2010 Mitsubishi 3D DLP Owners Thread (738/838 series) - Page 2

Plasma PQ is much better. But you can get a much bigger tv with the DLP. and run on half the power. Its all in what you like. Better PQ vs bigger set.

I actually spoke to a rep today who is handling my BGLOD case. I was offered the WD 65838 as a replacement set and accepted the offer last week. Today I was told they have not been released yet but are in the final stage of production. I was told they will be shipping by the third week in July, so shortly after that you should be seeing them in stores / on-line.
Interesting Note: The rep told me they (838 series) are being released as the "2011" model. I didn't correct her, as she seemed proud to be telling me they are the newest sets and she seemed very knowledgeable about this. I am wondering / hopeful that this means they will come preloaded with the new softwear version of 3D that all the other sets will need to get the upgrade to.

eagerly waiting and hoping for someone to post some pictures.
anyone? anyone? guess not

Laser vue!!!!!

Opinions from those went from a 2009 to this new set would be nice, in terms of PQ that is. Thanks. Only thing holding me back from getting a 73C9 is the hopes of the PQ being better in a newer set.

So why do people buy these sets? I can only imagine the PQ to be kinda crappy since you get such a huge set for dirt cheap. I was considering one of these sets. But the fact that its so cheap for such a big set just pretty much scares me.

Thanks for testing this. If you could check the menus, could you see if there is an option to turn overscan off or enable 1:1 pixel mapping?

I think the PS3 only outputs framepacking per the update, though there are 2 games, Avatar and a something Tiger downloadable game, that output checkerboard.

Actually, the picture quality of the DLP RPTVs is very good. The models with bulbs are so cheap because there isn't much to these sets. A minimal power supply, a Texas Instruments Dark Chip, a bulb, a color wheel, and not much else.

Sad fact is that Mitsubishi RPTVs of recent years (not the Mitsubishi CRT RPTVs) have had a high 21% repair rate in their first 3 years of ownership.

But I have looked at the 73 inch in several stores including about 3 times in Magnolia, and in the darkened atmosphere of Magnolia, the size is most impressive, including comparison to Panasonic 65 inch plasma.

The new 75 inch Laservue is probably going to have even better picture quality, but reliability remains to be seen and $5K is more than twice the price of the 73 inch standard DLP

LaserVue is what I was looking into getting. But its a bit of a high price right now. I don't think PQ can compare to plasma or lcd. I can imagine others seem more sharp. I could picture one of these sets in a 100% dark room could give you a theater feeling. But thats about it.

So the new sets are not much better? I am going through the process of getting a 60738 through Mits because of all the problems I had with their first gen WD52525. I was hoping that most of the issues had been worked out. My 52525 was in the shop quite a bit. Well at least I will have 1080p now.

I looked thru the menu and didn't notice anything but it's hard to say if it does or doesn't off this since it seems to recognize what format it is receiving and the. The format list changes accordingly. Ex 1080p offers 1080p expand, zoom, & standard. Every other res shows the same options.

Thanks for the info on the ps3 I thought it offered side by side but I have found out from Sony that it only offers frame packing outside of the few games that use their own 3d system.

If I get a chance I will try hooking a computer to the tv this week to see if it does offer 1:1.

I have a last years wd-65837 and it will display every pixel of a 1080p image.(tested with a resolution test pattern). Yes, some of the lcd and plasma sets can look sharper than DLP but its not because of increased detail its just a byproduct of the pixel structure. Take for example a movie theater. Is the first thing that wows you in a movie theater the sharpness? it's not mine, yet film has a far higher resolution. Its just a more natural sharpness not being effected by the edges of the pixel structure. another example is a old game systems like the PS1 emulated looks like crap on a computer monitor until you emulate the pixel structure and/or scan-lines to mimic a CRT television. Than it looks much sharper. Its not really, its an illusion. If anything, there is less detail in the image. I have no reason to believe these 2010 models would be any different than my 2009 version as I believe they use the same darkchip 4 DLP chip. this is the benefit of DLP, a much more natural film like picture. This is also why most top of the line front projectors and every digital cinema projector I know of also uses DLP.

DLP has a softer immage because it is using wobulation. Wobulation is a technique where a miror shifts back and forth to fill all 2,073,600 pixels. This is what creates a softer picture.
From the DLP web site:
"At the heart of every DLP™ projection system is an optical semiconductor known as the Digital Micromirror Device, or DMD chip.
The DMD chip is probably the world's most sophisticated light switch. It contains a rectangular array of up to 1.3 million hinge-mounted microscopic mirrors; each of these micromirrors measures less than one-fifth the width of a human hair, and corresponds to one pixel in a projected image."
1.3 million mirrors can not produce a 1080p image. 1080x1920=2,073600 is a full 1080p picture. Devide 2,073600 by 2 and you get 1,036,800 which is close to the number of mirors in the DMD chip as explained above.

Wobulation is a technology from HP that increases the native resolution of front and rear-projection TVs. For example, Wobulation can generate a 1920x1080 resolution using a 1280x1024 DLP chip. It creates subframes out of each frame and uses a shifting mechanism to offset one subframe by a partial pixel. Subframes are displayed one after the other so rapidly that they blend together as if they were displayed at once. This it what softens the image.
Do your homework before you make up any more stories.

