or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › 2009 Mitsubishi Owners Thread (C9/737/837)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 Mitsubishi Owners Thread (C9/737/837) - Page 53

post #1561 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by joikd View Post

This has me very interested! After achieving 1:1, you were able to make some geometry adjustments, but still completely maintain 1:1?!?!

It is impossible to alter geometry electronically and maintain 1:1 pixel mapping. But it is possible that some user entered geometry tweaks could be "less invasive" than the original ones done at the factory. I would bet that if illuvial put up some test images and checked every square inch of the display, he could find some resolution issues. If not, then I would bet that the geometry corrections didn't stick.
post #1562 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

I would bet that if illuvial put up some test images and checked every square inch of the display, he could find some resolution issues. If not, then I would bet that the geometry corrections didn't stick.

Hmmm, I'll have to double check.
post #1563 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

It is impossible to alter geometry electronically and maintain 1:1 pixel mapping. But it is possible that some user entered geometry tweaks could be "less invasive" than the original ones done at the factory. I would bet that if illuvial put up some test images and checked every square inch of the display, he could find some resolution issues. If not, then I would bet that the geometry corrections didn't stick.

True.

However, it's quite possible to make minor adjustments to the geomitry and still maintain a close enough resolution where you would literally have to count individual pixels to find the difference.

For instance, on a 73" screen a 20 pixel adjustment spread out across the screen is only 1 pixel for every 3.65 inches. Depending on the amount, direction, and location of the adjustments even a test image could look correct without a per-pixel count of both the horizontal and verticle image.
post #1564 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hipnotiq View Post

that was sarcasm right? sarcasm doesnt show well on the interwebs.
the difference in screen area between a 72" and an 82" is 658 inches square.

Law of diminishing returns.

The larger the screen to start with, the less difference an increase will make. It may be a lot of square inches, but it's spread out over a large area.
post #1565 of 11218
Oh, you guys misunderstood I meant between the 82837 and the 73837. I am concerned about the contrast difference because of the same bulb on a larger screen might affect that, or maybe even other things that could affect contrast by going up a size.
post #1566 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Omoregie View Post

Hi:

I owned both. I had the 73833 for about six months. I upgraded to the 82837, which was delivered on the 16th of May.
Comparing pictures of both. If using HDMI, the 837 is better.. at all levels, more picture adjustment, ISF calib, but if you are using Component the picture of the 837 is not as good as the picture of the 73833.
Overall, the 837 is far more advanced in make. It is very quiet, at the moment, no flaws detected yet.
It blends well the CEC- HDMI.

George T. Omoregie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

Keep in mind, however, the 833 and 837 are not going to be apples to apples comparisons. The 833 was still on the older DC3 DMD. According to TI, the newer DC4 (used in the '08 and '09 models) yields about 30% better contrast, and most in the '08 owners thread who were also familiar with the older models said the upgrade was definitely noticeable.

Oh, you guys misunderstood I meant between the 82837 and the 73837. I am concerned about the contrast difference because of the same bulb on a larger screen might affect that, or maybe even other things that could affect contrast by going up a size.[/quote]
post #1567 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magi09 View Post

For instance, on a 73" screen a 20 pixel adjustment spread out across the screen is only 1 pixel for every 3.65 inches.

Except it doesn't quite work like that. In such an example, it doesn't just "drop" one pixel every 3.65 inches (that would cause a much more noticeable artifact), it interpolates the image across that area. In other words, the shift is averaged across that 3.65" area, so that really, only 1 pixel is dead on. Imagine taking 20 nails connected to one another, and trying to fit them into 19 holes that take up exactly the same width. In reality, much of what we view is at much lower resolution (a single graphical feature might take up several pixels), so it's not normally noticeable except on the highest of resolution images (like the 1 pixel wide test images). And the source image pixels will "re-align" with the physical pixels perodically across the image. Also, depending on how drastic the corrections are, the mis-alignments may be contained to small portions of the screen. It's not really as big of an issue as it sounds, and as some have made it out to be. But if someone truly wants 1:1 pixel mapping, there can be no geometry correction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jek88 View Post

I am concerned about the contrast difference because of the same bulb on a larger screen might affect that

