Why the hatred for DLP? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 382 Old 03-25-2012, 05:54 PM
Member
 
n9949y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Bought a LG RU44SZ61D PDLP 44" March, 2005. Was still working very well when 2 weeks ago upgraded to LG 50PZ550 PLasma, and Panasonic Blu Ray player BDT55 w/ 5.1 analog audio outputs.

Am not a "hater" of DLP. Was satisfied with my LG DLP performance and longevity, and retired it for more advanced technology which is to be expected with electronics.

DLP:


Plasma custom install in same cabinet.
n9949y is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 382 Old 03-26-2012, 08:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
KewlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by n9949y View Post

Bought a LG RU44SZ61D PDLP 44" March, 2005. Was still working very well when 2 weeks ago upgraded to LG 50PZ550 PLasma, and Panasonic Blu Ray player BDT55 w/ 5.1 analog audio outputs.

Am not a "hater" of DLP. Was satisfied with my LG DLP performance and longevity, and retired it for more advanced technology which is to be expected with electronics.

Hi, I'd like to complement you on your beautiful setup. Totally understand the real reason why you went plasma....so you could find a screen that would fit that awesome entertainment center! I think the smallest Mitsu DLPs available are 60", so the display tech was no longer on option in accordance to your individual needs.

Like to emphasize though that DLP tech has advanced by leaps and bounds since the purchase of your old RU44SZ61D. That old LG DLP vs. a Mitsu LaserVue is analogous to comparing a Pinto to a Maserati.
KewlK is offline  
post #273 of 382 Old 03-26-2012, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
dclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Old study, but it makes you wonder about how well LCD holds up after a few years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzDzpu4hhsc
dclark is offline  
post #274 of 382 Old 03-27-2012, 08:09 AM
Member
 
cx3gma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: staten island, new york
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I stand corrected. The Sony RPTV I had appears not to be a DLP tv. Don't know what technology or model it was but the picture was DLP like (silky film like). All I know for certain that it was a RPTV, 53" 4:3 HD ready and that I spent countless hours playing ps2 games on it
sorry for misinformation.
cx3gma is offline  
post #275 of 382 Old 03-27-2012, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by cx3gma View Post

I stand corrected. The Sony RPTV I had appears not to be a DLP tv. Don't know what technology or model it was but the picture was DLP like (silky film like). All I know for certain that it was a RPTV, 53" 4:3 HD ready and that I spent countless hours playing ps2 games on it
sorry for misinformation.

I remember those, almost bought one. They were actually crt based rptvs. Toshiba and Hitachi also built 4/3 HD ready crt based rptvs, but Sonys were the only ones that squeezed the scanlines down to a 16/9 area on the screen for HD and 480p dvd. They were quite good at producing a "projected film" like image!

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #276 of 382 Old 03-27-2012, 11:53 AM
GEP
Advanced Member
 
GEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
FYI, Mitsubsihi made 4:3 HD Ready sets that still showed all 1080i lines inside the letterboxed area. If Sony did as well, they were not the only ones.
GEP is offline  
post #277 of 382 Old 04-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Member
 
Rondoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I love DLP.

My brother got one about 6 years ago at BB on a Thanksgiving sale for about $650 bucks.

It was a 56 inch Toshiba and it still looks great to this day, and his bulb just went out for the first time last month.

That led me to purchase a Samsung DLP that has had it's issues, but I absolutely love the picture quality on it. Whenever someone sees it that hasnt seen it before they always mention how nice it looks, and then, when they find out its a RPTV, they kinda back off their statement and act as if DLP sucks.

I dunno and I dont care what anyone says, I love it and for the price I paid for the 50 inch size and quality of it, its still a great deal to this day.
Rondoman is offline  
post #278 of 382 Old 04-05-2012, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by n9949y View Post

...Am not a "hater" of DLP. Was satisfied with my LG DLP performance and longevity, and retired it for more advanced technology...

Did you know that, of the three (DLP, plasma, and LCD), DLP is 20 years newer, technology wise? (Plasma 1964, LCD 1964, DLP 1987) CRT Rear projection is even newer than plasma or LCD.

The first LCD consumer TV was introduced by Sharp in 1988. The first consumer plasmas to sell were JVCs and Pioneers in 1997. The first consumer DLP to sell was Mitsubishi's in 2001, four years after plasma, and thirteen after LCD.

The only "new" thing about LCD or plasma, was finally being cheap enough to compete in the market. Those 42" flat panels weren't as cute when they were $10,000-$15,000. And they replaced CRTs in the market, not RPTVs.

