20% more revenue than Sony. When means they have about 6 times higher margin than Sony. $60 billion revenue and only $1 billion profit - Sony is pissing away all their revenues somehow.

Samsung may have wanted to be Sony in the past, but nowadays, they're way ahead.

my ht room is nearing completion and i need the specs for the mitz lazer. would i be justified in using the specs from the 833 as far as the width and height? i have plenty of room behind so the depth doesn't bother me. any help? know when the specs will be out?

my ht room is nearing completion and i need the specs for the mitz lazer. would i be justified in using the specs from the 833 as far as the width and height? i have plenty of room behind so the depth doesn't bother me. any help? know when the specs will be out?

Are you trying to "box" it in? You're going to need space all around it for venting anyway, so if you make the space 6" - 8" larger than the 833, I think you'll be fine.

Also the fact that Samsung refused to comment at CES on DK4, does NOT advertise (unlike Mits), and plane looks like last years vs. the better of the mits makes me thing Mitsubishi is NOT lying about the the DK4.

I read somewhere that TI tells manufacturers not to say what chip they use. Is this bunk or not? If its true, then maybe Sammy plays by the rules and the others don't. That, or they don't want to compete with Mits on image quality when they can save a few bucks on a last gen chip.

The real deal is that Samsung isn't using dark chip 4 because this will be their last year of rear projection DLP production.

Mitsubishi is trying Laser because it too knows that DLP is doomed.

Mitsubishi's new DLP models may be their last and may be the best DLPs ever made.

Laser is Rear Projection's last stand!

Laser is Rear Projection's last stand!
*Humms the theme from The Magnificent Seven*

The real deal is that Samsung isn't using dark chip 4 because this will be their last year of rear projection DLP production.

Is that so? :rolleyes:

Seems like they'd want to give the tech a good last shot with the newest tech.

And at the prices Mits is floating, LED is the last stand, not laser.

Who needs lasers ord LED's, whats wrong with a decent triple dark chip 4 DLP projector in a box.
Sick of compromises with RPTV”s, some of us are not cost driven.

For what it is worth, the reseller word of mouth puts the price of Laservue at a 50% premium over Mitsubishi's DLP line. That is, over their Diamond DLP line. For those that don't want to bother doing the math, that will be $4500 for the 65".

This lands right next to a quality plasma in the 63-65" segment.

At that price, the target market is consumers that want to tell their friends that their TV has a laser in it. The rest of the market won't accept the rear projection trade-offs for the same money. Bummer. I guess I should have known that Mits would blow it.

Hmmm, same price as plasma, minus burn-in, short lifespan, shiny reflective screen, whatever other plasma defects there are?

Let's see how the lasers look before jumping to conclusions--they might (I say might) be worth it.

They'll have to look darn good though.

Whats' 50% more than the 73" Diamond?

Bear in mind, I paid $5k for a 56" HLN Sammy 4 or 5 years ago.

Also, how much is a 73" plasma?---Oh, wait.....

The only person I know who has seen/played with it says that it looks good. But then, he noted that it was in a dim room and he was sure that the Laservue was thoroughly calibrated and the LCD and Kuro next to it were right out of the box. He also said that the image had a unique look to it and that the off-angle viewing was the best he had seen on RPTV, but still nothing like LCD or plasma.

Mits is already the most expensive DLP and adding a 50% premium to that is going to take it firmly out of the current RPTV market. I also understand that the Laservue has color capabilities beyond anything else available, but I also know that there is currently nothing that can provide that color depth. BluRay doesn't even support color depths already available in current HD displays. Being able to display more is a useless feature. By the time color depths in media reach that level we will be using 4K.

I am so thoroughly annoyed :( at Mits right now that I will likely buy a 61" LED Sammy :confused: tomorrow for $1800. Then I will hope that laser technology will get to front projection in the next couple years when I expect to replace my other TV. As you can tell I hate bulbs.

Hmmm, same price as plasma, minus burn-in, short lifespan, shiny reflective screen, whatever other plasma defects there are?
Plus geometry problems, narrow viewing angles and rainbows?


All technologies have their pluses and minuses.

All technologies have their pluses and minuses.


My point exactly

The whole idea of rear projection is the ability to have a BIG screen.
65” is too small; if there is nothing bigger I don’t see much point unless picture quality is a real stand out improvement over flat panels or other RPTV’s.
I am after an 80” with black levels much lower then a Kuro to make it worthwhile replacing a modified 70” SXRD.

I don’t care about burn in, life span or viewing angles and I would much prefer a shiny screen. Anti reflective screens take the edge of image depth.
I feel there is no excuse for significant geometric distortion or rainbows these days and they should not be tolerated.

It’s about time someone made a RPTV that is built to the highest standard, not down to a price point. Somehow I think that’s not going to happen. :(

...It’s about time someone made a RPTV that is built to the highest standard, not down to a price point. Somehow I think that’s not going to happen. :(

Sony did that for a while. It was called Qualia. Sold poorly. Front-projection has the ultra-high end locked up.

Why would one expect a high end product to sell when the dealer network is so poorly supported by the manufacturer? Sony does not have a clue how to sell to the high end, as is the case with most of the large vendors. They only sell anything high end by accident.

I would never look at Sony as high end.

Front projection does not do it for me. I don’t like the look of front projected images and the requirement for total darkness is an unacceptable restriction.

Building a rear projection setup using a good front projector and a custom rear projection screen is an option but a cumbersome and costly one. I would prefer one of the manufactures just make one and offer it as an option, even if it’s not cheap.
Not everything has to sell in large volumes, high end projectors don’t.

Hmmm, same price as plasma, minus burn-in, short lifespan, shiny reflective screen, whatever other plasma defects there are?

Let's see how the lasers look before jumping to conclusions--they might (I say might) be worth it.

They'll have to look darn good though.

Whats' 50% more than the 73" Diamond?

Bear in mind, I paid $5k for a 56" HLN Sammy 4 or 5 years ago.

Also, how much is a 73" plasma?---Oh, wait.....

100,000 hours is a short life span? What are you immortal? lol

Front projection does not do it for me. I don’t like the look of front projected images and the requirement for total darkness is an unacceptable restriction.
Rear projection is just a projector bounced off some mirrors onto a high gain screen. It's easy enough to get a projector putting out 50+ foot lamberts if you set out with that purpose.


100,000 hours is a short life span? What are you immortal? lol
100,000 hours at a controlled brightness setting. Set to torch mode is will last much less. Same for all phosphor based displays.

Rear projection is just a projector bounced off some mirrors onto a high gain screen. It's easy enough to get a projector putting out 50+ foot lamberts if you set out with that purpose.



100,000 hours at a controlled brightness setting. Set to torch mode is will last much less. Same for all phosphor based displays.

Why would anybody who knows anything set it to torch mode though? Even if that cut it in half 50,000 hours is still a very long time.

How long do lasers last?

Why would anybody who knows anything set it to torch mode though? Even if that cut it in half 50,000 hours is still a very long time.
Oh, it'd be much less than half. Your question is certainly valid, though. Why indeed. It does happen though. I've seen shots of people who have managed to properly burn in modern plasmas, too, and that isn't an easy task.

How long do lasers last?
Depends how cheaply they're made, but the potential is certainly there for them to last decades.

Rear projection is just a projector bounced off some mirrors onto a high gain screen. It's easy enough to get a projector putting out 50+ foot lamberts if you set out with that purpose.



A front projection screen is white or silver gray where as a rear projection screen is very close to black with the set off.
If you want any sort of half decent black level (and I demand it) front projection needs TOTAL darkness, maximum light output is not the problem.
Digital RPTV’s are usually MUCH too bright for me, that’s why I modified my SXRD to lower its peak light output by 50% and lower black level by 75%. That gives me ample brightness and black on par with a current Kuro, however I want MUCH lower black levels.

A front projection screen is white or silver gray where as a rear projection screen is very close to black with the set off.
If you want any sort of half decent black level (and I demand it) front projection needs TOTAL darkness, maximum light output is not the problem.
Digital RPTV’s are usually MUCH too bright for me, that’s why I modified my SXRD to lower its peak light output by 50% and lower black level by 75%. That gives me ample brightness and black on par with a current Kuro, however I want MUCH lower black levels.
You can get black projection screens too. The ambient light rejection from RPTVs comes from the high gain screens used, but that also causes a narrow viewing cone and hotspotting. There are a few FP screens with a lot of gain like the Silverstar.

100,000 hours is a short life span? What are you immortal? lol


Ask me later.... :D

but phosphors fade and pixels burn out and side bars burn in--that's what I was referring to..

I'm not and expert on plasmas--never owned one. I was just pointing out that saying no RP would ever be "as good as" a plasma is a bit silly, given that we haven't even seen these lasers yet.

You can get black projection screens too. The ambient light rejection from RPTVs comes from the high gain screens used, but that also causes a narrow viewing cone and hotspotting. There are a few FP screens with a lot of gain like the Silverstar.

Humm… projecting light onto a black screen, that’ll work.:rolleyes:
No hot spot on my 70” SXRD, none at all, it’s a non issue.
I have no interest in font projection; it just does not provide the image quality I want, if it did I would have gone that way many years ago, probably with a G90.


I have yet to see a Plasma I would have in my home, too small and not what they are cracked up to be IMHO. A G9 Kuro is the first Plasma to sound interesting but not at 60”.
When Pioneer can come up with a 70” or 80” then I’ll take notice.

Humm… projecting light onto a black screen, that’ll work.:rolleyes:


No need to roll your eyes, black screens supposedly work very well.

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/screen_innovations_black_diamond_a_gem_of_a_screen/C5

Oh, it'd be much less than half. Your question is certainly valid, though. Why indeed. It does happen though. I've seen shots of people who have managed to properly burn in modern plasmas, too, and that isn't an easy task.


Depends how cheaply they're made, but the potential is certainly there for them to last decades.

Yeah thats true. If it can happen somebody will find a way to do it. lol

On another note though. These new Laser TV's have defiantly peaked my interest. Its defiantly going on the list of possibility's when im ready to upgrade my 42" plasma this fall.

I just wonder if they viewing angle issues will be the same as the DLP's? Thats my only real complaint about projection. I assume the issues won't be as pronounced when you get it home in normal lighting but there seems to be a big drop off in light depending on the angle you are viewing from in stores. On the DLP's that is.

I just wonder if they viewing angle issues will be the same as the DLP's? Thats my only real complaint about projection. I assume the issues won't be as pronounced when you get it home in normal lighting but there seems to be a big drop off in light depending on the angle you are viewing from in stores. On the DLP's that is.
Viewing cone is determined by screen gain, and screen gain is determined by the brightness of the light engine. The more light they try to get out of the lasers at a given production cost the lower their life expectancy will be. So lots of trade-offs there.

Viewing angles is second only to rainbows in my list of concerns, as I'll be sitting close, so here's hoping it'll be wide.

No need to roll your eyes, black screens supposedly work very well.

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/screen_innovations_black_diamond_a_gem_of_a_screen/C5



While the SI Black Diamond is certainly an innovative product, I don’t see it as a solution. Rear projection is still going to have significantly darker blacks when ambient light is present.

...Sony does not have a clue how to sell to the high end, as is the case with most of the large vendors. They only sell anything high end by accident.

All of which goes to show that simply adopting the manufacturing philosophy advocated by Owen (build up to a standard, not down to a price) does not guarantee perfection. I've never seen a JVC "Pro" LCoS set, but I gather that was also such an attempt. I would tend to agree that the volume manufacturers are not equipped. Maybe they need a Lexus/Infinity/Acura type corporate organization.

I'd be really interested in an elite version of my D-ILA, with extra quality control and professional calibration at the factory. It could be thick, pricy and be a monitor rather than a TV (I don't need a tuner or audio) but for the price of a large LCD flat-panel I'd be tempted.

Calibration at the factory can only get you so far.

The problem with most of the manufacturers is that they have their own idea of what performance is and are usually out of touch with the market by quite a distance. Their ideas about what is desired are limited to the masses. They simply cannot manage to understand niche marketing very well at all. The point that they have missed many times is that niches often develop into very large categories. It took years to convince the Japanese that there would be a market for big screen TV, for instance. They still don't get that there is a large market for dislays that can be calibrated properly.

Viewing cone is determined by screen gain, and screen gain is determined by the brightness of the light engine. The more light they try to get out of the lasers at a given production cost the lower their life expectancy will be. So lots of trade-offs there.

Viewing angles is second only to rainbows in my list of concerns, as I'll be sitting close, so here's hoping it'll be wide.


Can a DLP tv be made to have very wide viewing angles? What is the trade-off? Does it need to have increased brightness?

