AVS Forum banner
253K views 2K replies 216 participants last post by  yesrushdt 
#1 ·
#27 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjroddy
There's a $50 stand from IKEA that stands about 13" above the floor... it's as if made to measure for the 65", and will comfortably accomodate the 73" & 82" (maybe even the 92" but there's no dimension sheet released to show the pedestal width) if you aren't worried about the sides of the screen hanging over the sides of the stand.


Only negative is that the shelf is exactly the wrong height to accomodate a standard size AV Receiver, in that it does just about fit in, but there is no space for airflow from the top vents.
I helped a relative place a 73" unit over the Holidays .. she bought a low stand .. the only thing I absolutely hate about it is having to kneel when changing discs .. if it were my TV, I would place the unit on a low stand and fabricate or find a shelf to wall mount at the level of the top of the TV to put the player, etc, on .. the top of the TV is too narrow to place any components on top of the set by itself ..
 
#30 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 /forum/post/19776107


Here's a first look from a WSJ CES visitor.


You don't get a good size impression from the way it's photographed, but it looks wide and bright.

http://online.wsj.com/video/ces-how-...57F1E6D9D.html

"$5-6k for the set but undetermined at this time"... I think at that price point I would rather go projector and screen...
 
#31 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalobigj /forum/post/19776736


"$5-6k for the set but undetermined at this time"... I think at that price point I would rather go projector and screen...

Street price is likely to be less, and there is a real advantage to having a screen that size, visible in daylight, and completely self contained. The image looked pretty bright in that video. I highly doubt they're using the same bulb as in the 82.
 
#32 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 /forum/post/19776988


Street price is likely to be less, and there is a real advantage to having a screen that size, visible in daylight, and completely self contained. The image looked pretty bright in that video. I highly doubt they're using the same bulb as in the 82.

Yea, a projector would never work in my house for a number of reasons, but this TV (much like all the DLPs I've had) would be quite dandy.
 
#33 ·
To get this HDTV to work in my space, I would have to get different speakers, a new stand (a low one to keep the center at eye level) and find some place to put a lot of equipment.


Talk about a BIG difference: in screen size at least.


I used two tape measures (seen in the photo) to get the picture as close to scale as possible. I used 82" wide by about 55-1/2 to 56" high which should hopefully be just a little over actual size.
 
#34 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Hester /forum/post/19779655


To get this HDTV to work in my space, I would have to get different speakers, a new stand (a low one to keep the center at eye level) and find some place to put a lot of equipment.


Talk about a BIG difference: in screen size at least.

The built-in speakers in the upper end models (as in the 838 series) really surprised me, even in the acoustically unfriendly showroom of a dealer in LA, where I auditioned the 82 inch set. If you got a good subwoofer you might be happier than you think.


92 inches sounds great to me. It'll be interesting to read reviews, admittedly rarer than hen's teeth for Mits DLPs. But because of the high visibility and "audacity" of such a big set, I'll bet we get some sort of review.
 
#35 ·
Attached, I've included a picture of the tv stand I want to use. It would unfortunately raise the center of the Mits above the eye line (red line).


Questions for Mits owners:


1. Would the light output still be OK at this height (about at the lower 2/3 of the screen)? This height would require looking slightly up like in a theater and wouldn't cause neck pain or anything. :)


2. How is the image quality of 3D on Mits HDTVs? Cross-talk?


Thanks
 
#38 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 /forum/post/19780589


Here's another video from CES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpsLMRu6VE


The viewer comments on how bright and sharp the image is,

even in 3-D. It looks brighter in the video than a similar YouTube I saw of the 82 inch. You also get a good sense of the size of the screen when the gentleman briefly walks close to the screen.

My wife is not near as happy about the existence of this new beast from Mits as I am. Assuming a mid summer 2011 launch, street prices should be tolerable by this time next year. If I ugraded from my WD-82837 any sooner than that marital trouble might soon follow.



So far it looks very promising.... judging from the the youtube, the PQ and image brightness appears impressive. If it really does make as much light as it appears, I imagine they did not go any bigger is because you probably could not get anything much bigger through a standard residential door way. I guess they could do knock down kits at some point. People talk about front porjectors, they won't work in my application, but this beast could be just about perfect.


My current space could easily accomodate a 120" model. If this does become my next TV a very, very short stand will be in order. Components may have to go in a rack to the side.
 
#39 ·
And in a year or two they will bump it up another 8" to 15" to stay just far enough ahead of LCD to keep a niche market.