When Mitsubishi invented rear projection, most people still bought 19"-25" CRT TVs. Mitsubishi filled a need for those who wanted the big screen experience. They never outsold mainstream TVs, they never tried. Then they moved into DLP technology, easily stepping into the HD market. Other manufacturers who tried DLP eventually couldn't compete in rear projection, and pulled out, leaving Mitsubishi in a great place with zero competition. While the other manufacturers continue to fight over market share for mainstream TVs, Mitsubishi sits in it's same niche market as before, except now with absolutely no competition. The definition of success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rondoman View Post

I love DLP...its still a great deal to this day.


It's even a better deal today. In the CRT days, one could buy a 19-25" TV for around $500 or a 50" RPTV for around $2000.

Today, the 3D standard is a 32" for about the same $500, A 55" for a sky-high $2,500-$3000, or a 73" RPTV for under $1000. (82" $1700-$2500, 92" around $3,000-$3500). Today, 82" is the new 50".

For people wanting to be in that big screen niche, this is great news.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #279 of 382 Old 04-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
KewlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Did you know that, of the three (DLP, plasma, and LCD), DLP is 20 years newer, technology wise? (Plasma 1964, LCD 1964, DLP 1987) CRT Rear projection is even newer than plasma or LCD.

The first LCD consumer TV was introduced by Sharp in 1988. The first consumer plasmas to sell were JVCs and Pioneers in 1997. The first consumer DLP to sell was Mitsubishi's in 2001, four years after plasma, and thirteen after LCD.

The only "new" thing about LCD or plasma, was finally being cheap enough to compete in the market. Those 42" flat panels weren't as cute when they were $10,000-$15,000. And they replaced CRTs in the market, not RPTVs.

So true "Auger", I also read the routine propaganda of how DLP is obsolete old tech. Gee I suppose that is why all the ultra high end cinema projectors are unanimously DLP based. ..It's nothing but misinformation.

Considering the "green craze" of today's society, it's amazing just how power efficient DLP is compared to the alternatives. ...But no, you'll never hear about that.

Right at this moment, my HL61A750 (61" Sammy LED) is consuming only 80 watts, yes just **80 watts** of power. Slightly more than your average incandescent light bulb, yet several times less than a power hogging plasma or large LCD.

Something else overlooked or negated is the fact that direct view TVs are not as kid-safe or durable as RPTVs. I have little munchkins running about who occasionally get carried away during video games or cartoons. I caught one of my nieces slapping and poking the DLP's screen aggressively (she used to occasionally do this to my old SXRD as well).

Now, if my TV were an LCD...it's very likely that it would have been destroyed. If it were a plasma, the display not only could have been damaged _but infinitely more importantly_ she could have been injured.

Having large, fragile, hot n' glossy glass screens within reach of children just isn't responsible or smart. A tough and durable acrylic screen that "will give" is the safest way to go.

3D on DLP is second to no other technology. Plasma comes close to DLP in this regard, but LCD's 3D performance is laughable. As you already know, "Auger", the checkerboard 3D method is superior to the newer side/side & top/bottom resolution robbing gibberish. I myself own a Mitsubishi 3DC-1000 checkerboard converter and it works perfectly with my Samsung.

Finally, my next TV will be a Mitsu LaserVue. I wouldn't even consider any of the inferior so-called "newer" offerings.
KewlK is offline  
post #280 of 382 Old 04-06-2012, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jonnythan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
DLP is great technology for projection. It's still projection though and whether rear or front it still looks like projection. It's not the same as direct view.
jonnythan is offline  
post #281 of 382 Old 04-06-2012, 06:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnythan View Post

DLP is great technology for projection. It's still projection though and whether rear or front it still looks like projection. It's not the same as direct view.

Agreed, DLP looks more realistic, with no screen door effect.




Why? Because approx. 30% of a direct view TV picture is made up of the borders around the pixels (low fill factor), compared to 8% for DLP (high fill factor).


"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #282 of 382 Old 04-07-2012, 09:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
KewlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnythan View Post

DLP is great technology for projection. It's still projection though and whether rear or front it still looks like projection. It's not the same as direct view.

The argument that rear projection does not look as good as direct view is no longer true. Since '06, great strides have been made at reducing screen SSE (the silk screen effect) while simultaneously expanding viewing angles. White level (contrast) performance has vastly improved since '09 and the implementation of the DarkChip4 DMD.

I have an '08 production 42" 1080p Sharp Aquos stuck in a corner down the basement where it belongs. My old '05 Sony KDS-R50XBR1 crushed it in contrast, black level, pixel response, image fidelity, grayscale tracking, lag time, lack of screen door effect and color accuracy.