I think Laservue is going to be quite expensive at first. Add that to the fact that it's going to be in a box it's going to have to have a mighty fine picture over plasma or LCD to sell well. Sure some will buy because it's a bigger screen, but a lot of people are going to be turned off by the depth.

I just wish Mitsubishi would release model info and pricing details.

Can a DLP tv be made to have very wide viewing angles? What is the trade-off? Does it need to have increased brightness?
Very wide is a bit of a curly term, but as the screen gain goes down and the light engine is moved further back the more like a rear projection setup with an external projector it'll look. If the room is very dark an increase in screen gain wouldn't be necessary as digital projectors already put a decent amount of lumins for small screens in dark rooms.

Of course, such a device would probably sell very poorly next to the LCDs set up in torch mode in places like Best Buy et al. :(


Sure some will buy because it's a bigger screen, but a lot of people are going to be turned off by the depth.
Probably, but it's not like 10 inches is particularly thick.

Very wide is a bit of a curly term, but as the screen gain goes down and the light engine is moved further back the more like a rear projection setup with an external projector it'll look. If the room is very dark an increase in screen gain wouldn't be necessary as digital projectors already put a decent amount of lumins for small screens in dark rooms.

Of course, such a device would probably sell very poorly next to the LCDs set up in torch mode in places like Best Buy et al. :(



Thank you very much for reply. I have another question regarding DLP. A year or two ago someone wrote that they were present to witness DLP prototypes made by Texas Instruments around 20 years ago, which were lit by CRT RGB lamps!!! And that forum member went on to lament that this approach was not used eventually. Apparently it was something terrific. What are your thoughts on that? And also do you think a knowledgeable CRT enthusiast (FP or RP) could mod a DLP rptv to have CRT RGB lamps and effectively build such a prototype themselves? + would such a tv have burn-in IR issues?

Probably, but it's not like 10 inches is particularly thick.

10” deep for a 65” screen is certainly not a lot; in fact it’s probably too slim for optimal rear projection performance. I would much prefer a much deeper form factor and uncompromised performance, function before fashion.
Unfortunately I am in a minority, fashion and price will always dominate the design of consumer products. :(

Probably, but it's not like 10 inches is particularly thick.

No that's not, but most people aren't going to hang one on the wall. The PQ is most important to me but with it not being a flat panel is a shot against it.

I am eyeing this laser as a potential replacement for my 70" lcos. If it meant a better pq or more reliable set I would much rather have a set twice as deep. In my particular situation extra depth would not matter. But I am starting to understand why the flat panels are so popular. I replaced my 12 year old 53" Sony that I had in the bedroom with a bigger flat panel on the wall. The new tv has twice the viewable area but it was amazing how much lighter the room felt without the bulk of the tv protruding into the room. Granted, the room is smaller than a typical ht and the old set was deeper than my 70". Anyways, I think most folks are in a situation where the flatter panel is more livable.

Thank you very much for reply. I have another question regarding DLP. A year or two ago someone wrote that they were present to witness DLP prototypes made by Texas Instruments around 20 years ago, which were lit by CRT RGB lamps!!! And that forum member went on to lament that this approach was not used eventually. Apparently it was something terrific. What are your thoughts on that? And also do you think a knowledgeable CRT enthusiast (FP or RP) could mod a DLP rptv to have CRT RGB lamps and effectively build such a prototype themselves? + would such a tv have burn-in IR issues?

There would be no advantage in using CRTs as light sources for a DLP projection system. Three DLP chips (no color wheel) and a UHP lamp work the best so far.
LED’s and Lasers are just an attempt to make sets cheaper and slimmer, I’ll be surprised if either can match a triple chip DLP/UHP lamp system.

Thank you very much for reply. I have another question regarding DLP. A year or two ago someone wrote that they were present to witness DLP prototypes made by Texas Instruments around 20 years ago, which were lit by CRT RGB lamps!!! And that forum member went on to lament that this approach was not used eventually. Apparently it was something terrific. What are your thoughts on that? And also do you think a knowledgeable CRT enthusiast (FP or RP) could mod a DLP rptv to have CRT RGB lamps and effectively build such a prototype themselves? + would such a tv have burn-in IR issues?
What you're talking about does exist, but it was similar to LCOS, not DLP. It was called ILA by JVC and LV by AmPro and consisted of a small high-res CRT connected by fibre optics to photosensors on the back of a reflective LCD panel. The technology put out the most natural and beautiful image of all display technologies in my opinion, but the cost, complexity, and difficulty of manufacture drove JVC to switch over to LCOS and AmPro into bankruptcy.

The projectors were huge (they have been compared to snowmobles) and put out insane amounts of heat, so no way would it work in a RPTV.

Modding a projector to work like a light valve projector is more trouble than it's worth, but you can find $80,000+ projectors going for less than $1000 today if you know where to look.


The PQ is most important to me but with it not being a flat panel is a shot against it.
Sad but true.


There would be no advantage in using CRTs as light sources for a DLP projection system. Three DLP chips (no color wheel) and a UHP lamp work the best so far.
There is; Light valve projectors have no pixels. Which means no apeture ratio, no harm to contrast ratio by the interpixel gaps, no scaling, and a true multiscanning capability.

UHP lamps are not the best light source given that they don't put out a lot of deep red spectrum light.

There is; Light valve projectors have no pixels. Which means no apeture ratio, no harm to contrast ratio by the interpixel gaps, no scaling, and a true multiscanning capability.

UHP lamps are not the best light source given that they don't put out a lot of deep red spectrum light.

I am well aware of how CRT tubes work, I have owned CRT projectors in the past.
Lack of pixel structure, aperture ratio, scaling, multiscanning etc are irrelevant when all we are using the CRT’s for are Red, Green and Blue light sources for a DLP projector as proposed by moreHD. The old JVC ILA system obviously was not practical.
A UHP lamps are not perfect but they are a brighter broader spectrum light source then CRT’s. DLP and LCoS systems using them have no problem producing the full HD color gamut, including Red.

I am well aware of how CRT tubes work, I have owned CRT projectors in the past.
Lack of pixel structure, aperture ratio, scaling, multiscanning etc are irrelevant when all we are using the CRT’s for are Red, Green and Blue light sources for a DLP projector as proposed by moreHD. The old JVC ILA system obviously was not practical.
A UHP lamps are not perfect but they are a brighter broader spectrum light source then CRT’s. DLP and LCoS systems using them have no problem producing the full HD color gamut, including Red.
As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting using phosphor based lighting, it was simply moreHD expressing a lack of familiarity with the way light valve projectors work (which is fair enough given how rarely they're encountered). The only displays I know of with discrete RGB phosphors are some LED backlit LCDs which use phosphor coated white LEDs.

Gamut-wise both UHP bulbs and phosphors are quite capable of displaying all of the rather small BT709 colourspace given that it was based on the SMPTE-C phosphor primaries. Neither can do wider colour spaces like vxYCC, extended RGB and XYZ.

That’s fair enough, but vxYCC, extended RGB and XYZ are not required in a world without any such video source. I certainly am not looking for a display with wide gamut color, the display will get replaced long before there is any need.

I also wonder how Laservue will perform on shadow details. You won't hear it in the plasma forums but one thing my SXRD does better than my Kuro is that it handles shadow details a bit better than my Kuro. However, DLP has typically provided poor shadow details.

I also wonder how Laservue will perform on shadow details. You won't hear it in the plasma forums but one thing my SXRD does better than my Kuro is that it handles shadow details a bit better than my Kuro. However, DLP has typically provided poor shadow details.

I thought the kuro reviews in various a/v reviews generally raved about shadow details...

I don't know of anyone who has much experience with both that also has any credibility as a reviewer who finds better shadow detail in any of the SXRD sets than the Kuro. At least when both are properly calibrated.

Hmmm, same price as plasma, minus burn-in, short lifespan, shiny reflective screen, whatever other plasma defects there are?

PWM noise that i can notice from 8ft. away on my 50'' Panny, which i love BTW :D It's just that i'm hoping it'll be replaced with a 61-65'' 1080p RPTV;)

I don't know of anyone who has much experience with both that also has any credibility as a reviewer who finds better shadow detail in any of the SXRD sets than the Kuro. At least when both are properly calibrated.

It doesn't matter to me what any of the reviews say. I have both in my home and you'd had to be blind to not notice that the SXRD has more shadow details. I own both so I've zero bias. And the picture on the Kuro is 10 times better than the SXRD but it does not have better shadow details. Unless someone can perform magic out of the SM, it isn't going to happen in the user menu.

It doesn't matter to me what any of the reviews say. I have both in my home and you'd had to be blind to not notice that the SXRD has more shadow details. I own both so I've zero bias. And the picture on the Kuro is 10 times better than the SXRD but it does not have better shadow details. Unless someone can perform magic out of the SM, it isn't going to happen in the user menu.
Do both displays have the same gamma curve and are in locations with the same amount of ambient light?

It doesn't matter to me what any of the reviews say. I have both in my home and you'd had to be blind to not notice that the SXRD has more shadow details. I own both so I've zero bias. And the picture on the Kuro is 10 times better than the SXRD but it does not have better shadow details. Unless someone can perform magic out of the SM, it isn't going to happen in the user menu.

Have you had the chance to look at gray scale test signals to better determine what is causing the difference in shadow detail? From what you're writing, it seems the Kuro is compressing blacks. I'm surprised user controls can't at least alleviate this condition. One thing I've found on LCDs, setting contrast at it's maximum level and adjusting other controls (brightness and backlight) for nominal pic levels always improves shadow detail.

My comments are based off of what I see with my eyes. I don't have calibration experience. On my Kuro(which is a 6010 and my only calibration is user menu based) I have gamma set to 3, brightness +1, DRE either off or low, and black level off and shadow detail isn't nearly as good. My 6010 did have better shadow detail than the Panasonic 58PX600U I had though. With the SXRD I can even set it with black enhancement on high, gamma at the lowest level, brightness at mid-level, and the iris on about 1 and the difference is pretty significant. And that's with settings on the SXRD which actually crush details in black levels.

I've tested with the lights on and off and have used the same DVDs. I did a test just the other night with the scene from Spiderman where MJ is left on a bridge. She is laying on a bridge with thin beams at night. When she stands up, on my Kuro there is a black gap in the beams behind her and the beams are slightly visible. On the SXRD that gap is obviously her shadow and the beams are clearly visible. To be able to see those kinds of details on the Kuro I had to set the brightness to +10 (which diminishes those nice black levels). Also, details are much brighter on the SXRD as well. I'm sure a trained calibrator could probably do some SM adjustments to help out with shadow details but IMO untrained opinion I don't think it's going to match the SXRD in this particular area.

My comments are based off of what I see with my eyes. I don't have calibration experience. On my Kuro(which is a 6010 and my only calibration is user menu based) I have gamma set to 3,

This Gamma seems a bit high. Have you tried other lower settings?

This Gamma seems a bit high. Have you tried other lower settings?

I tried user menu settings suggested by the Kuro pros. Actually increasing the brightness to +10 shows the details but that's obviously not ideal in any shape or form.

Although interesting, this ongoing Kuro/SXRD discussion now belongs in (you guessed it) the Kuro or SXRD threads.....

Any new LaserVue news, folks? ;)

Thanks.

Any new LaserVue news, folks? ;)
All quiet, unfortunately. At least the off topic chat is keeping the thread bumped.

Any new LaserVue news, folks? ;)


I haven't heard anything either. But of course the $1675 61" Samsung LED DLP won me over, so I am no longer a potential Laservue customer. I guess an extra three grand for 4 more inches and the rights to brag about lasers in my TV didn't make so much sense in a recession. Oh, and bump.:D

I haven't heard anything either. But of course the $1675 61" Samsung LED DLP won me over, so I am no longer a potential Laservue customer. I guess an extra three grand for 4 more inches and the rights to brag about lasers in my TV didn't make so much sense in a recession. Oh, and bump.:D

What recession? My lasers will so rule over your led's.

I haven't heard anything either. But of course the $1675 61" Samsung LED DLP won me over, so I am no longer a potential Laservue customer.

Well, I did a similar thing, but I'm still a potential Laservue customer.

I bought the Toshiba 65HM167 (65") back in January for $1250.

I figured I could use it for 1 year, sell it for $750 or so and buy a 73" Laservue.

