Optoma HD72 vs Mits HD1000 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 Old 12-28-2006, 09:18 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Joe_Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The other day a friend asked me for advice on choosing between the HD72 and the Mits HD1000. The HD72 ends up at about $600 more (after rebate) than the Mits 1000.

I don't have any personal experience in comparing them and would be interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions on this. What would the HD72 do better that the Mits for that $600. What would you be giving up by getting the 1000 instead ?

Thanks guys
Joe
Joe_Black is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 Old 12-28-2006, 11:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
There's no way I'd pay $600 more for the HD72. Art compares these 2 a little in his review at Projectorreviews.com.
Jim McC is offline  
post #3 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 05:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack Gilvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Jersey,USA
Posts: 6,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The Mits sounds great, I just wish it could do the AR control on HD HDMI the Optomas can.

Jack Gilvey
SVS Customer Service

Jack Gilvey is offline  
post #4 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
What AR controls specifically?
Jim McC is offline  
post #5 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 02:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Uatatoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 800
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Letterbox (vertical stretch) and 4:3 (horizontal squeeze) for using an anamorphic lens to get a constant height setup. Why? So that you use all the pixels and lumens for those epic 2.35:1 movies instead of 75% of them (with black bars above and below the picture). It costs well over $600 to get this with an external scaler.

If you don't ever see yourself going this route than it's harder to justify.
Uatatoka is offline  
post #6 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
augiedoggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Tonawanda NY,
Posts: 1,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
the optoma is also reported to have a better deintelacing and scaler solution...so if you plan on feeding a lot of 480i or 1080i it is somthing to consider...but $600 is a lot of $$ the hd 72 will most likely be dropping in price soon.
augiedoggy is offline  
post #7 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 03:10 PM
Member
 
AudioBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The HD70 does excellent on both 480i and 1080i. I have 100 hours on mine and have watched Dish Network HD in 720p and 1080i and they both look excellent but I prefer the 1080i setting on that source.

My Toshiba HD-A2 is set up to display at 720p and the native image is very crisp with excellent color. My other DVD player is a 480i Onkyo changer that is a few years old and the HD70 really did a good job with it. I think that either of these two projectors really benefit from very good high definition sources or upconverting DVD players.

I was able to demo the Mitsubishi and the Optoma side by side in the showroom with the same program material. They are both excellent performers and I don't think that anyone would be dissapointed with either of them for $1,000. I chose the Optoma based on how excellent the picture looked and the positive reviews that it garnered from very credible sources.
AudioBob is offline  
post #8 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 04:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack Gilvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Jersey,USA
Posts: 6,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uatatoka View Post

Letterbox (vertical stretch) and 4:3 (horizontal squeeze) for using an anamorphic lens to get a constant height setup. Why? So that you use all the pixels and lumens for those epic 2.35:1 movies instead of 75% of them (with black bars above and below the picture). It costs well over $600 to get this with an external scaler.

If you don't ever see yourself going this route than it's harder to justify.

Bingo. Interesting how a feature intended for so pedestrian a purpose as stretching everything out of proportion just to "use up ma' whole screen, man" can be useful toward the noble cause of presenting films in a proper theatrical hierarchy of width.

Jack Gilvey
SVS Customer Service

Jack Gilvey is offline  
post #9 of 16 Old 12-29-2006, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
augiedoggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Tonawanda NY,
Posts: 1,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey View Post

Bingo. Interesting how a feature intended for so pedestrian a purpose as stretching everything out of proportion just to "use up ma' whole screen, man" can be useful toward the noble cause of presenting films in a proper theatrical hierarchy of width.

I agree ...I can't stand it when I see a widescreen tv with SD stretched to fit ....Don't people realize stretched out short fat bloated people look so bad it negates the upgrade to widescreen in the first place??...its like continuing to buy new vhs tapes to watch on a hdtv.....for gods sake why?
augiedoggy is offline  
post #10 of 16 Old 12-31-2006, 11:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Whitey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Prov, RI USA
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Oh... sobbing... Oh the HUMANITY of it all! lol
Whitey is offline  
post #11 of 16 Old 12-31-2006, 12:27 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Joe_Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just to clarify, it's his first projector. He didn't want to spend a lot and wanted a value play (a good projector for the money) to try out for 6 to 12 months.