The '08 LED Sammy DLP further puts the Sharp to shame, not to mention it's glorious 3D performance...there is just no comparison. I have first-hand experience that direct view is not inherently better than well-implemented RPTV. Not all RPTVs have focus/geometry issues, uncorrectable collimation errors, or chromatic aberration. Despite DMD wobulation, 1:1 pixel mapping test patterns pass with razor sharp clarity. The rampant claims that it is not possible to see individual pixels with an RPTV just aren't true.
KewlK is offline  
post #283 of 382 Old 04-07-2012, 02:59 PM
Member
 
Rondoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The myth that RPTV cannot outperform LCD or Plasma is just that, a myth.
Rondoman is offline  
post #284 of 382 Old 04-08-2012, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 55
I am a big fan of DLP Rear Projectors. I have at one time or currently own a 56" Sammy, a 65" HP, a 72" Sammy, an 82 Mits and my newest and favorite the Mits 92840.

All these sets are still in use and some date back to 2005-2006.

Implementation is everything with rear projection. They are always built to be big and cheap versus the other technologies.

The issues they have are mostly implementation issue. Geometry can be a problem, overscan is designed in to mitigage individual model variations in geometry. Geometry could be made perfect and thus eliminate the need for overscan.. price points make that impractical.

The sets are lamp driven for the most part currently and that means no instant on and off.

Blacks are not as deep as front projector or the better LED and Plasmas.If I could ask for one thing it would be a little deeper black.

Current DLP Rear Projectors produce a very fine image, do 3D well. And there are stores in certain cities where you can buy the 92" Mits for under $3k. That is an amazing deal and the image it produces is superb. The current clear screen 82" Mits produces and even better image and is less money. Yeah they are 20" deep but so are most TV stands.

I own Plasma and LEDs.. I watch the big Mits 92 for TV viewing 99 percent of the time. It is calibrated to a very high degree of accuracy and it superb motion for sports. You never find yourself wondering where the hockey puck is right now. Fast motion is well fast.

So yeah you can't hang it on the wall. I have a 58" Plasma on the wall in the bedroom, never turn it on.

Just another blank signature.
gtgray is offline  
post #285 of 382 Old 04-11-2012, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Did you know that, of the three (DLP, plasma, and LCD), DLP is 20 years newer, technology wise? (Plasma 1964, LCD 1964, DLP 1987) CRT Rear projection is even newer than plasma or LCD.

The first LCD consumer TV was introduced by Sharp in 1988. The first consumer plasmas to sell were JVCs and Pioneers in 1997. The first consumer DLP to sell was Mitsubishi's in 2001, four years after plasma, and thirteen after LCD.

The only "new" thing about LCD or plasma, was finally being cheap enough to compete in the market. Those 42" flat panels weren't as cute when they were $10,000-$15,000. And they replaced CRTs in the market, not RPTVs.

When Mitsubishi invented rear projection, most people still bought 19"-25" CRT TVs. Mitsubishi filled a need for those who wanted the big screen experience. They never outsold mainstream TVs, they never tried. Then they moved into DLP technology, easily stepping into the HD market. Other manufacturers who tried DLP eventually couldn't compete in rear projection, and pulled out, leaving Mitsubishi in a great place with zero competition. While the other manufacturers continue to fight over market share for mainstream TVs, Mitsubishi sits in it's same niche market as before, except now with absolutely no competition. The definition of success.




It's even a better deal today. In the CRT days, one could buy a 19-25" TV for around $500 or a 50" RPTV for around $2000.

Today, the 3D standard is a 32" for about the same $500, A 55" for a sky-high $2,500-$3000, or a 73" RPTV for under $1500. (82" $1700-$2500, 92" around $3,000-$3500). Today, 82" is the new 50".

For people wanting to be in that big screen niche, this is great news.

Please don't take this as argumentative, but I've been trying to research some tv tech history and can't find any reference as to when, specifically, Mitsubishi "invented" rptv. I have found a claim to this on their website but nothing specific as to when they did this. Any info or documentation appreciated.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #286 of 382 Old 04-12-2012, 10:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

Please don't take this as argumentative, but I've been trying to research some tv tech history and can't find any reference as to when, specifically, Mitsubishi "invented" rptv. I have found a claim to this on their website but nothing specific as to when they did this. Any info or documentation appreciated.


http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/...n-timeline.htm
Quote:


1973 Giant screen projection television is first marketed.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/t...e-globe.html/#
Quote:


Some of Mitsubishi’s inventions include the first rear-projection TV, a blow-by-gas reduction device, PBS trim plastic, and the jet towel.