There are differences of opinion in this (and another) thread... some say the 82" is noticeably more washed out, while others say it's fine. Having not seen it myself, I would take from the information available that the 82" is good if you have a reasonably dim room, but may suffer in a brighter room.
post #1568 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

Except it doesn't quite work like that. In such an example, it doesn't just "drop" one pixel every 3.65 inches (that would cause a much more noticeable artifact), it interpolates the image across that area. In other words, the shift is averaged across that 3.65" area, so that really, only 1 pixel is dead on. Imagine taking 20 nails connected to one another, and trying to fit them into 19 holes that take up exactly the same width. In reality, much of what we view is at much lower resolution (a single graphical feature might take up several pixels), so it's not normally noticeable except on the highest of resolution images (like the 1 pixel wide test images). And the source image pixels will "re-align" with the physical pixels perodically across the image. Also, depending on how drastic the corrections are, the mis-alignments may be contained to small portions of the screen. It's not really as big of an issue as it sounds, and as some have made it out to be. But if someone truly wants 1:1 pixel mapping, there can be no geometry correction.

Darin, is it possible that a geometry correction could only affect an area that is entirely part of the overscan area that we do not see anyway?
post #1569 of 11218
OK guys, forgive me for asking this question as I've been here long enough to know better. However, I need to make a decision real soon and don't quite have time to read each post, although once I decide on a set, I will.

Which is the better deal:

65737 - $1298.00
65837 - $1599.00

Is the 837 worth $300 more? This is for my living room set up, which is mostly used for TV (movies are viewed in the theater) in the evening via Directv HD. There will be the occasional Blu Ray and/or daytime viewing in a room with windows.

Thanks guys.
post #1570 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4msu View Post

OK guys, forgive me for asking this question as I've been here long enough to know better. However, I need to make a decision real soon and don't quite have time to read each post, although once I decide on a set, I will.

Which is the better deal:

65737 - $1298.00
65837 - $1599.00

Is the 837 worth $300 more? This is for my living room set up, which is mostly used for TV (movies are viewed in the theater) in the evening via Directv HD. There will be the occasional Blu Ray and/or daytime viewing in a room with windows.

Thanks guys.

With just a quick comparison between the two I would say yes. The Dark Detailer and the advanced calibration mode (if you take advantage of it) will show enough picture improvement be worth it. Although I've been told Mitsubishi will not have a "Diamond" model this year in their DLP TVs, the 837 series would be it if they had one.

$1599 would be a great deal on the WD65837, lower than I've seen advertised by any authorized retailers. Be sure to check the Mitsubishi Retailer Locator www.mitsubishi-tv.com/retaillocator.html and verify you're getting it from an authorized retailer. Any reputable company should have their address listed and easily located on their site.
post #1571 of 11218
Matt,

Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I had a 65835 on order from onecall and canceled it today when I discovered these deals. They're from an authorized dealer that occasionally offers a "name your own price" deal and includes tax and shipping.
post #1572 of 11218
Stew4msu

Sounds like a great deal. Enjoy the TV. Even if it's not your primary display for home theater the improved image quality of the 837 will be worth the extra $300 in the long run.
post #1573 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by joikd View Post

Darin, is it possible that a geometry correction could only affect an area that is entirely part of the overscan area that we do not see anyway?

I don't know enough about their geometry corrections to know if it's even possible to only affect the overscan area (I'd assume not... that would require adjustment points that you couldn't even see). Obviously, there's not much value in adjusting areas you can't see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4msu View Post

Is the 837 worth $300 more?

Personally, I'd probably spring for it if it's used in a light controlled space. If it was used mostly in a bright area, probably not. When I got my 73736 last year, I didn't. But last year, the premium to go up to the 835 was nearly $1k.
post #1574 of 11218
Thanks Darin, you guys just about have me convinced to get the 837. The room is mainly light controlled (large windows, but they all have wood blinds) and 75% of the time the viewing is at night anyway.