My 50'' SD RP TV went on the fritz about a year ago. It was going to cost about $600 to repair, so I decided to wait and save for an HD replacement. I had been eyeing the Sony LCDs, and even the DLP/LCOS models. I almost went with the Sony (I think w3000), but could not justify having to replace a light bulb in a $2500 TV. I am also concerned about possible clouding in LCDs as I experience it in an entry-level secondary LCD TV I use. I came across the Laser TV/LaserVue discussion on the AVS board, and decided to wait for this one. However, despite the initial talk of the technology being much cheaper to manufacture than the current HD technologies, I'm seeing really high numbers floating around for the upcoming LaserVue.

What are your thoughts about the chances of being able to get the LaserVue for under $3K in Q3 '08?

If not the LaserVue, what would you get if you had just under $3k for a TV 52'' or larger?

Thanks in advance.

What are your thoughts about the chances of being able to get the LaserVue for under $3K in Q3 '08?

If not the LaserVue, what would you get if you had just under $3k for a TV 52'' or larger?


Almost zero percent. Mits has already told their resellers/installers that Laservue will be marketed at a 50% price premium over their Diamond DLP lineup. And they launch in Q3 2008. They aren't cutting corners and are putting their best stuff into the Laservue and pricing it that way. I wouldn't expect prices to fall until mid-2009. That is, if the technology even survives. Who pays over four grand for RPTV?

I was eyeing the Laservue, but when I heard what the price point was I bailed. I ordered a 61" Samsung LED DLP from the Big River last Wednesday and it arrives tomorrow. And it only cost a tad bit over half of your $3k price target. If you want to hang the TV on the wall or require a wide viewing angle you should be able to get most of the current round-up of 52" LCDs if you look hard. If you are more flexible the RP Sammies have by far the best price per square inch (unless you count projectors) and the LED light engine means no bulbs to replace.

And in a way I still am a potential Laservue customer. That is, when the laser-based light engine arrives in front projectors. The RPTV is for the living room. In a couple years the basement is getting a theatre makeover...;)

Ya, I figured as much...so frustrating that something that actually costs less to make will cost more on the market...Capitalism at its finest I guess...but thanks for confirming my fears.

While I heard about the LED backlit LCD TVs, I missed the info about LED DLPs. I'll look into them some more. Since the new TV will be going exactly where the old SD RP TV is now (If I can find someone to help me move the monster), wall-mounting is not critical. The only thing is that is has to be able to make the turn down the basement staircase ;-)

I thought DLPs (with the exception of Laser TV) was going bye-bye? Is LED DLP the last big AFFORDABLE hurray for RP?

Mitsubishi...give a guy a break here, I'd love to be a customer, but jeez...$4K for an RP TV (even if it's dem lazers ya know)??? I'd rather get a sexy XBR LCD for that price.

...Is LED DLP the last big AFFORDABLE hurray for RP?...

Both Samsung and Mitsu still sell bulb/color wheel DLPs, although what their current sales volume and future prospects are remains to be seen.

I wouldn't count on the Laservue being cheap. While on vacation I had a Tweeter dealer guesstimate and MSRP of $6-$8k and believes they will sell at that price. I'm not sure about that but considering the price of Mits' Diamond line DLPs I bet it's about $6k or more for the 65" model.

I wouldn't count on the Laservue being cheap. While on vacation I had a Tweeter dealer guesstimate and MSRP of $6-$8k and believes they will sell at that price. I'm not sure about that but considering the price of Mits' Diamond line DLPs I bet it's about $6k or more for the 65" model.

while i want to go with laservue dlp because it is overall better than the led dlp sets due to a far better viewing angle. but with a high price point its not worth over 5k for me. but unless they drop over the next year i wont get one just yet, maybe in a few years if rptv survives i will. but as of now i'm holding out for 2009, i'm betting samsung will announce a 72 inch led dlp with dc4(they went to 67 this year) now if mits could somehow kill off the diamond dlp buld line up, and release the laservue sets at 4k for a73 incher then hell yes. while i usually say quality first, but right now Price point is the part that matters the most, not going to spend more than i can afford, because i also wanna have a surround sound system as well.

Hopefully these LaserVue sets will be everything we desire. I'm in the market for an HDTV, and most likely it's going to be either a top-notch RP, or a plasma, if I can find one that I'm satisfied with.

while i want to go with laservue dlp because it is overall better than the led dlp sets due to a far better viewing angle.

How could you possibly know that?

How could you possibly know that?

they have a 160 degree viewing angle its on the updated laservue page, plus they are brighter than led sets and brighter than bulds (which for the most part have been better than the current led sets, except i wouldnt bother with bulds for obvious other issues) http://www.believingisseeing.tv/faq.html

How could you possibly know that?

Descriptions from CES confirm viewing angles better than previous RPTV, but those demos were in light controlled areas and it was being shown next to plasma and LCD.

Q3 is a loooonnng way off....

while i want to go with laservue dlp because it is overall better than the led dlp sets due to a far better viewing angle. but with a high price point its not worth over 5k for me. but unless they drop over the next year i wont get one just yet, maybe in a few years if rptv survives i will. but as of now i'm holding out for 2009, i'm betting samsung will announce a 72 inch led dlp with dc4(they went to 67 this year) now if mits could somehow kill off the diamond dlp buld line up, and release the laservue sets at 4k for a73 incher then hell yes. while i usually say quality first, but right now Price point is the part that matters the most, not going to spend more than i can afford, because i also wanna have a surround sound system as well.
Amazon routinely has the 2007 Mits Diamond 73" in the low 3k's and 2007 Sammy 72" for less. Tack on 50% Laser premium and give it a year or so to adjust to the market and I think a 73" laser could be had for low 4 or high $3k.

while i want to go with laservue dlp because it is overall better than the led dlp sets due to a far better viewing angle.

I own a 3-year-old Sony RPTV. they are not DLP, but SXRD. Their viewing angle is great---you can literally watch it just fine at more than a 45 degree angle. 2 days ago I walked by a DLP in Circuit City, and it did appear to have a pretty poor side angle performance.

Long story---if you want better viewing angle, you may want to buy one of the last Sony RPTV. They were pretty good. They have great colors. Their drawback on my older set was poor contrast ratio, so great on sports, bad on dark movies. I hear the contrast ratio was greatly improved on newer models. A second drawback is that I can easily hear whether the TV is on with my eyes closed. Their cooling for the engine must be massive. Maybe a higher light output is what caused their better viewing angle.

/iaw

Is anybody besides me getting a little frustrated by the complete lack of follow up information from Mitsubishi? Unless I've missed something there has been nothing but silence since their show a few months back. If this product was really going to be competative, with say a Pioneer Elite 151, I would think they'd be promoting it. We don't even have pricing or screen sizing options, other than a 65".

I'm looking for a picture as good as the 151, but larger/no burn in/less energy use. If this new technology was really state of the art I'd have thought they'd be blowing the horns every day. The silence is deafening.

Nope, not really frustrated. That's just the way companies are doing it now. Some of the new receivers and blu-ray players are about 1 month from release and there's still a lot of questions regarding specs. I wouldn't really expect additional (concrete) information until sometime in the fall.

I'd love more info too, it'd give us something to talk about rather than letting this thread drop to page 6, but given the release date is probably going to be in late Q3 I imagine Mitsubitshi want to keep their cards close to their chest for the time being.

Is anybody besides me getting a little frustrated by the complete lack of follow up information from Mitsubishi? Unless I've missed something there has been nothing but silence since their show a few months back. If this product was really going to be competative, with say a Pioneer Elite 151, I would think they'd be promoting it. We don't even have pricing or screen sizing options, other than a 65".

I'm looking for a picture as good as the 151, but larger/no burn in/less energy use. If this new technology was really state of the art I'd have thought they'd be blowing the horns every day. The silence is deafening.

I'm hoping for more info too. I'm about ready to just get a 6020 and forget it for this year. I really expect these to be priced much more expensive than the Pioneers (or at least the same, however, I'm betting they will have limited availability for a while and only available in upperline stores meaning you may pay close to MSRP for them).

I'm also awaiting info on whether or not the LG's are going to come out in July with infinite black levels.

Will this be as nice, or nicer than the 9G Kuro's?

e: or is there just no way of knowing yet?

Will this be as nice, or nicer than the 9G Kuro's?

e: or is there just no way of knowing yet?

Mitsubishi will probably price it as if they think it is as good as the Kuro. We'll have to see.

Will this be as nice, or nicer than the 9G Kuro's?

e: or is there just no way of knowing yet?

No one knows. Expect them to be brighter but outiside of that it's unknown at this point.

Will this be as nice, or nicer than the 9G Kuro's?

e: or is there just no way of knowing yet?
Reports from the few who saw it was that is compared favourably to a 8G Kuro and a 82U Sharp, but it was in a dim environment, the Pio and the Sharp weren't calibrated, and the Mitsi had it's colours cranked up into the stratosphere. Not really an environment suitable for drawing valid conclusions.

Will this be as nice, or nicer than the 9G Kuro's?

e: or is there just no way of knowing yet?

This is the reason for my earlier post. With the 9G's coming out people have no concrete reason to wait for the Mits. IF the Mits was going to be competative, they ought to be giving us a steady stream of information about how great this set will be AND WHY IT WILL BE WORTH WAITING FOR! As it is now, I have to conclude the set will not be competative with the 9G OR that Mits doesn't care about losing sales over the next 4-5 months.

While I don't mind waiting to see what the Mits looks like in person, I'd prefer enough information so I'd at least know whether or not to put it on my short list. The upside is I should be able to get a better deal on a 151 this fall, rather than upon release.

This is the reason for my earlier post. With the 9G's coming out people have no concrete reason to wait for the Mits. IF the Mits was going to be competative, they ought to be giving us a steady stream of information about how great this set will be AND WHY IT WILL BE WORTH WAITING FOR! As it is now, I have to conclude the set will not be competative with the 9G OR that Mits doesn't care about losing sales over the next 4-5 months.

While I don't mind waiting to see what the Mits looks like in person, I'd prefer enough information so I'd at least know whether or not to put it on my short list. The upside is I should be able to get a better deal on a 151 this fall, rather than upon release.
Here's a huge difference:

The maximum Pioneer 9G size will be 60" The Maximum Mits laser TV size will be 73". If you don't want or need anything larger than 60", then the Pioneer would be an excellent choice.

This is the reason for my earlier post. With the 9G's coming out people have no concrete reason to wait for the Mits.
The 9G is on my consider list, but there's some traits to plasma technology that prevent me from rushing out and getting one sight unseen.

This game is all about trade-offs.

Here's a huge difference:

The maximum Pioneer 9G size will be 60" The Maximum Mits laser TV size will be 73".

Thank you for pointing out why I will choose the Mits over the Pio.

And if Mitsubishi was smart, they would release the 73" FIRST.;)

This game is all about trade-offs.
Unfortunately, that's so true. Even if you take price out of the equation (as in being willing to spend as much $$$ as it takes), there's no perfect solution. Just briefly:

LCD - motion blur
Plasma - potential burn in / image retention issues, not good in a room with lots of light
DLP - potential geometry issues, not as elegant as the flat panel options
Front projector - requires a room with complete darkness

IMO, as long as the depth of a DLP set isn't a problem and you get a set with minimal (or no) geometry issues, DLP is probably the best option for most people. It's the least expensive (with the obvious exception that the laser sets aren't expected to be cheap), has no trouble with motion, no risk of burn in, works well in a reasonably well lit room, etc. It's also the only option available at anything beyond 65" (except for the statement pieces that are priced in the stratosphere).

Here's a huge difference:

The maximum Pioneer 9G size will be 60" The Maximum Mits laser TV size will be 73". If you don't want or need anything larger than 60", then the Pioneer would be an excellent choice.

Exactly. I already have a 65" Toshiba and it's a bit small for my room. I need at least 70"+ on my next set.

DLP is probably the best option for most people.
That would depend on how prevalent the rainbow effect is.

Thank you for pointing out why I will choose the Mits over the Pio.

And if Mitsubishi was smart, they would release the 73" FIRST.;)

Unless price isn't an issue I wouldn't get my hopes up too high yet. That 73"er could be quite expensive! :eek: The Pioneer's aren't cheap but if you look as sponsor pricing you'll find the most expensive Pioneer won't cost much more over $5k. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case with Laservue in it's first year.

My wife and I are waiting on the Laservue mainly because of the bigger sizes. We have a huge windowed great room that needs a big screen. She likes the LCDs b/c of the brightness but they are limited by size and cost.

The better plasmas (Pioneer and Panasonic) were my first choice but for the nice reflective glass screens. They have a great picture, some anti-relective improvements, great viewing angle, and processing for sports. Burn in is not the issue it once was with the orbiters and proper break in.