I suggested the he give the HD1000U a try based on it's very low price and great forum feedback. When he called one of the retailers, they told him he'd be disappointed with it and suggested he get the HD72 which they considered to be a much better projector. He doesn't mind paying the difference if it's that much better, but asked me if this was really the case or was the vendor just trying to sell something with a higher profit margin.

I don't have enough experience with either to know for sure, but I got the feeling he may have been right about the profit aspect. I personally don't think it's worth spending $600 more (almost double) than the 1000U, but I owe it to him to get him the right info.

So what exactly will the HD72 do better than the Mits 1000U if anything?

Joe
Joe_Black is offline  
post #12 of 16 Old 12-31-2006, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Black View Post

Just to clarify, it's his first projector. He didn't want to spend a lot and wanted a value play (a good projector for the money) to try out for 6 to 12 months.

I suggested the he give the HD1000U a try based on it's very low price and great forum feedback. When he called one of the retailers, they told him he'd be disappointed with it and suggested he get the HD72 which they considered to be a much better projector. He doesn't mind paying the difference if it's that much better, but asked me if this was really the case or was the vendor just trying to sell something with a higher profit margin.

I don't have enough experience with either to know for sure, but I got the feeling he may have been right about the profit aspect. I personally don't think it's worth spending $600 more (almost double) than the 1000U, but I owe it to him to get him the right info.

So what exactly will the HD72 do better than the Mits 1000U if anything?

Joe


They were trying to make more profit. It's that simple. The HD72 should cost about as much as the HD1000U.

The Mitsubishi HC3000U is better than both and under $1,500, so the HD72 is a bad choice at that price.
MTyson is offline  
post #13 of 16 Old 01-01-2007, 03:46 AM
Member
 
richard_rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In my opinion the HD72 is not worth the extra $600.

The Mits HD1000U and Optoma HD70 are the 2 best bang for the buck Hi-Def DLP projectors right now. Both MSRP for about $999 and both can be found quite easily for $900 or less.

I own a InFocus 4805 480p DLP and have been wanting to upgrade for several months now to 720p DLP, but because of cash flow pblms have been waiting. I have been following all the threads on this forum about the Optoma HD70/72 and the Mits HD1000U/3000. Originally i was leaning toward the HD70 because it was the first Sub $1000 720p and it was also getting good reviews.

But then the HD1000U was released and it seams to be the best choice now, it can be found for a few bucks cheaper then the HD70 and it has some technological advantages over the HD70:
1. Glass lens, sharper focus, HD70 is plastic
2. 10 bit color processing, HD70 is 8 bit
3. Brighter, has more lumens then HD70

For the above 3 reasons I was all set on finally pulling the trigger and buying the Mits HD1000U for $860. But now Costco has muddied the water by offering the Optoma HD70 at Full list ($999). Even though the HD70 would be $140 more expensive, and the Mits HD1000U is probably a little better in some quality issues, i think that the great return/waranty policy you get from Costco has me leaning toward the HD70 again.

I am finally close to scraping up the $1000 needed for this upgrade, i wish my beloved 4805 would just die already so i would be forced to make my decision and purchase a 720p already, LOL!!!!
richard_rd is offline  
post #14 of 16 Old 01-01-2007, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim McC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oconomowoc, WI.
Posts: 5,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I'm pretty sure I will buy the HD1000 also. Then I also saw the HD70 at Costco.com and was tempted. We don't have Costcos in Wisconsin, so I'd have to join in Illinois(if that's allowed) for $50, then pay $50 every year. After figuring this in, I don't think it's worth doing. Anyone else in this situation?
Jim McC is offline  
post #15 of 16 Old 01-09-2007, 09:57 AM
Newbie
 
dhishi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I bought the HD72 for $1200 AR + a free bulb. The cheapest I see on froogle for HD1000U is $900 which is about the same price as what I paid for the HD72 ( free bulb valued at $300 ). This was 6 mths ago. I am extremely happy with my HD72.
dhishi is offline  
post #16 of 16 Old 01-09-2007, 12:13 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Joe_Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for all your input guys.

I suggested he order the HD1000U since it was available from a forum sponsor with a great reputation for under $900. He should have it by this week-end.

Joe
Joe_Black is offline  
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

User Tag List

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