I'm currently going through a divorce (wife is moving out tomorrow and taking our 65" Toshiba with her) and trying to replace 1/2 my stuff the most cost effective way possible. That extra $300 might mean a cheaper bedroom set in a few weeks, so I have to weigh everything carefully.
post #1575 of 11218
Hello everyone!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

Except it doesn't quite work like that. In such an example, it doesn't just "drop" one pixel every 3.65 inches (that would cause a much more noticeable artifact), it interpolates the image across that area. In other words, the shift is averaged across that 3.65" area, so that really, only 1 pixel is dead on. Imagine taking 20 nails connected to one another, and trying to fit them into 19 holes that take up exactly the same width. In reality, much of what we view is at much lower resolution (a single graphical feature might take up several pixels), so it's not normally noticeable except on the highest of resolution images (like the 1 pixel wide test images). And the source image pixels will "re-align" with the physical pixels perodically across the image. Also, depending on how drastic the corrections are, the mis-alignments may be contained to small portions of the screen. It's not really as big of an issue as it sounds, and as some have made it out to be. But if someone truly wants 1:1 pixel mapping, there can be no geometry correction.

Ugghh.. head spinning, stomach aching, room getting dim...

Goodbye everyone.
post #1576 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy nightmares View Post

Hello everyone!



Ugghh.. head spinning, stomach aching, room getting dim...

Goodbye everyone.

Hey Happy! Long time no see
post #1577 of 11218
Sorry Happy for spinning your head, and sorry Stew about the Mrs.

Stew, it's good either way... IMO, the 837 only has two worthwhile improvements over the 737: Dark Detailer, and the better calibration options (dual settings, etc.). Dark Detailer simply provides better blacks and shadow detail in dark scenes (which is why I suggested it may not be worth it in a brighter room). But the blacks on the non-iris sets aren't bad as it is, so I don't think you'd make a mistake either way, particularly if it's not your "good" display.
post #1578 of 11218
Just wanted to get some feedback from people who have the WD60737 or WD65737:
What are your current PICTURE settings?
Has anyone "perfected" the picture settings with a DVE or calibration tool?

I am currently running:
Picture Mode - BRIGHT
Temp - LOW
Contrast 35
Brightness 25
Color 32
Tint 33
Sharpness 40
Video Noise Medium
Sharp Edge ON
DeepField Imager ON
120hz refresh ON

To me the picture looks good, just did it by my "eye". It looks more crisp/vivid than when I had it set to NATURAL/LOW........that setting was too soft/warm for me.

Just wanted to see how my "eye" settings compare to someone who has run a calibration tool thru their 60" or 65" 737 model.

THANKS!!!!!!

p.s.
I am probably gonna catch some flak for saying this.......but I bought a Monster 1000HD HDMI cable and hooked it up to see if I could tell a difference vs the $10.00 "off brand" HDMI cable I bought at FRY's. Honestly, there is a difference IMO. The colors look better, and there is less "grain" in the picture (especially SD cable & HD cable). I did NOT pay $129.99 for this HDMI cable, I bought it for $16.50 off Ebay. NO WAY would I ever spend $129.99 for an HDMI cable.......but I can say, this Monster 1000HD cable is BETTER. Now, I need to get another one!
post #1579 of 11218
I just connected a PC to the side component input. It looks like crap!

Its almost B&W and there is a ton of noise.

I'm using an S-Video to Component adapter at the PC, but I wouldn't think it would be that bad.

What do the highly knowledgable members of this board think about it?
post #1580 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

But if someone truly wants 1:1 pixel mapping, there can be no geometry correction.

Verified!

I just retried the entire process.

Apparently, when I set the 4:3 and 16:9 lines, I failed to press Enter to set the changes. Therefore, no geometry changes were actually made. When I do hit Enter to set the changes, the moire patterns come back.

And so does the bowing.

So I guess you have to make a choice, 1:1 or geometry.
post #1581 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by illuvial View Post

I just connected a PC to the side component input. It looks like crap!

Its almost B&W and there is a ton of noise.

I'm using an S-Video to Component adapter at the PC, but I wouldn't think it would be that bad.

What do the highly knowledgable members of this board think about it?

If your PC has a DVI output, then get a DVI-HDMI adapter and use that as the connection, stays digital all the way to your eyes. What video card do you have in the computer?

Mike T
post #1582 of 11218
It's a Radeon 9550.