I ignored DLP mainly b/c of limited viewing angle both vertical and horizontal and also the lack of brightness. Any show room always puts the DLPs in a cavelike room for good reason. The matte screens are nice for reflective issues, but I don't see DLPs as good daylight TVs until they overcome the brightness issue.

I hope they are brighter and the viewing angles are tolerable. Of course, DLPs are mainly attractive for the bang for your buck. We will see how premium pricing goes over if Mitsubishi does it with the laservue.
Any info. would be helpful regarding pricing at this point. THere does seem to be a scarcity of new info.

...Front projector - requires a room with complete darkness....

Well hardly. The amount of screen brightness depends both on the projector lumens as well as screen size. I don't own one of these but if you follow the FP forum you find many people who say they use regular rooms.

That would depend on how prevalent the rainbow effect is.
I don't believe rainbow effect is expected to be an issue with the lasers. It's very much reduced with the Samsung LED DLP's.

Pioneer's aren't cheap but if you look as sponsor pricing you'll find the most expensive Pioneer won't cost much more over $5k. I'm not so sure that's going to be the case with Laservue in it's first year.
But the Pioneer's aren't available larger than 60". Like I said previously, if 60" is big enough, then the Pioneer's are an excellent option. If you want something larger, Pioneer simply isn't an option until at least next year (65" and possibly larger are rumored / expected for the 10G sets).

The better plasmas (Pioneer and Panasonic) were my first choice but for the nice reflective glass screens. They have a great picture, some anti-relective improvements, great viewing angle, and processing for sports. Burn in is not the issue it once was with the orbiters and proper break in.
Burn in isn't the major issue it used to be, but it is still a potential problem if you're not reasonably careful. With DLP's there's nothing to worry about in this regard.

I ignored DLP mainly b/c of limited viewing angle both vertical and horizontal and also the lack of brightness. Any show room always puts the DLPs in a cavelike room for good reason. The matte screens are nice for reflective issues, but I don't see DLPs as good daylight TVs until they overcome the brightness issue.
If you don't consider DLP's bright enough, I question why you would be considering a high end plasma. I've seen DLP's out in the open at some of the stores and the picture still looks just fine. The plasmas that are out in the open definitely don't look so good.

I hope they are brighter and the viewing angles are tolerable. Of course, DLPs are mainly attractive for the bang for your buck.
The DLP's are also very attractive because they're available in larger sizes than LCD and plasma. I will not go smaller than 65" (the size of my current TV) and would prefer to go larger. Front projection isn't an option for me, so that pretty much means that DLP is my best choice. For sizes smaller than 65", DLP definitely gives the most bang for the buck. I'm hoping the laser DLP's will offer performance comparable to the high end plasmas (we'll have to wait an see on this), the larger 65" and 73" screen sizes (this is confirmed), at prices that more or less make sense (again, we'll have to wait to see), and without significant geometry issues like some of the other DLP sets have.

Can't we just have a TV with a large screen size, great picture quality, no potential for burn in or image retention, no motion blur, and no geometry issues all at a somewhat reasonable cost? Is that really to much for us to ask for? :(

Well hardly. The amount of screen brightness depends both on the projector lumens as well as screen size. I don't own one of these but if you follow the FP forum you find many people who say they use regular rooms.
Yes, brightness certainly depends on those factors (as well as the type of screen being used), but with lots of light in the room a FP is definitely not the best option. They're also a lot more difficult to set up than the other options. When properly set up and in the right room conditions, FP is definitely the best option if you want a large screen and a truly immersive experience.

But the Pioneer's aren't available larger than 60". Like I said previously, if 60" is big enough, then the Pioneer's are an excellent option. If you want something larger, Pioneer simply isn't an option until at least next year (65" and possibly larger are rumored / expected for the 10G sets).


That's true. I've been viewing in the 60" range for about 5 years now and I've been wanting something larger for quite some time. There was a premium in RPTVs just until a few years ago and then I switched to plasma making something larger unavailable. The dimness of projectors just doesn't do it for me. I'm just afraid Laservue is going to only be available in high end stores, have a high MSRP, and then the dealer not cutting a deal making it more a bit more expensive. Plus with the way I upgrade I just can't justify spending more than Pioneer type pricing on an RPTV because if I go to sell it the following year I'm not sure I'd get much of anything out of it as they way people are about wanting flat nowadays. Supposedly there will be bigger plasmas next year with perfect blacks and brighter displays possibly and maybe some 2nd gen Laser TVs. So I'm hoping next year will be the year for me for a larger TV. I could be wrong about Laservue though.

Currently I have a Samsung 6188 which has been calibrated by UMR. While I see RBE, I'm able to control the lighting in my room which reduces the problem to near zero. It has some geometry problems, but I really only notice it when I'm watching 4x3 material since the black side bars are slightly bowed on the bottom. On the up side it has near perfect color, great resolution and plenty of light output. RBE and geometry aren't really a bother to me, it's only serious problem is it's black level. The 8G Pioneer is the first fixed pixel display that can show black at near CRT level. The 9G is supposed to even better. If you've ever seen a Sony 34XBR960 you'd know what a true black will do, it makes the colors pop and gives you that 3d effect.

While I realize the Elite 151 is only 60", and I'd rather have 65-70", I'd rather keep what I have now than buy a larger set that doesn't fix my only real issue with my DLP. Having seen a calibrated Elite 150, there is no way I'll buy another set that has charcol gray black. If my Samsung had Elite 150 quality black, I wouldn't even be looking at a new set. I don't really want a 60" set, just like some of you. What I do want is Mits to tell us their new set will be competative with the Elite 151, but on a larger scale. I like DLP, but I won't buy another one until it has CRT black.

Currently I have a Samsung 6188 which has been calibrated by UMR. While I see RBE, I'm able to control the lighting in my room which reduces the problem to near zero. It has some geometry problems, but I really only notice it when I'm watching 4x3 material since the black side bars are slightly bowed on the bottom. On the up side it has near perfect color, great resolution and plenty of light output. RBE and geometry aren't really a bother to me, it's only serious problem is it's black level. The 8G Pioneer is the first fixed pixel display that can show black at near CRT level. The 9G is supposed to even better. If you've ever seen a Sony 34XBR960 you'd know what a true black will do, it makes the colors pop and gives you that 3d effect.

While I realize the Elite 151 is only 60", and I'd rather have 65-70", I'd rather keep what I have now than buy a larger set that doesn't fix my only real issue with my DLP. Having seen a calibrated Elite 150, there is no way I'll buy another set that has charcol gray black. If my Samsung had Elite 150 quality black, I wouldn't even be looking at a new set. I don't really want a 60" set, just like some of you. What I do want is Mits to tell us their new set will be competative with the Elite 151, but on a larger scale. I like DLP, but I won't buy another one until it has CRT black.

Maybe laservue will fix that problem with DLP. Sure am anxious to get some hard data/reviews.

I don't believe rainbow effect is expected to be an issue with the lasers. It's very much reduced with the Samsung LED DLP's.


But the Pioneer's aren't available larger than 60". Like I said previously, if 60" is big enough, then the Pioneer's are an excellent option. If you want something larger, Pioneer simply isn't an option until at least next year (65" and possibly larger are rumored / expected for the 10G sets).


Burn in isn't the major issue it used to be, but it is still a potential problem if you're not reasonably careful. With DLP's there's nothing to worry about in this regard.


If you don't consider DLP's bright enough, I question why you would be considering a high end plasma. I've seen DLP's out in the open at some of the stores and the picture still looks just fine. The plasmas that are out in the open definitely don't look so good.


The DLP's are also very attractive because they're available in larger sizes than LCD and plasma. I will not go smaller than 65" (the size of my current TV) and would prefer to go larger. Front projection isn't an option for me, so that pretty much means that DLP is my best choice. For sizes smaller than 65", DLP definitely gives the most bang for the buck. I'm hoping the laser DLP's will offer performance comparable to the high end plasmas (we'll have to wait an see on this), the larger 65" and 73" screen sizes (this is confirmed), at prices that more or less make sense (again, we'll have to wait to see), and without significant geometry issues like some of the other DLP sets have.

Can't we just have a TV with a large screen size, great picture quality, no potential for burn in or image retention, no motion blur, and no geometry issues all at a somewhat reasonable cost? Is that really to much for us to ask for? :(

+1

I don't believe rainbow effect is expected to be an issue with the lasers. It's very much reduced with the Samsung LED DLP's.
That's certainly my hope.

The 73" Mitsubishi DLP is my favorite TV. If they put lasers in it, it will be great. I think the 1080 DLP has the best combination of clarity and a dry, realistic look that beats the wet and plastic looking LCD, and less hard looking than plasma. Eventually laser TVs should be cheaper than bulb units, even in up-front costs.

IB

The 73" Mitsubishi DLP is my favorite TV. If they put lasers in it, it will be great. I think the 1080 DLP has the best combination of clarity and a dry, realistic look that beats the wet and plastic looking LCD, and less hard looking than plasma. Eventually laser TVs should be cheaper than bulb units, even in up-front costs.

IB

The MITS website is now showing bthe new 65835 and the 73835. I'm really looking forward to seeing one on a showroom soon. So far, all the locals are still showing the 833 series.

Those are bulb units. They probably look great, but you will need a new bulb every 4000 hours. I want a 73" laser TV that will never need a bulb. The lasers should last at least 20,000 hours.

IB

Those are bulb units. They probably look great, but you will need a new bulb every 4000 hours. I want a 73" laser TV that will never need a bulb. The lasers should last at least 20,000 hours.

IB

Never and 20,000 hours are a FAR cry from each other.

If the lasers can only last 20,000 hours then I don't see why anyone would pay a premium for them when plasmas are 100,000 hours to half-life.

Those are bulb units. They probably look great, but you will need a new bulb every 4000 hours. I want a 73" laser TV that will never need a bulb. The lasers should last at least 20,000 hours.
For the difference in cost between what the bulb sets are selling for and what the laser sets are anticipated to go for, one could purchase 20,000 hours worth of bulbs and still have some money left over... As long as the bulbs are easy to change, I have no problem with keeping a spare around and having to change it once in a while. Besides, at the rate I watch TV, 4000 hours would be something like every 3-4 years, so I might want to replace the TV before the original bulb even needs replacing.

Those are bulb units. They probably look great, but you will need a new bulb every 4000 hours. I want a 73" laser TV that will never need a bulb. ...

Spend your money as you see fit, but personally I can't see any problem with putting in a $200 lamp every few thousand hours. It`s peanuts compared to the cost of a new TV and restores the set to full original glory unlike plasmas or LCD flat-panels which gradually fade.

Never and 20,000 hours are a FAR cry from each other.

If the lasers can only last 20,000 hours then I don't see why anyone would pay a premium for them when plasmas are 100,000 hours to half-life.

A laser is not a bulb! Laser TVs never need bulbs! No projection TVs suffer image burn-in, so they have yet another advantage over plasma sets.

The 20,000 hour spec is the low end of estimates, which range all the way up to 60,000 hours depending on which company is making the claim on any given day. No one will really knows the lifespan until they are sold and used by customers in the real world. Manufacturers also claim zero dimming, which means full power for the entire life of the set. Most people will die or buy a new set before ever using 60,000 hours on a TV. If you figure 10,000 hours every 5 years, that is along time, even if the lower 20,000 hour spec is used. With no dimming, 20,000 hours would be great, and you can replace a laser as easy as a bulb, and eventually lasers will be cheaper.

The increased cost of lasers is only because they are a new technology and companies have to make back new design costs. The actual eventual cost of the laser units is lower than the cost of bulbs, which use expensive ingredients to make. Lasers use cheaper ingredients, so prices will fall rapidly, and lasers are faster to make on a production line. Lasers will take over front projection as well, and bulbs will be obsolete, just like CRTs are now obsolete for projectors.

IB

unlike plasmas or LCD flat-panels which gradually fade.
Excepting of course LCDs with solid-state backlights.


I personally don't see bulb replacement as that big a deal with bulbs that only cost a couple of hundred, it's not like replacing a hulking xenon bulb like some older front projectors used. The lack of "pop" as the bulb ages is something I'd happily see the back of, however.

friggin' lasers.

You ever heard of folded optics?

Originally Posted by Carled
That would depend on how prevalent the rainbow effect is.
Originally posted by GSR
I don't believe rainbow effect is expected to be an issue with the lasers. It's very much reduced with the Samsung LED DLP's.

I thought the rainbows were caused by the spinning color wheel. If that is the case, LED and Laser should not have that issue.

That is, if the technology even survives. Who pays over four grand for RPTV?