Source: US Patent and Trademark Office


"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #287 of 382 Old 04-13-2012, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
KewlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13

It's true that Mitsu was the first to introduce -the first *modern large screen* CRT RPTV-, but they weren't the original innovators of RPTV technology.

This was the very first RPTV, the Philips 1800A (1951):

http://www.thevalvepage.com/tv/phili...a/phil1800.htm

Just about everything that matters today initially started off as either an American or western European invention. The Japanese, in particular, are well known for further enhancement of designs that they didn't originally conceive of themselves.
KewlK is offline  
post #288 of 382 Old 04-13-2012, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KewlK View Post

It's true that Mitsu was the first to introduce -the first *modern large screen* CRT RPTV-, but they weren't the original innovators of RPTV technology.

This was the very first RPTV, the Philips 1800A (1951):

http://www.thevalvepage.com/tv/phili...a/phil1800.htm

Just about everything that matters today initially started off as either an American or western European invention. The Japanese, in particular, are well known for further enhancement of designs that they didn't originally conceive of themselves.

Don't forget RCA's attempt in 1947 http://www.cedmagic.com/history/rca-...ct-648ptk.html

But neither company created an actual marketable product, let alone an industry called Rear Projection Television, so I guess it depends on how one defines it.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #289 of 382 Old 04-14-2012, 07:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
KewlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Don't forget RCA's attempt in 1947 http://www.cedmagic.com/history/rca-...ct-648ptk.html

But neither company created an actual marketable product, let alone an industry called Rear Projection Television, so I guess it depends on how one defines it.

Wow, very good, thank you. I had no knowledge of the RCA unit. Makes me wonder if RPTV goes back even further? ..The possibility that there have been some undocumented prototypes produced.
KewlK is offline  
post #290 of 382 Old 04-14-2012, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by KewlK View Post

Wow, very good, thank you. I had no knowledge of the RCA unit. Makes me wonder if RPTV goes back even further? ..The possibility that there have been some undocumented prototypes produced.

I've read that the 40s and 50s attempts were classified as CRT magnifiers, rather than rear projection, but I'm not sure what distinquishes the two from each other. Perhaps because the old timey sets used standard CRT picture tubes and magnified them, while the CRT guns in rear projection were designed specifically for the job.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #291 of 382 Old 04-18-2012, 10:27 AM
Member
 
Shady12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnythan View Post

DLP is great technology for projection. It's still projection though and whether rear or front it still looks like projection. It's not the same as direct view.

I've seen this comment a few times intended as a knock to the tech. From what I've seen projection is a nicer image than direct view. Been reading this forum quite a bit lately, and many people think that there are 10 year-old CRT RPTV's that can produce better images than $5,000+ Plasmas and LEDs. I suspect I would agree. If I get a new TV not sure how I could choose anything but DLP. So much cheaper, and arguably a BETTER picture. Seems like a no brainer.

My eight year old Mits CRT RPTV has a nicer picture IMO than any LED I've seen, which have a really fake looking image with a lot of blurring. My TV has perfect blacks, a realistic looking image, and no motion blurring. Best thing about those TV's though is if you take off the glare screen..You never have any glare. It's awesome. Plasma has a great picture but the glare is unacceptable. That's my biggest worry about getting a new TV, they all have glare to some extent. I can control light where I watch TV, but without complete darkness there is some glare and lessening of the PQ. And I'm not willing to watch a massive TV in no lighting at all, even with low TV brightness it's still blinding. Sorry, this turned into somewhat of a rant.
Shady12 is offline  
post #292 of 382 Old 04-18-2012, 06:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady12 View Post

And I'm not willing to watch a massive TV in no lighting at all, even with low TV brightness it's still blinding. Sorry, this turned into somewhat of a rant.

This is where bias lighting comes in. You put a bias light behind the display and you don't get glare on the screen, your blacks appear darker and you are not blinded by a bright screen. This is the technically correct solution. A 6500k lamp is used and the back wall behind the set needs to be nuetral in color.

The set will appear to float in space and because the room is not completely dark you eliminate most of the eye strain. This is the recommended setup for color grading and video editing of film and video in post production. It is just as valid a technique for home video as it is for critical workstation for pro editors and colorists.

Just another blank signature.
gtgray is offline  
post #293 of 382 Old 04-19-2012, 09:16 AM
Member
 
Shady12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtgray View Post

This is where bias lighting comes in. You put a bias light behind the display and you don't get glare on the screen, your blacks appear darker and you are not blinded by a bright screen. This is the technically correct solution. A 6500k lamp is used and the back wall behind the set needs to be nuetral in color.