I'm sorry, but its still a bulb and still a color wheel. It needs to be a LaserVue at this size, and it needs to be at whatever price they are selling the bulb version for.


Was there really anything stopping them from releasing this size set a few years back, except they want to be able to keep a certain margin? What actual new engineering goes on here, besides the same features they add to all the new models?


I guess there are certain instances where RP makes sense over FP (remember you can also do a RP setup with a projector--and you have a lot more flexibility and don't have such a hard time dealing with geometry and focus issues since you have a closed cabinet). But at this size, if I'm going to have a bulb anyway, I'll probably just go FP.
 
#40 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtgray /forum/post/19781075

My wife is not near as happy about the existence of this new beast from Mits as I am. Assuming a mid summer 2011 launch, street prices should be tolerable by this time next year. If I ugraded from my WD-82837 any sooner than that marital trouble might soon follow.



So far it looks very promising.... judging from the the youtube, the PQ and image brightness appears impressive. If it really does make as much light as it appears, I imagine they did not go any bigger is because you probably could not get anything much bigger through a standard residential door way. I guess they could do knock down kits at some point. People talk about front porjectors, they won't work in my application, but this beast could be just about perfect.


My current space could easily accomodate a 120" model. If this does become my next TV a very, very short stand will be in order. Components may have to go in a rack to the side.

Same here. :lol:
 
#41 ·
I've spent some time with the 73" model and I've watched the 82" for maybe an hour .. I also have a FP HT ..


I think that at this size, 92" .. it becomes a viable alternative to FP .. these RP DLP units are quite bright, and have a great PQ in a normal living room environment .. as well as being the only game in town for a set of this type .. I don't see how, at the rumoured price point, you could do any better PQ wise ..


I would also guess Mits knows it's going to be quite some time before affordable LED/LCD displays reach this size .. and there is a market for this size and larger .. in fact, other than room restrictions, I don't know if there is a limit on how large a set like this can be ..



It comes with the same set of issues any DLP comes with .. possible rainbows if you are sensitive .. lamp replacement as needed ..


I think my point is that PJ's, even in this down economy, have been a fairly strong seller .. however, many are reluctant to place a unit on the ceiling, deal with a screen, be ready to live in a bit darker environment especially during the day if you have windows, etc ..


This line of large DLP's helps fill a void and obviously is a money maker for Mits, otherwise they would not continue and expand the line .. I'm all for it ..


Although there are those that would say 92" is too small when comparing to a FP setup, I disagree .. there are many HT's with screens between 64 and 92" .. take a look at the offerings from many screen makers such as Carada .. they would not manufacture these sizes if folks were not buying them .. I run a 110" screen .. a 92" DLP, if I had a smaller room, would be a serious contender for me ..


Lastly, these sets, when properly calibrated/adjusted, are quite spectacular .. in a normal living room environment ..
 
#42 ·
I don't believe Mits has been holding back technology. Based on the fact that 82 seems to have been the upper limit for the previous bulb unit (light output, among other things) they've obviously made some technical improvements to achieve a bigger size.


My other theory is that they wanted to make a shipping box that would show up on satellite.


I also think it's an advantage not to have a high intensity light source potentially hitting your eyes as in a FP setup.


Lastly, buying this set, for many, may be a good test for the authenticity of their primary relationships.
 
#44 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 /forum/post/19782670


I don't believe Mits has been holding back technology. Based on the fact that 82 seems to have been the upper limit for the previous bulb unit (light output, among other things) they've obviously made some technical improvements to achieve a bigger size.


My other theory is that they wanted to make a shipping box that would show up on satellite.


I also think it's an advantage not to have a high intensity light source potentially hitting your eyes as in a FP setup.


Lastly, buying this set, for many, may be a good test for the authenticity of their primary relationships.

The 150/180 watt rating on the 73" model is more than enough to drive a RP 92" and greater size .. take a look at rated wattage on FP units .. this set is essentially a DLP FP in a box ..
 
#46 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn /forum/post/19782958


The 150/180 watt rating on the 73" model is more than enough to drive a RP 92" and greater size .. take a look at rated wattage on FP units .. this set is essentially a DLP FP in a box ..

I almost purchased an 82 inch, and one thing that held me back was that I felt it was not bright enough. A number of people on these forums have had a similar opinion. In contrast, the 73 inch seemed well mated to the 150/180 W bulb.


When I briefly surveyed bulb wattage on front projectors, they range upwards from the wattage nearly equivalent to these DLPs to significantly greater wattages. Moreover, most people watch their front projectors in darkened rooms.