I will in Australia!.
I would gladly pay over 4 grand for one of the 73 inch models considering in Australia its just about impossible to buy anything over 53 inches and nobody is that stupid to pay $70,000 for a 70 inch Plasma that cooks your TV room with heat and you need a power station to run it.
Mitsubishi are you reading this think about us AUSSIES! we are sick of the small Plasma's and LCD's we have here.

PS Just some info Australia last of the big tv's were the Sony 70 inch SXRD and the LG LCos 71 inch both Rear pro and they have been gone for over one year and today they sell second hand for more than what the new ones cost 12 months ago so work that out

I thought the rainbows were caused by the spinning color wheel. If that is the case, LED and Laser should not have that issue.
It's caused by the three primary coloured getting shown sequentially, rather than simultaniously.

LEDs and lasers can strobe faster than a mechanical colour filter, but the colours are still not being displayed at the same time.

I will in Australia!.
I would gladly pay over 4 grand for one of the 73 inch models considering in Australia its just about impossible to buy anything over 53 inches and nobody is that stupid to pay $70,000 for a 70 inch Plasma that cooks your TV room with heat and you need a power station to run it.
Mitsubishi are you reading this think about us AUSSIES! we are sick of the small Plasma's and LCD's we have here.

PS Just some info Australia last of the big tv's were the Sony 70 inch SXRD and the LG LCos 71 inch both Rear pro and they have been gone for over one year and today they sell second hand for more than what the new ones cost 12 months ago so work that out

60”, 63” and 65” Plasmas are easy enough to find in Oz but as far as I am concerned 65” is way too small.
I payed $6k for a 70” SXRD 15 months ago and would have no hesitation spending more on a bigger and better set.
Lamp replacement is a non issue as far as I am concerned, the cost is insignificant.
Lazer had better offer tangible picture quality improvements over my modified SXRD to get my attention and I cant help thinking that Lazer is a cheap way out of a color wheel system for a manufacturer who does not want to go to the expense of a real 3 chip UHP lamp DLP.
I would really prefer an 80” set next time around, 73” is not a significant step up from a 70” and since size is rear projections greatest advantage over flat panels, why not go as big as possible, an 80” does not cost much more to make.

I thought the rainbows were caused by the spinning color wheel. If that is the case, LED and Laser should not have that issue.

A couple folks on the Sammy LED thread claim they see rainbows on them but not as bad as they do with bulbs.

But most folks NEVER see rainbows even with bulbs.

:)

Owen
I should have put 65 inch instead of 50 but at a fair price.

When it comes to buying stuff from over seas I am no stranger, I have done this before when everyone was still playing with VHS and If I hear good reports about these Laser TV I will be tempted to buy one.
Yes I would love a 80 inch but I might have to settle for a 73 inch as my brother in outlaw wants one of my LG's so I would be tempted to sell one to him and import one of these Laser monsters as long as the reports are good.
Put it this way it would have to pass the Owen and others test before I will buy one.
I've always like things that others don't or cant have, in the old days with a friend we imported a few Corvettes and converted them to RHD, before you know it I had a yard full of Satellite dishes and a TV room to go with it.

But most folks NEVER see rainbows even with bulbs.
Meaning less than 50% of the population, sure, but it's certainly not as rare as TI makes it out to be.

Meaning less than 50% of the population, sure, but it's certainly not as rare as TI makes it out to be.

A LOT less than 50%, judging from what I've heard from folks on these forums, but if you're one of the unlucky ones, the actual percentage is of no consequence. :(

When are they going to start selling the laser TV?

As soon as it's available.

+2

A couple folks on the Sammy LED thread claim they see rainbows on them but not as bad as they do with bulbs.

I was under the impression that RBE is the result of Color Wheels.
And the Sammy LEDs don't use a Color Wheel....:confused:

I was under the impression that RBE is the result of Color Wheels.
And the Sammy LEDs don't use a Color Wheel....:confused:
The same question was asked about ten posts ago. Scroll up.

Owen
I should have put 65 inch instead of 50 but at a fair price.

When it comes to buying stuff from over seas I am no stranger, I have done this before when everyone was still playing with VHS and If I hear good reports about these Laser TV I will be tempted to buy one.
Yes I would love a 80 inch but I might have to settle for a 73 inch as my brother in outlaw wants one of my LG's so I would be tempted to sell one to him and import one of these Laser monsters as long as the reports are good.
Put it this way it would have to pass the Owen and others test before I will buy one.
I've always like things that others don't or cant have, in the old days with a friend we imported a few Corvettes and converted them to RHD, before you know it I had a yard full of Satellite dishes and a TV room to go with it.

Personally I see nothing unfair about the prices of current 60” - 65” Plasmas, even with the 50% to 100% premium charged on this side of the planet. I remember how high priced used to be, these days everything is cheap.
IMHO the continued fall in prices has limited the incentive for manufacturers to provide genuinely high quality products; cost and fashion are now the primary considerations.
Why can’t we buy high quality three chip DLP or LCoS RPTVs in seriously big sizes? I am sure they would be better and cheaper then a 70” Sony LCD or a 100” Plasma, but obviously there is no perceived market because the price would probably exceed $10k US and it would not be fashionably slim.

Personally I see nothing unfair about the prices of current 60” - 65” Plasmas, even with the 50% to 100% premium charged on this side of the planet. I remember how high priced used to be, these days everything is cheap.
IMHO the continued fall in prices has limited the incentive for manufacturers to provide genuinely high quality products; cost and fashion are now the primary considerations.
Why can’t we buy high quality three chip DLP or LCoS RPTVs in seriously big sizes? I am sure they would be better and cheaper then a 70” Sony LCD or a 100” Plasma, but obviously there is no perceived market because the price would probably exceed $10k US and it would not be fashionably slim.

I can see your point.
So of us live in big houses with big lounge rooms and it look stupid having a 60 inch TV in a 10X12M lounge room. Mind you in my other house I had two identical lounges side by side together to fill the lounge room with a small 53 in sony CRT rear pro.
I would have no problem if they manufactured a 80 inch laser tv, i have the room for it but the 70 inch will have to do for the moment.

I have 1 getting delivered tomorrow. My sony 57" took its final crap, thank god for extended warranty, they offered me the new 65" HD DLP Laser plus stand no charge. I will post comments this week, now just got to get some Monster 1000 cables for my HD sat box, old sony had DVI, anyone need Monster 1000 hdmi to dvi cable?

I have 1 getting delivered tomorrow. My sony 57" took its final crap, thank god for extended warranty, they offered me the new 65" HD DLP Laser plus stand no charge. I will post comments this week, now just got to get some Monster 1000 cables for my HD sat box, old sony had DVI, anyone need Monster 1000 hdmi to dvi cable?

I didn't know they were available yet. What's the model number?

Was at ABC In detroit yesterday and he said they just came in about a week ago, they had 4-65" and 3 73" models. Dont have the model numbers handy, but if youre in Metro detroit check out ABC on gratiot and 23 mile road. Price tag for 65" was $2500, and 73" was $4599

WHOA!

What model# do you have coming?
Did you see a Laservue hooked up and demoed for you?

Yes they had a 65 and 73" hooked up, the 65" had better picture tho, but both were better than anything else on the floor, I have to dig through file cabinet for model # I just moved cab back into closet and a old 52" Hitachi blocking it now, LOL

are you sure these are laser and not just regular dlpz?

I have 1 getting delivered tomorrow. My sony 57" took its final crap, thank god for extended warranty, they offered me the new 65" HD DLP Laser plus stand no charge. I will post comments this week, now just got to get some Monster 1000 cables for my HD sat box, old sony had DVI, anyone need Monster 1000 hdmi to dvi cable?

I'm sure those are the WD-73835 and WD-65835 (or 736 or 735). They're not Laser sets, no matter what the salesman told you.

HERE'S THE TV YOU JUST GOT (http://www.abt.com/product/35334.html). It was released last week.

Additionally, you're wasting a lot of money on those Monster cables.

I'm sure those are the WD-73835 and WD-65835 (or 736 or 735). They're not Laser sets, no matter what the salesman told you.

Additionally, you're wasting a lot of money on those Monster cables.

i agree with you on cables and tv

i agree with you on cables and tv

+1 on the cables. Try partsexpress.com. I've purchased about 8 or 9 hdmi cables from them and they all work great. Don't be afraid to buy the <$10 6 or 10 ft cables.

I'm sure those are the WD-73835 and WD-65835 (or 736 or 735). They're not Laser sets, no matter what the salesman told you.

HERE'S THE TV YOU JUST GOT (http://www.abt.com/product/35334.html). It was released last week.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO................

The Lasers are still in testing so no chance you saw a Laser. Still having issues with the laser not lasting as long as they want them to.

Where could you possibly have gotten this bit of information? This seems highly unlikely since device lifetime profiles had to be the first things in pocket before the initial announcement of the NECSELS. This data is obtained by taking large numbers of devices and stressing them at elevated temperatures; on the assumption that the failure rate obeys an Arhenius Rate Law(A*Exp(B/R*T)). The lifetime data for these devices has been known for years.

Don't let yourself get ripped off on overpriced cables. Good HDMI cables cost bugger all from places like Monoprice.


Still having issues with the laser not lasting as long as they want them to.
Got a source for this?

Lots of fans and moving parts in the DLP the screen actually vibrates a little. But can't see or feel it helps the picture clarity.

:confused:

His source is probably Jonny Samsung.

Nope although Mits Does use Samsung LCD's in there TV's
Their LCD TV panels are made by the Samsung-Sony alliance, but that's nothing to do with their DLPs.

Yes source but can't say. There is testing going on currently and one of the colors is lasting less then year so of course that needs to be looked at before they release a product at high price.

Lots of fans and moving parts in the DLP the screen actually vibrates a little. But can't see or feel it helps the picture clarity.

Re: Colors

This would be really peculiar since all the colors are made in the same way, from the same VCSEL type chip structure.

As for Fans: All DLPs have several Fans and moving mirrors. It would be expected, even, that less cooling would be required in this type approach than the traditianal DLP with UHP Bulbs.

Again, if someone in house gave you this type inside info, that person must be out of his mind.

While I'm not sure the problem is what xtemxterra's source says it is, a problem of some kind would explain why Mitsubishi has been so tight lipped about this set. Not a peep since the April show.

As John is from Cali and thats where Mits designs and produces them sounds like hes trying to come up with excuses on the problems stated. The problem is real and specs still being worked out that is why they have not come out with any specs yet. The TV was suppose to be out spec wise two months ago becuase of the problems thats why it is so hush hush.
the specs were supposed to be out 2 months ago?
I guess people are allowed to say anything they want since zero people on this forum have any REAL information other than what Mits has published already.

^I guess this is why we have had 2 posts of very dubious info the last couple of days.;):D

^I guess this is why we have had 2 posts of very dubious info the last couple of days.;):D
well those were from a guy who "emailed" mitsubishi and recieved a reply of an early summer release which everyone knows is BS.

actually tho...this is now Q3...so ...anyday now??

June is Q3?

^Nope...the beginning of Q3 is July 1.

Never and 20,000 hours are a FAR cry from each other.

If the lasers can only last 20,000 hours then I don't see why anyone would pay a premium for them when plasmas are 100,000 hours to half-life.

For most consumers, there is very little difference between 20,000 hours and the life of the set.

Say a set is on 6 hours a day for 300 days a year. That's 1800 hours. It would take over 11 years to put 20,000 hours on it. In HDTV time, that's extremely long, as most people who would pay this much for a TV, will certainly upgrade to a more advanced technology within 11 years.

Even at an average of 8 hours a day for 340 days a year (I'm assuming people get out of their houses for at least a few days a year), that's still 2720 hours a year, which is over 7 years at very high usage.

I wouldn't blink an eye at buying a technology that worked for 20,000 hours, even if it was unrepairable upon burnout.

no doubt...try getting replacement parts after 11 years!!

anyway. whoever said 20k hours doesnt know that the actual lifetime is 80k years.

...Say a set is on 6 hours a day for 300 days a year. That's 1800 hours. It would take over 11 years to put 20,000 hours on it....Even at an average of 8 hours a day for 340 days a year ...is over 7 years at very high usage....

There is also a group of people like me who tend to leave the TV on when I'm home and awake for maybe 13-14 hours a day (I'm retired). I don't watch that much TV but will stop and watch if something interesting comes on. That rolls up about 4500 hours a year, or 4 1/2 years to 20,000 hours. I would therefore have a problem with a 20,000 hours TV lifetime.

Just in general terms, I think it behooves the industry to eliminate rear projection tech. I think over time the fact that it represents the best bang for the buck would be mitigated by the fact that only FP would be produced, thereby reducing cost. You look at Mits' flat panels (those are overpriced IMO), and wonder what they could do if they mainly placed that in the focus.