You really think its the S-Video pass thru?
post #1583 of 11218
just a little help for the guys looking for one of these sets, they just opened up an hhgreg in my town (asheville, nc) and i had never heard of them before, but they had good prices on there mits, line up. and after reading this long thread im think im going to buy one this weekend. but i think their prices were cheeper in the store than online. i have not been in there in a couple of weeks, i do know they have about took all of bb's business.
post #1584 of 11218
Yep, HHGregg is a pretty decent store.

They don't have any in Texas, but I happen to be in North Carolina this week, so I think I'm going to stop by the one in Greensboro tomorrow night when I get there.
post #1585 of 11218
yea i couldnt believe the prices they had on there stuff, i actually went thru with my mouth open. when i saw the 52 inch lg plasma for 699.00 i thought to myself this will be the end of high priced bb. and if im not mistaken they had the 65837 on sale for 1299.00 it is the one with the blue light on the front, it was the one i was looking at. they had a blueray movie playing on it, and the picture was amazing. and it was in a dark part of the store.
post #1586 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4msu View Post

Thanks Darin, you guys just about have me convinced to get the 837. The room is mainly light controlled (large windows, but they all have wood blinds) and 75% of the time the viewing is at night anyway.

I'm currently going through a divorce (wife is moving out tomorrow and taking our 65" Toshiba with her) and trying to replace 1/2 my stuff the most cost effective way possible. That extra $300 might mean a cheaper bedroom set in a few weeks, so I have to weigh everything carefully.

At that price I'd go with the 65837. I was thinking that before I even knew the wife was leaving . . .now I really say you deserve the better set.

And get a good bed too, whatever you do with the rest of the "set". Quality TV and quality bed (well, and a fast internet connection!) --you can work around everything else!
post #1587 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin View Post

Except it doesn't quite work like that. In such an example, it doesn't just "drop" one pixel every 3.65 inches (that would cause a much more noticeable artifact), it interpolates the image across that area. In other words, the shift is averaged across that 3.65" area, so that really, only 1 pixel is dead on. Imagine taking 20 nails connected to one another, and trying to fit them into 19 holes that take up exactly the same width. In reality, much of what we view is at much lower resolution (a single graphical feature might take up several pixels), so it's not normally noticeable except on the highest of resolution images (like the 1 pixel wide test images). And the source image pixels will "re-align" with the physical pixels perodically across the image. Also, depending on how drastic the corrections are, the mis-alignments may be contained to small portions of the screen. It's not really as big of an issue as it sounds, and as some have made it out to be. But if someone truly wants 1:1 pixel mapping, there can be no geometry correction.


My head didn't explode, and that's the best explanation I've seen yet of the issue.

We really do need a FAQ around here, on the first post.
post #1588 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by illuvial View Post

It's a Radeon 9550.

You really think its the S-Video pass thru?

S-video is SDTV and my experience with computer cards is they do a very poor job of down converting the display to the low resolution S-video signal.

Friends don't let friends use S-Video when DVI could be used.

Mike T
post #1589 of 11218
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpenix View Post

just a little help for the guys looking for one of these sets, they just opened up an hhgreg in my town (asheville, nc) and i had never heard of them before, but they had good prices on there mits, line up. and after reading this long thread im think im going to buy one this weekend. but i think their prices were cheeper in the store than online. i have not been in there in a couple of weeks, i do know they have about took all of bb's business.


This is the reason I hate BB. Sure, when they started out, they had some good prices and it was great to shop there. Now, they are just another retailer.

HHGregg actually has SALESmen. They aren't there to try to get you to buy stuff at retail. They just want you to buy stuff. They are much easier to barter with. Sometimes, they are too easy. When the 73837 came out and was retailing for 2999, I bought online from Vann's for 2800, and the salesman at HHG told me I got ripped off and he would have sold it to me for 2k even. Needless to say, I cancelled my order with Vann's.

My last TV was from HHG, and it was a 65732. My dad had bought the 57732 a few weeks earlier for more than I paid for the 65 WITH the matching stand.
post #1590 of 11218
....and actually, that's the whole differemce. BB has non-commissioned CSRs. They could care lesas if they sell something. They still get paid. Salesmen, like at HHGregg gain more by bartering and selling lower than by not making a sale.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rear Projection Units
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › 2009 Mitsubishi Owners Thread (C9/737/837)