Also, I don't think you can say that rear projection is essentially a front projector in a box. The way the light is reflected internally, and the kind of screen utilized makes it a bit of a different beast in my opinion. Directly projecting light onto a bright, and reflective screen is different than projecting it onto mirrored surfaces, and through a giant Fresnel, or whatever it is.


Perhaps gtgray might weigh in here, given his technical background.
 
#47 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4
Also, I don't think you can say that rear projection is essentially a front projector in a box. The way the light is reflected internally, and the kind of screen utilized makes it a bit of a different beast in my opinion. Directly projecting light onto a bright, and reflective screen is different than projecting it onto mirrored surfaces, and through a giant Fresnel, or whatever it is.


Perhaps gtgray might weigh in here, given his technical background.
I have 40 years background in this industry .. it's a projector in a box .. what else could it be .. ?? Regardless of the mirrors/lens .. it's still a projector in a box .. as wellm, not all projector screens are bright and reflective ..
 
#48 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn
I have 40 years background in this industry .. it's a projector in a box .. what else could it be .. ?? Regardless of the mirrors/lens .. it's still a projector in a box .. as wellm, not all projector screens are bright and reflective ..
Light is reflected, bent, signal-processed, and passed through a huge filter (the screen.) Not the same in my opinion.


Again, many FPs use higher wattage bulbs, and the proof is in the pudding. The 65 and 73 are quite bright...the 82 inch is not.
 
#49 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4
Light is reflected, bent, signal-processed, and passed through a huge filter (the screen.) Not the same in my opinion.


Again, many FPs use higher wattage bulbs, and the proof is in the pudding. The 65 and 73 are quite bright...the 82 inch is not.
whatever .. I know the configuration .. it's a box with a projector in it.. OK sorry, it's a fancy box with some light being bent and processed.. the screen is not a filter, pretend it's a front projector behind the screen setup if that helps .. and your argument regarding lamps holds no merit .. many FP units use a similar wattage lamp .. the BenQ W1000+, Mitsubishi HC6800 both come to mind ..
 
#50 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn
I have 40 years background in this industry .. it's a projector in a box .. what else could it be .. ?? Regardless of the mirrors/lens .. it's still a projector in a box .. as wellm, not all projector screens are bright and reflective ..
I just called a major bulb vendor for FP and DLP and the gentleman with whom I spoke said the average wattage for FP bulbs (mostly Philips) sold is 250 watts, obviously higher than the 150/180 watt bulb used in the Mits.


Also, all FP screens reflect light, whether high gain or low gain, or matte or highly reflective. It's the degree of reflection that may be different, as well as the angle or planes in which that light is reflected. Rear projector screens absorb, diffuse and transmit light. There is a certain amount of light loss with RP screens.


Just from a preliminary search on this latter point, you might want to consider something excerpted from an article at this site:
http://www.projector.com/resources/p...screengain.php


"Interestingly, the shape of the lobe of light leaving a rear projection screen is not hemispheric - even when the screen has a gain of 1. And while the volume of the screen's transmitted light remains directly proportional to the amount of luminous flux from the projector, the two are never equal. This is so because all rear projection screens fail to transmit all of the light incident to their back surfaces. Quite a significant percentage of the flux in fact will be reflected by those back surfaces and some additional (but smaller) percentage will be absorbed by whatever medium is comprising the rear projection screens' substrates (typically acrylic or glass)."
 
#51 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4
I just called a major bulb vendor for FP and DLP and the gentleman with whom I spoke said the average wattage for FP bulbs (mostly Philips) sold is 250 watts, obviously higher than the 150/180 watt bulb used in the Mits.


Also, all FP screens reflect light, whether high gain or low gain, or matte or highly reflective. It's the degree of reflection that may be different, as well as the angle or planes in which that light is reflected. Rear projector screens absorb, diffuse and transmit light. There is a certain amount of light loss with RP screens.


Just from a preliminary search on this latter point, you might want to consider something excerpted from an article at this site:
http://www.projector.com/resources/p...screengain.php


"Interestingly, the shape of the lobe of light leaving a rear projection screen is not hemispheric - even when the screen has a gain of 1. And while the volume of the screen's transmitted light remains directly proportional to the amount of luminous flux from the projector, the two are never equal. This is so because all rear projection screens fail to transmit all of the light incident to their back surfaces. Quite a significant percentage of the flux in fact will be reflected by those back surfaces and some additional (but smaller) percentage will be absorbed by whatever medium is comprising the rear projection screens' substrates (typically acrylic or glass)."
sure ..
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top