It strikes me that Mits insists on keeping alive "The Big Screen Company" moniker as long as possible. This is evidenced by their seeming insistence on not adopting LED as standard and introducing a new tech.

That said, I don't think laser is overpriced, as long as it doesn't eclipse LED lighting price points. It is more efficient, so it really shouldn't.

Say a set is on 6 hours a day for 300 days a year. That's 1800 hours. It would take over 11 years to put 20,000 hours on it. In HDTV time, that's extremely long, as most people who would pay this much for a TV, will certainly upgrade to a more advanced technology within 11 years.

Mits' reputation is that it sometimes ceases parts production after seven years, much less 11. Your point is excellent, and in truth longevity of a set is typically eclipsed by the amount of time it takes for people to get bored with their sets anyway.

This whole thing stems from the nervousness that occurred when new, non-familiar tech emerged on the scene after CRT started to fade away. People had no measuring stick to judge lifespan, and compounded by the myths surrounding plasma exacerbating the problem.

Just in general terms, I think it behooves the industry to eliminate rear projection tech. I think over time the fact that it represents the best bang for the buck would be mitigated by the fact that only FP would be produced, thereby reducing cost.
Just as the elimination of HDDVD would be a good thing for the consumer?
Nope. Competition only helps the consumer in the long run.

Just as the elimination of HDDVD would be a good thing for the consumer?


Yes it definitely was.

Yes it definitely was.

I personally don't think it was good for the consumer. At least with HDDVD available, Blu-Ray players prices started to come down. Now there is no need for the prices to come down since there is no competition.

There is also a group of people like me who tend to leave the TV on when I'm home and awake for maybe 13-14 hours a day (I'm retired). I don't watch that much TV but will stop and watch if something interesting comes on. That rolls up about 4500 hours a year, or 4 1/2 years to 20,000 hours. I would therefore have a problem with a 20,000 hours TV lifetime.

Just to add a bit of reality into this thread; the Activation energy for failure is 0.9 eV and the log of the time to failure:

Ln(TTF) Hrs = -16.6 + 10,441/(Tjunction Deg K)

This, according to Novalux. This means that if you control the junction temperature at 100 degrees C(note that that's the B.P. of water), say, then Ln(TTF) = 11.4 and TTF(hours=Exp(11.4) =88,606 hrs. That's 10.11 years at 24 hours per day on time. And for Dave, with 4500 hrs per year, that's 19.7 years.
And is all of this characterization data new? No, these VCSEL based chips have been around for more than a decade and have een characterized ad infinitum.
So when you want to debate the lifetimes, use the 0.9eV activation energy value, set a junction temperature control value and compute. None of this is going to change over the next few months.
A final note: If a TV mfgr can maintain a 60 deg chassis temp, only a modest heat sink arrangement would be required to keep the juction within 40 degrees of that.

^Thanx for the dose of reality, John.

Just as the elimination of HDDVD would be a good thing for the consumer?
Nope. Competition only helps the consumer in the long run.
Ah gee, where do I start...:rolleyes:

Yes it definitely was.
;)

I personally don't think it was good for the consumer. At least with HDDVD available, Blu-Ray players prices started to come down. Now there is no need for the prices to come down since there is no competition.
One format isn't good for the consumer?
Perhaps you can't recall that DVD didn't take off until Circuit City's Divx died?

Are you sure the price of BD players wasn't influenced by the more than a half dozen manufacturers of BD players competing against one another?

No need for the prices to come down?
How about increasing demand and the rate of adoption?
How about 2 more big studios (Paramount and Universal) thrown in to the market to compete with the original BD studios?

One day we will look back on all this and laugh....or hurl, I am not sure which.

This whole thing stems from the nervousness that occurred when new, non-familiar tech emerged on the scene after CRT started to fade away. People had no measuring stick to judge lifespan, and compounded by the myths surrounding plasma exacerbating the problem.
Wonderfully said.

I can understand someone favouring established technologies for price reasons or for peace of mind or because they don't want to do much research and just buy something now, but the fear and paranoia some people exhibit over new and different technologies often seems to go beyond that. It just means that people develop these insular groups based on a single tech (or even a single company of a single tech) and aren't willing to consider other options even if they happen to be better for them. People lose out that way.

One format isn't good for the consumer?
During the formation of a technology competition is good, as it prevents companies setting their sights too low or making something not in the interests of consumers.

Once the technology is set in stone too many formats or options will prevent adoption, limit software, and ultimately act against the interest of consumers.

So there's a duality there. In the case of the HD optical discs both formats ended up being technically very much the same, so technical competition died off, but you still had the obstruction to adoption and mass production. We can certainly debate whether the better format won (and there are good arguements on both sides), but in the end it was in the interest of consumers that one of them became the standard.

Just in general terms, I think it behooves the industry to eliminate rear projection tech. I think over time the fact that it represents the best bang for the buck would be mitigated by the fact that only FP would be produced, thereby reducing cost. You look at Mits' flat panels (those are overpriced IMO), and wonder what they could do if they mainly placed that in the focus.


Flat panel manufacturers could make RPTV’s obsolete simply by coming up with a high quality display over 70” in size, so far that has not happened. It’s not just a bang for buck issue, its a size and quality issue that flat panels are not addressing at any price.
Sony’s 70” LCD and Panasonic’s 100” Plasma don’t cut it for quality.
Front projection is not an option in many circumstances due to light control issues, so RPTV’s still seems to have a lot to offer IMHO.

I’m not convinced laser illuminated DLP is the way to go, but there are no other options on the table now that Sony have dropped their SXRD RPTV’s and know one seems interested in producing a high end 3 chip DLP RPTV.

Just as the elimination of HDDVD would be a good thing for the consumer?
Nope. Competition only helps the consumer in the long run.

I think we can all agree that there's plenty of companies to compete on similar platforms. It isn't like DLP pricing was exerting pressure on pricing of other tech.

And yes, the sooner one format emerged to eliminate consumer confusion the better. Which one won was a secondary issue.

During the formation of a technology competition is good, as it prevents companies setting their sights too low or making something not in the interests of consumers.

Once the technology is set in stone too many formats or options will prevent adoption, limit software, and ultimately act against the interest of consumers.

Absolutely agree.

So there's a duality there. In the case of the HD optical discs both formats ended up being technically very much the same, so technical competition died off, but you still had the obstruction to adoption and mass production. We can certainly debate whether the better format won (and there are good arguements on both sides), but in the end it was in the interest of consumers that one of them became the standard.
Agreed....although, IMO, the better tech won.
But that is a discussion better made in another forum.;)

The real battle is the battle to come: BD vs. DVD.
BTW, according to the new Nielson, BD had its best showing yet against DVD: 10% of the video market (thank you Rambo).:)

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programing...

Flat panel manufacturers could make RPTV’s obsolete simply by coming up with a high quality display over 70” in size, so far that has not happened. It’s not just a bang for buck issue, its a size and quality issue that flat panels are not addressing at any price.
Sony’s 70” LCD and Panasonic’s 100” Plasma don’t cut it for quality.
Front projection is not an option in many circumstances due to light control issues, so RPTV’s still seems to have a lot to offer IMHO.

I’m not convinced laser illuminated DLP is the way to go, but there are no other options on the table now that Sony have dropped their SXRD RPTV’s and know one seems interested in producing a high end 3 chip DLP RPTV.

I couldn't agree more. I simply must have a display more than 60 inches for my family room. While I like the lcs'd(I have a Mits 46231 in my bedroom), the prices of the lcds over 52 are ridiculous, at least for now. I'm going to pick up either a Sammy 67A750 or the Mits 65835 and keep it for a few years hoping at some point the larger screen lcd's come down. I'm hopeful, but not confident that the Laservue will be a whole lot better than their Diamond series DLP's and be reasonably priced.

I couldn't agree more. I simply must have a display more than 60 inches for my family room. While I like the lcs'd(I have a Mits 46231 in my bedroom), the prices of the lcds over 52 are ridiculous, at least for now.

For me it’s not a cost issue it’s a quality issue. Probably the best LCD available is the top end Sony 52” which is better then their pricy 70”, however if that’s the best LCD has to offer I’m not interested at any price. When they fix the cartoon color, harsh “digital” looking image and inadequate black levels they may have a competitive product.
The only flat panel worthy of mention IMHO is the Pioneer Kuro Plasma’s, and they are not perfect either. I have not seen the new 09 Kuro’s yet but I want a black level at least 50% lower then the 08 model, which I don’t expect to see until the following model in late 2009.
Black level is one area where the laser Mitsubishi will really need to excel to get my interest. If they can’t turn those lasers off for absolute blacks I don’t see much point in using them.
I know it sounds like my requirements are excessive, but I don’t see why they are not achievable if manufacturers put some real effort into producing a high end RPTV.

I wont ever buy a LCD, they lack the snap and black levels, none of them can come close to my 38" Loewe Aconda when it comes to blacks. I am very happy with my Mits 52628 had it since Nov of 05 and never had a problem with it yet, still has the factory bulb with about 2300 hours on it.

The lack of info is disappointing. Nothing. nada.

xb1032 I'm w/ you, but great things usually come to those who wait patiently. I am hopefully Mits will announce new stuff regards to this Laservue HDTV.

I too am waiting since I just bought a new house & am waiting on pricing & features to see if I'll get this bad boy or go w/ Sony's new 55 HDTV LCD coming out this yr.

The lack of info is disappointing. Nothing. nada.
No news is probably bad news. Mitsubishi might be having problems.

^Please don't say that!!!
All of my fingernails are bitten down to the quick waiting for a 73" Laservue!:eek:

No news is probably bad news. Mitsubishi might be having problems.
Well I think it's a bit too early to start acting out the Chicken Little scenario, but you may well be right.

For me it’s not a cost issue it’s a quality issue. Probably the best LCD available is the top end Sony 52” which is better then their pricy 70”, however if that’s the best LCD has to offer I’m not interested at any price. When they fix the cartoon color, harsh “digital” looking image and inadequate black levels they may have a competitive product.
The only flat panel worthy of mention IMHO is the Pioneer Kuro Plasma’s, and they are not perfect either. I have not seen the new 09 Kuro’s yet but I want a black level at least 50% lower then the 08 model, which I don’t expect to see until the following model in late 2009.
Black level is one area where the laser Mitsubishi will really need to excel to get my interest. If they can’t turn those lasers off for absolute blacks I don’t see much point in using them.
I know it sounds like my requirements are excessive, but I don’t see why they are not achievable if manufacturers put some real effort into producing a high end RPTV.


The 9g's went from .004(lowest of any flat panel) for their 8g's to .001.

The 9g's went from .004(lowest of any flat panel) for their 8g's to .001.


I think you meant the other way around ;). 8G's @.004 to .001 on the 9Gs.

I think you meant the other way around ;). 8G's @.004 to .001 on the 9Gs.
His post did actually say that, it just needed a bit more punctuation.

It was poorly formed, I apologize.

The 9g's went from .004(lowest of any flat panel) for their 8g's to .001.


Is that a measurement from a test conducted by a reliable source or Pioneers numbers?

It does not really matter to me as a 60” is way too small. Unless Pioneer can come up with a 70” plus Kuro they are not in the game as far as I am concerned. I have a 70” now and want to go bigger, smaller is not an option.

Multiple reliable sources...well known.
I went from 60" to 50" for the quality of an Elite...as I could not afford a 60" Elite.
Heck I ran a Marantz PJ @ 106" before that.

Problem is you will take a 'BIG' hit in PQ with anything over 60" that is on the market or coming by the end of the summer compared to a Kuro - imo.

Who knows if or when the Mitshubishi will be available and how good it may be, but if its not competitive with Kuro they may as well not bother IMHO.
I’ll keep me modified 70” SXRD with black levels equal to the G8 Kuro’s until something of better quality and at least equivalent size comes along.
Plasma prices have dropped so low I don’t see why it’s not viable to make a 70” or 80” model, they should cost less then a 60” did three years ago so what’s the problem?

I was going by the belief that the 73" Mit. Laser would not be out until fall at least.
I was not aware that SXRD has .004 black levels. Is that an xbr1 you are talking about?

Don't know why they haven't gone bigger across the board yet. Keep in mind plasmas cost more per unit to build than an LCD.