The set will appear to float in space and because the room is not completely dark you eliminate most of the eye strain. This is the recommended setup for color grading and video editing of film and video in post production. It is just as valid a technique for home video as it is for critical workstation for pro editors and colorists.

Thanks, I've seen this mentioned before. It seems like there would be a glow around the TV which would be distracting but I guess not.
Shady12 is offline  
post #294 of 382 Old 04-24-2012, 05:40 PM
Newbie
 
AMS 511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you guys need to realize that the average person is not as cutting edge as yourselves. They don't consider when something was invented but rather when it hit the market. Also they don't make the distinction between DLP and RPTV. I remember seeing RPTV sets in stores in the late 70's or early 80's and the quality of the picture was lacking. A former boss of mine had a RPTV set and his family watched it from the next room because the picture was so grainy. These are the memories rear projection means to me, which are probably at least a decade outdated. I am looking for a large set and will need to check into DLP.
AMS 511 is offline  
post #295 of 382 Old 04-24-2012, 06:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jonnythan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
DLP is an RPTV. So are CRT RPTV, SxRD, and LCoS.
jonnythan is offline  
post #296 of 382 Old 04-25-2012, 02:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS 511 View Post

I think you guys need to realize that the average person is not as cutting edge as yourselves. They don't consider when something was invented but rather when it hit the market. Also they don't make the distinction between DLP and RPTV. I remember seeing RPTV sets in stores in the late 70's or early 80's and the quality of the picture was lacking. A former boss of mine had a RPTV set and his family watched it from the next room because the picture was so grainy. These are the memories rear projection means to me, which are probably at least a decade outdated. I am looking for a large set and will need to check into DLP.

The difference between what you remember and today's tech is the difference between 480i and 1080P. For example, I watch my son's 73" DLP from 9-10 ft away, and a bit closer for 3D.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #297 of 382 Old 05-01-2012, 10:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by aydu View Post

Most DLP hatred comes from people that have owned them. It has nothing to do with picture quality, but the fact that the sets were unreliable, and repair costs high.

Anybody that ever bought a DLP set had to factor in the cost of an extended warranty with the purchase price of their set. If they were wise, they also bought a lamp warranty, if the extended warranty didn't cover it.

One of the selling points of DLP technology was that the set would last long term and that by replacing the lamp every few years you got that new set picture quality renewed. Unfortunately, due to the use of cheap parts, many moving parts in the sets, and long term damage to the DLP chips due to heat, the sets died young and were expensive to repair.

I've owned one, loved the pq, but would never buy another DLP based product.

I have had the opposite experience. My 5 year old Mitsu 73 has been bulletproof, have not even changed the bulb, and it gets several hours a day of use.

My 82 inch is one year old, lots of use and no problems.
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #298 of 382 Old 05-02-2012, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
cheneyp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a 50" RCA DLP (50W42) that I got back in early 2005. Original lamp, about 11,000 hours. I have never had a problem with it. It is slow to turn on (and off) and sometimes the lamp doesn't light the first time it goes on but those are the only issues I've had with it. I wish it had more inputs, like HDMI, but that is due to it's vintage. I've made due with a good AV Receiver and HDMI to DVI converters.

A lot of people had problems with color wheels and early lamp failures with this and similar RCA models of it's time but I guess I've been lucky so far....
cheneyp is offline  
post #299 of 382 Old 05-02-2012, 03:29 PM
Member
 
Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
My Samsung HL-P5685W 'Kirk' is over 7 years old and on the original bulb!

I've never had to do ANYTHING to it. We even moved it from Chicago to So Cal (I saved the original box and styrofoam).

If I was short on cash and I wanted an 80"+ TV, I would seriously consider another DLP.

When my TV was brand new the light output on a bright screen almost hurt my eyes

But...

I'll probably buy a 65" Panny Plasma or a 70" Sharp LED next.

-Some people play hard to get, I play hard to want.
Nightmare is offline  
post #300 of 382 Old 05-02-2012, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post

My Samsung HL-P5685W 'Kirk' is over 7 years old and on the original bulb!

I've never had to do ANYTHING to it. We even moved it from Chicago to So Cal (I saved the original box and styrofoam).

If I was short on cash and I wanted an 80"+ TV, I would seriously consider another DLP.

When my TV was brand new the light output on a bright screen almost hurt my eyes

But...

I'll probably buy a 65" Panny Plasma or a 70" Sharp LED next.

7 years? Change the lamp, and enjoy it for another 7 years.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
Reply Rear Projection Units

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off