A standard SXRD has a black level of around .009 -.008fl but I have modified my XBR2 to give a 75%-80% lower black level then standard, around .003fl or less. This is possible because the SXRD is very bright and we can trade brightness for improved blacks while still having more then adequate light output. This involves the installation of an ND2 neutral density filter to drop light output by 50% and service menu adjustments for a further 30% plus reduction in black level.
Sony decided to go for maximum brightness with the SXRD’s to fight the showroom war, about twice as bright as a Kuro, but we don’t have to put up with Sony’s compromise, much better blacks and contrast ratio are there for the taking. :D
Adjustments in the service menu to rain in the exaggerated color primaries (as per the A3000) and custom gamma adjustments via my HTPC and the SXRD has the Kuro’s covered.
The SXRD also has exemplary shadow detail, no dither noise and has a less digital look then the Kuro’s.

A standard SXRD has a black level of around .009 -.008fl but I have modified my XBR2 to give a 75%-80% lower black level then standard, around .003fl or less. This is possible because the SXRD is very bright and we can trade brightness for improved blacks while still having more then adequate light output. This involves the installation of an ND2 neutral density filter to drop light output by 50% and service menu adjustments for a further 30% plus reduction in black level.
Sony decided to go for maximum brightness with the SXRD’s to fight the showroom war, about twice as bright as a Kuro, but we don’t have to put up with Sony’s compromise, much better blacks and contrast ratio are there for the taking. :D
Adjustments in the service menu to rain in the exaggerated color primaries (as per the A3000) and custom gamma adjustments via my HTPC and the SXRD has the Kuro’s covered.
The SXRD also has exemplary shadow detail, no dither noise and has a less digital look then the Kuro’s.

You've really taken your SXRD to the next level. Even still though the SXRD doesn't have the same 3D type look and "to me" plasma provides a much more appealing look than any RPTV can. Since you've gone that far did you do a custom screen to remove SSE? :)

You've really taken your SXRD to the next level. Even still though the SXRD doesn't have the same 3D type look and "to me" plasma provides a much more appealing look than any RPTV can. Since you've gone that far did you do a custom screen to remove SSE? :)Enjoy your plasma...I'll throughly enjoy my SXRD!

You've really taken your SXRD to the next level. Even still though the SXRD doesn't have the same 3D type look and "to me" plasma provides a much more appealing look than any RPTV can. Since you've gone that far did you do a custom screen to remove SSE? :)

Enjoying the reflections off that plasma screen are you. Those in "glass" houses shouldn't go throwing stones. :) I'd say my CRT-RPTV kicks your plasma's butt however that would be ignoring my own philosophy so I won't do it. :D

The real battle is the battle to come: BD vs. DVD.
BTW, according to the new Nielson, BD had its best showing yet against DVD: 10% of the video market (thank you Rambo).:)


That value is not what it appears. The Nielsen number tracks only the top 20 titles sold in a given period. The perception is that in a given week, 10% of movies sold were BluRay, but in fact it is only 10% of the top 20 titles that they compete in. For overall media sales BluRay is very small.

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=86912
For the week ending 1st June 2008, here are the stats:

Blu-ray vs DVD: 10% vs 90% (comparison of top 20 titles by volume)
Blu-ray sales down 18.80% compared to last week, total spending: $10.05 million
DVD sales down 13.11% compared to last week, total spending: $129.37 million

So it is more of a DVD slump.

That value is not what it appears. The Nielsen number tracks only the top 20 titles sold in a given period. The perception is that in a given week, 10% of movies sold were BluRay, but in fact it is only 10% of the top 20 titles that they compete in. For overall media sales BluRay is very small.

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=86912
For the week ending 1st June 2008, here are the stats:

Blu-ray vs DVD: 10% vs 90% (comparison of top 20 titles by volume)
Blu-ray sales down 18.80% compared to last week, total spending: $10.05 million
DVD sales down 13.11% compared to last week, total spending: $129.37 million

So it is more of a DVD slump.
not only that, but BD would probably be near or exactly where it is today even without the exit of HDDVD.
When BD players are $100 then it will have a chance to succeed.

However, before that $100 is broken I suspect that everyone will be looking at digital delivery.
Netflix has a new device by Roku that is easy to use and you can download many movies from direrctly from your netflix queue.
Its not HD yet, but in 3 years I bet they not only have HD but the bandwidth will be availaable to many people to support it.

BD is probably probably short lived....

The box and service is HD ready.

Now we just need to see if this laser TV is worth watching it on. See how I got us back on topic. :D

meh...not much on the topic to discuss but conjecture and hapenstance

You've really taken your SXRD to the next level. Even still though the SXRD doesn't have the same 3D type look and "to me" plasma provides a much more appealing look than any RPTV can. Since you've gone that far did you do a custom screen to remove SSE? :)

3D look is largely due to gamma. The standard SXRD has a Gamma of around 1.8 which is too flat. I could not find a way to get gamma down to the required 2.2 via the service menu so I do it externally via my home theatre PC, this has made a big difference to image depth.

The visibility of SSE is dependant on light output, with the light output reduced by 50% plus SSE has virtually vanished and is no longer a problem.

I have also done other modifications to my SXRD like blacking out the interior of the cabinet to improve ANSI contrast. The result of all these changes is a SXRD that looks very different to standard and I have not seen any flat panel that I would have in preference.
I would happily pay double the price of a 60” Kuro for a display that I consider to be a worthwhile improvement over the modified 70” SXRD. It will be interesting to see how the Mitsubishi shapes up, if it ever gets to market.

Enjoying the reflections off that plasma screen are you. Those in "glass" houses shouldn't go throwing stones. :) I'd say my CRT-RPTV kicks your plasma's butt however that would ignoring my own philosophy so I won't do it. :D

Just stated my opinion and no stones were thrown. My plasma is in a home theater room and no reflections to worry about at all. I believe you took my post as being negative which was not the intent. I own an SXRD by the way and a plasma and both have their issues as does CRT.

3D look is largely due to gamma. The standard SXRD has a Gamma of around 1.8 which is too flat. I could not find a way to get gamma down to the required 2.2 via the service menu so I do it externally via my home theatre PC, this has made a big difference to image depth.

The visibility of SSE is dependant on light output, with the light output reduced by 50% plus SSE has virtually vanished and is no longer a problem.

I have also done other modifications to my SXRD like blacking out the interior of the cabinet to improve ANSI contrast. The result of all these changes is a SXRD that looks very different to standard and I have not seen any flat panel that I would have in preference.
I would happily pay double the price of a 60” Kuro for a display that I consider to be a worthwhile improvement over the modified 70” SXRD. It will be interesting to see how the Mitsubishi shapes up, if it ever gets to market.

It sounds like you took your SXRD to the next level and you are a very creative one indeed. IMO I always thought the screens on most RPTVs degraded PQ as I never worried about reflections. The Mits DLP I have before the SXRD had a protective screen and I never saw SSE on that and at the time it a different look to the picture that the SXRD just didn't have and I'm sure it was the screen (although the SXRD beat it in every other regard).

Well if this laser even equals my CRT I'll be happy, it's not going to last forever. However I need at least a 73". I remember when the Qualia came out at $15,000 and everyone who bought one said it was the best display ever, well it wasn't. I didn't replace my CRT-RPTV with it. Excuse me if I'm skeptical. Mitsubishi only stopped making CRT for economic reasons, not because it was inferior. I'm still waiting for them to come out with something better.

Btw, what is going to be the response time of this laser because CRT is 1.5ms. Also when it comes to "3D/ lifelike" look, nothing beats CRT. Contrast ratio/shadow detail has a lot to do with lifelike also.

Btw, what is going to be the response time of this laser because CRT is 1.5ms.
I imagine the DMD will be the limiting factor, rather than the light source, so as fast as the fastest DLPs.

my TV is better than yours , lol

So I guess that means a .02ms times 3, for each color, response time?

The 73inch version which i hear is coming out a couple months after the 65inch will hopefully look more appealing cosmetic wise than the 65. I hope they keep the 73 as simple as possible in the front.

when will Mit actually release model specifications with street pricing info? (I am not even asking for a shipping date.)

About the same time they announce shipping dates.

They need to do it sooner rather than later. My eye is starting to drift to other TV's.

I imagine the DMD will be the limiting factor, rather than the light source, so as fast as the fastest DLPs.

Didn't TI show off a 240hz DLP chip awhile back?

If not, then it must be another HT wet dream of mine...:D

Enjoying the reflections off that plasma screen are you. Those in "glass" houses shouldn't go throwing stones. :) I'd say my CRT-RPTV kicks your plasma's butt however that would be ignoring my own philosophy so I won't do it. :D

The mits rp-crt i owned had was reflective like a mirror with the shield on, actually i like it like that as you get a somewhat washed out look with it off, blacks look deepest with it on.

All the shield does is give the equavalent of reducing the ambient lighting to the screen while dimming the picture. It's for protection. How would you react if you went to a theater and there were reflections off the screen? I assume the Laser Mits won't have any unless it comes with a removable protective screen.

All the shield does is give the equavalent of reducing the ambient lighting to the screen while dimming the picture. It's for protection. How would you react if you went to a theater and there were reflections off the screen? I assume the Laser Mits won't have any unless it comes with a removable protective screen.


The shield adds to the PQ also. Just like Matte screen vs Glossy lcd screens. In the house with the lights down you wont see no reflections. If the sun shines directly on the tv in your living room in the daytime then yeah it will help alot, but rear crt always looks best with the lights out, and the shield wont be noticeable. The diamonds should come with the diamond shield imo. Matte screen you lose PQ and it's easy to scratch, swirl, ding the screen.

I’m with you Zues, I much prefer glossy screens to the anti reflective or flat variety, they aid image depth.

They need to do it sooner rather than later. My eye is starting to drift to other TV's.

Earlier this year I was anticipaiting the Laservue and was thinking it would be a possibilty for my new set. Now I'm going to get a XX835(or a 67A750) as soon as I can(maybe next week). I also can't understand the Mits strategy with the Lasevue. Unless there are production problems, you would think they would try and get it out before the Olympics. Could be a great ad campaign. But they say nothing, give out little info and now I'm not going to wait. Idiots!

Didn't TI show off a 240hz DLP chip awhile back?

If not, then it must be another HT wet dream of mine...:D

This, from DLP.com:

"With a DLP® HDTV, motion blur is out of the picture. That’s because DLP® technology is incredibly fast, with an eight-microsecond response time – up to 1,000 times faster than other HDTV technologies – and a refresh rate of up to 300hz."

DLP is a pulse width modulated system, each micro mirror on the DLP chip must flip on and off up to 300 times (possibly more) to do what an LCD or LCoS pixel does in one step, so it’s very deceptive to make simple comparisons.
Plasma is also a pulse width modulated system but each Red, Green and Blue sub pixel is driven independently, where as a single chip DLP system has to time share each micro mirror (pixel) over the three colors, which is much more demanding.
Single chip DLP systems display colors sequentially where as the other technologies display all colors simultaneously.

The implication of the above comment is that pulse width modulation and dithering are the same. They are not. Dithering is the application of randomness or averaging to minimize detection of patterning in a system, or to gain apparent ability to resolve more levels. Pulse width modulation is applied to achieve variable levels of output but is not necessarily dithered.

Yes that’s correct, I’ll edit my post to avoid confusion.
I think Plasma uses dithering, not sure about DLP.

The implication of the above comment is that pulse width modulation and dithering are the same. They are not. Dithering is the application of randomness or averaging to minimize detection of patterning in a system, or to gain apparent ability to resolve more levels. Pulse width modulation is applied to achieve variable levels of output but is not necessarily dithered.

I agree with your comments and would like to add the following for those who might not be familiar with digital processing theory. Pulse width modulation is just another perfectly equivalent coding scheme for representing digital data. The notion is that a FS 1 would occupy the full pulse period whereas the least significant bit would occupy (Pulse Period)/2^n. This means that a given mirror points at the screen only for those periods of time. This has the effect of marching the digital data directly into the eye. Such data has merely to be low pass filtered to retrieve the analogue signal. In this case, the low pass filtering is performed by the eye itself. This is the purest way to deliver a digital video signal to the eye.

Delivering a faithfully reproduced digital signal to the eye seems like a bad idea to me.
The biggest problem with digital video systems in my view is that the image tends to look digital, the real world is analogue.

I dont know about yall but Mitsubishi is ticking me off not giving out any information about the Lasers. They gonna make me buy something else or just keep my Sammy 6188 DLP for another year.

Maybe the Laser is not all that after all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Delivering a faithfully reproduced digital signal to the eye seems like a bad idea to me.
The biggest problem with digital video systems in my view is that the image tends to look digital, the real world is analogue.

The eye is a pretty effective low pass filter, as pointed out above. The problems come in when the rate at which the information is provided is too low or in a pattern that creates some alias. Rainbow effects and jitter are examples of the results.

There are lots of potential problems with using lasers in application with DLP. I would not be surprised if there are more delays in getting these products to market. I would also not be surprised if there are problems with the first generations of the product that makes it.

Like all vaporware, we'll see when we see it.

Delivering a faithfully reproduced digital signal to the eye seems like a bad idea to me.
The biggest problem with digital video systems in my view is that the image tends to look digital, the real world is analogue.

Owen,

I know this may seem non intuitive to you but this is not something that is open to debate. This digital bit stream is very high frequency. Way beyond the bandwidth of the human eye. Such a data stream has a DC term followed by first harmonic, third harmonic terms etc. The frequency is so high that the eye can only pass the DC term. That's the sort of LPF I'm referring to. The frequency has to be high enough to deliver all the pixels in 60 seconds. The fundamental frequency for this is ~125 kHz. No human eye can pass a frequency this high. So LPF will be perfect.
I know we all have our feelings and scepticisms but these have no relevance to a purely technical discussion.

The shield adds to the PQ also. Just like Matte screen vs Glossy lcd screens. In the house with the lights down you wont see no reflections. If the sun shines directly on the tv in your living room in the daytime then yeah it will help alot, but rear crt always looks best with the lights out, and the shield wont be noticeable. The diamonds should come with the diamond shield imo. Matte screen you lose PQ and it's easy to scratch, swirl, ding the screen.

I use my TV all day like most people. If I was going to, and certainly don't want to or need to, control light all the time I'd have a front projector. The sun, or any light source, doesn't have to shine on the screen for there to be multiple reflections off of a plasma. If you think the protective screen enhances the picture, you're delusional. You're falling for the same trick as to why TVs on display are in torch mode. Contrast ratio is the most pleasing aspect of a picture to the eye. However, when this comes as a result of brightness lost, shadow detail lost and reflections, that is not an improvement in picture quality.

BTW, my Mits came with a protective screen. I took it off and I hate glossy screened LCDs.

I dont know about yall but Mitsubishi is ticking me off not giving out any information about the Lasers. They gonna make me buy something else or just keep my Sammy 6188 DLP for another year.

Maybe the Laser is not all that after all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whats the big hurry? I plan on waiting till my Mits 52628 bites the bullet before i worry about a laser Mits.

I could be waiting a looong time, my 52628 has been trouble free for about 2.6 years and still has the stock bulb.

Whats the big hurry? I plan on waiting till my Mits 52628 bites the bullet before i worry about a laser Mits.

I could be waiting a looong time, my 52628 has been trouble free for about 2.6 years and still has the stock bulb.

you are probably due for a lamp change. :)

Owen,

I know this may seem non intuitive to you but this is not something that is open to debate. This digital bit stream is very high frequency. Way beyond the bandwidth of the human eye. Such a data stream has a DC term followed by first harmonic, third harmonic terms etc. The frequency is so high that the eye can only pass the DC term. That's the sort of LPF I'm referring to. The frequency has to be high enough to deliver all the pixels in 60 seconds. The fundamental frequency for this is ~125 kHz. No human eye can pass a frequency this high. So LPF will be perfect.
I know we all have our feelings and scepticisms but these have no relevance to a purely technical discussion.

Why do pulse width modulated displays tend to suffer from shadow noise? I have previously attributed this to short duty cycle problems.

I’m with you Zues, I much prefer glossy screens to the anti reflective or flat variety, they aid image depth.

I guess the movie theater is second rate to you. Need to put up a big protective screen. :D

I use my TV all day like most people. If I was going to, and certainly don't want to or need to, control light all the time I'd have a front projector. The sun, or any light source, doesn't have to shine on the screen for there to be multiple reflections off of a plasma. If you think the protective screen enhances the picture, you're delusional. You're falling for the same trick as to why TVs on display are in torch mode. Contrast ratio is the most pleasing aspect of a picture to the eye. However, when this comes as a result of brightness lost, shadow detail lost and reflections, that is not an improvement in picture quality.

BTW, my Mits came with a protective screen. I took it off and I hate glossy screened LCDs.

There are two issues here, screen surface type (glossy or matt) and screen tint or the lack of it. In a totally dark environment there is no ambient light to interact with the screen surface or tint so there are not really any issues, but in a room with ambient light the screen becomes a significant factor.
In a non dark environment tint is required in all display types, in an LCD to hide the pixel grid, in CRT and Plasma to hide the grey phosphor layer and in RPTV’s to hide the reflections from the lenticular-Fresnel. Without tint all these displays will not look black in a lit environment even when switched off.

In a lit environment a glossy screen will always look blacker then a mat or anti reflective screen of the same type, be it LCD, CRT, Plasma or RPTV, that’s simply because the mat screen surface refracts light which prevents reflections but imparts a haze over the image. A gloss screen obviously acts like a mirror and reflects the environment very effectively but there is no refraction or haze and the image looks clean and clear.
What we are left with is a compromise; the user has to decide which is the lesser of the two evils for them, reflection or refraction. In a situation where screen reflections can be minimised I much prefer a glossy screens, they provide a depth of image that I have never seen emulated on a matt screen, I have found this to be the case on LCD, Plasma and RPTV’s.
The situation is much the same with printed photographs, most people prefer high gloss prints to flat or satin finish, they just look more impressive.

Obviously if screen reflections are a problem you may prefer a matt screen finish.

I guess the movie theater is second rate to you. Need to put up a big protective screen. :D

Yes I find move theatre images VERY poor, the terms flat and washed out come to mind.
I get much better image quality in my home then I have ever seen on a cinema screen.

Earlier this year I was anticipaiting the Laservue and was thinking it would be a possibilty for my new set. Now I'm going to get a XX835(or a 67A750) as soon as I can(maybe next week). I also can't understand the Mits strategy with the Lasevue. Unless there are production problems, you would think they would try and get it out before the Olympics. Could be a great ad campaign. But they say nothing, give out little info and now I'm not going to wait. Idiots!

Waaaaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! someone feed the baby! :rolleyes:

There are two issues here, screen surface type (glossy or matt) and screen tint or the lack of it. In a totally dark environment there is no ambient light to interact with the screen surface or tint so there are not really any issues, but in a room with ambient light the screen becomes a significant factor.
In a non dark environment tint is required in all display types, in an LCD to hide the pixel grid, in CRT and Plasma to hide the grey phosphor layer and in RPTV’s to hide the reflections from the lenticular-Fresnel. Without tint all these displays will not look black in a lit environment even when switched off.

In a lit environment a glossy screen will always look blacker then a mat or anti reflective screen of the same type, be it LCD, CRT, Plasma or RPTV, that’s simply because the mat screen surface refracts light which prevents reflections but imparts a haze over the image. A gloss screen obviously acts like a mirror and reflects the environment very effectively but there is no refraction or haze and the image looks clean and clear.
What we are left with is a compromise; the user has to decide which is the lesser of the two evils for them, reflection or refraction. In a situation where screen reflections can be minimised I much prefer a glossy screens, they provide a depth of image that I have never seen emulated on a matt screen, I have found this to be the case on LCD, Plasma and RPTV’s.
The situation is much the same with printed photographs, most people prefer high gloss prints to flat or satin finish, they just look more impressive.

Obviously if screen reflections are a problem you may prefer a matt screen finish.

Very good explanation Owen. A lot of people prefer glossy screens as well just as many prefer glossy photographs over matte. Even with my 60XBR1 in my family room I get ambient light in with the blinds closed and even though it has a matte screen the picture can still look washed out when light hits the surface. If someone doesn't have an LCD with overpowering colors you have to control the light anyway in many circumstances.

Yes I find move theatre images VERY poor, the terms flat and washed out come to mind.
I get much better image quality in my home then I have ever seen on a cinema screen.

I feel the same way. I've been stuck in the 60" range for some time and am ready for something bigger so hopefully by next year there will be more choices than just DLP. A 70" Laservue or a plasma would be great (if they aren't too pricey).

I use my TV all day like most people. If I was going to, and certainly don't want to or need to, control light all the time I'd have a front projector. The sun, or any light source, doesn't have to shine on the screen for there to be multiple reflections off of a plasma. If you think the protective screen enhances the picture, you're delusional. You're falling for the same trick as to why TVs on display are in torch mode. Contrast ratio is the most pleasing aspect of a picture to the eye. However, when this comes as a result of brightness lost, shadow detail lost and reflections, that is not an improvement in picture quality.

BTW, my Mits came with a protective screen. I took it off and I hate glossy screened LCDs.


Sorry bill but it's a proven fact glossy screen is best for PQ and enhances it. Just becuase in the daytime you like a non reflective screen, very understandable, does not mean it's best for PQ, best for you in your situation sure, but you can't convince me it's 'the best'. No front projector theater can use one because obviously the image is being thrown from the front, hardly a good reason against a reflective screen. Why do you think Crt monitors and tube tv's look as good. I never heard of a reference crt monitor that was not reflective, have you? Sorry you cant take advantage in your lighting situation :(

Why do pulse width modulated displays tend to suffer from shadow noise? I have previously attributed this to short duty cycle problems.

Post a picture that shows this shadow noise. Better yet, post a set of comparative pictures from different technologies.

Sorry bill but it's a proven fact glossy screen is best for PQ and enhances it. Just becuase in the daytime you like a non reflective screen, very understandable, does not mean it's best for PQ, best for you in your situation sure, but you can't convince me it's 'the best'. No front projector theater can use one because obviously the image is being thrown from the front, hardly a good reason against a reflective screen. Why do you think Crt monitors and tube tv's look as good. I never heard of a reference crt monitor that was not reflective, have you? Sorry you cant take advantage in your lighting situation :(

Every professional calibrator I've ever heard speak on this issue has recommended removing the reflective/protective screen from RPTVs - which I have done on my 6 year old Mits CRT RPTV. However, I am forced to employ a certain amount of light control in my room so that I don't have sunlight falling directly on the screen which will wash out the picture. Now I'm confused. :confused:

Sorry bill but it's a proven fact glossy screen is best for PQ and enhances it. Just becuase in the daytime you like a non reflective screen, very understandable, does not mean it's best for PQ, best for you in your situation sure, but you can't convince me it's 'the best'. No front projector theater can use one because obviously the image is being thrown from the front, hardly a good reason against a reflective screen. Why do you think Crt monitors and tube tv's look as good. I never heard of a reference crt monitor that was not reflective, have you? Sorry you cant take advantage in your lighting situation :(

Please cite a reference where this has been proven or even suggested by anyone who has any credibility in the industry. Also, please describe the mechanism by which a glossy screen protector enhances the image.

I feel like I'm in the LCD forum. Why is it that people who like matte screens are so defensive? :confused:. The way I feel about it is give the consumer a choice because both do have a different look to the image.

Sorry bill but it's a proven fact glossy screen is best for PQ and enhances it. Just becuase in the daytime you like a non reflective screen, very understandable, does not mean it's best for PQ, best for you in your situation sure, but you can't convince me it's 'the best'. No front projector theater can use one because obviously the image is being thrown from the front, hardly a good reason against a reflective screen. Why do you think Crt monitors and tube tv's look as good. I never heard of a reference crt monitor that was not reflective, have you? Sorry you cant take advantage in your lighting situation :(

No, because they have a glass screen with no coating to display the best picture they can. As far as the theater, I'm sure they'd have a glossy screen if it was better but it is not, especially in darkness. If glossy screens are better, than why aren't the best home theaters glossy screen rear projectors? I could put my protective screen on during the day and off at night, or visa versa, if I wanted to but the picture is better with it off.

To get back on topic, I'd love to see the laser TV have a CRT-RPTV screen with a removable protective screen Those are the best afaic.

Post a picture that shows this shadow noise. Better yet, post a set of comparative pictures from different technologies.

Still photos wont show it, but shadow noise has always been a problem for Plasma.

No, because they have a glass screen with no coating to display the best picture they can. As far as the theater, I'm sure they'd have a glossy screen if it was better but it is not, especially in darkness. If glossy screens are better, than why aren't the best home theaters glossy screen rear projectors? I could put my protective screen on during the day and off at night, or visa versa, if I wanted to but the picture is better with it off.


My ultimate home theatre would be a high end front projector in a custom rear projection configuration with a glossy screen.

What’s “best” for one man is not necessarily “best” for another.

Doesn't Mitsubishi know that they have to petition AVS for what they should do and when? Fools!:p

Oh wait, AVS member hubris strikes again...

Doesn't Mitsubishi know that they have to petition AVS for what they should do and when? Fools!:p

Oh wait, AVS member hubris strikes again...
Considering the price point they're targetting, AVS members might be the only people to buy one. :p