P.S. I own a wd-65833 and I wondered why the image was so soft, so I looked on the DLP and Texas Instruments web sites to find out the answers.
Happy Viewing!

I turned off the wobulation on my 73837, and, indeed, the picture was significantly sharper. The downside was that there was a screendoor-like image since every other row was missing (blank). I had to turn it back on.

We need a new Darkchip 5 with native 1080p (no wobulation). That would be sweet.

For me, LCDs have too much of an artificial picture. People are drawn in with their bright and sharp pictures, yet I see digital processing effects, motion blurr or picture noise on almost every single set I`ve seen over the years including the latest models.

The manufactures of these tv`s are seeing the same exact thing, which is why they keep increasing the HZ from 60, to 120, to 240 and plasma are at 600HZ ( which is why motion looks better on plasmas) to compensate for making film based movies look like (Video) Based movies..ie soap opera style.

Manufactures have figured out that this is very attractive to the eye although some people turn off these effects. Dlp actually added some of these affects just to compete with LCD and Plasma and a reviewer was suprised to see the added grain to DLP.

Dlp regardless of resolution gives and is designed to give a more flim look to movies and because the come in bigger sizes people tend to still enjoy using the technology used in in the Theaters in their homes.


Is LCD and plasma better than DLP...no, they are just getting better at hidding their flaws by upping the HZ to compensate for blur and noise.


DLP is actually adding the effects because people actually like flim looking like video or live shot soap opera effects which is not natural...but instead cool.

For those that think DLP is softer, compare any 65" to a 46 or 50" and 65" is going to appear a little softer.

A 65" full 108p is going to appear a little softer than the 46" full 1080p with same internals from the same manufacturer!

It`s more of a preference than someone saying, this is definantly better than that.

Plasmas have a dimmer look and some shimmering along the edges they tend to display some grain as well. Some have been known to buzz.

LCDs have been known from my own experience to give a video feel, motion blur, contrast on steriods, display white and black crush, digitized images, grain.


DLP, not quite as bright as the smaller LCD and Plasmas. As Mits continues to give features like the LCD`s 120hz and motion smooth, along with it`s own edge enhancement features, it`s succeding at adding grain to bridge the gap between DLP and LCD`s competing today`s market.

Meh, theres a clear reason why you can get such a huge set for dirt cheap.....

Marketing is the only reason the smaller sets are selling for more money. A DLP was $1500-$$4000.00 4 or 5 years ago when the technology was farely new. The prices varied depending on size and features.


LCD and Plasmas greatest feet over DLP is not picture quality...is slim design and style! The big Bulky tv style is not the first choice for home decor today.

Add to that a brighter picture in a smaller size frame and your going to sell. The prices are higher because you`re paying for the thin framed design as well as when you go up in size, you pay for 3D and Networking features which add to the cost of a ase model.


If picture quality were the reason LCDs and Plasmas cosst more, impossible to explain why CRTs and used to cost $3000.00-6000.00 and they were were big like tanks.

In other words just like the desktop Pc is still great and is still used daily i the workplace and at home... the laptop can accomplish the same thing in a much more convient size....that doesn`t equate to better picture quality.

Cost does not equal better quality in the television industry. It often times mean better video processing options that can better handle lower resolution sources such as cable tv and standard dvd. USB and DLNA features drive up the cost and give the tv the high-end title.


Do this test...compare a Samsung 630k, 2010 55" tv to Samsung 55" top of the line 7000-9000 with 3D and DLNA.

You will find that one is $1499.00 and the other $2799.00 yet the $1499.00 tv looks just about the exact same in PQ!

Yet it lacks most features!

You do pay for a smaller frame size. But to a point. I can assure you there isn't a single DLP tv that is even on par with a Samsung UN55B8500. If that were the case and PQ could be the same. I'm sure many people would still buy a DLP. Including me. But thats not the case. There isn't a single DLP out there that beast the top of line LCD/LED/Plasma. ALL of which have much better PQ over a DLP. Trust me. If there was a DLP with the same PQ of my Sammy. I'd be all over it.

You have to understand that you point of view is a personal opinion not a fact.


The Samsung is going to be more attractive and bright which makes you think it has a better picture. Contrast maxed out, Sharpness maxed and all kinds of smooth this and 120Hz that makes movies look (different) more 3d more viberant, but it`s all effects.

Here`s the problem....the Bluray movie isn`t 3D so why use et to makee it somehing that it`s not? Why? because people love bright televisions based on this act alone!!

All LCD has done is take windvd Trimension style of converting standard dvd to a high def "look" (really cool soap opera effect) and added to a 1080p source creating motion blur, grain and video soap opera effect to a movie that never had it.

Why do so many people like it? Because it it gives a 3D like feel along with smoother motion to a movie that doesn`t have it. These "filters" introduce grain and motion blur, which they compesate for in each new model introduced. As time goes by they have reduced the grain and motion blur and jacked up the contrast and sharpness to crossed eyed viewing levels causing the average consumer to only notice the brightness and colors while over looking the heavily digitized unnatural look of what film was supposed to look like.

Samsung owns will tell you, " My picture looks better than the movie theathers". This is Because their picture is more digitized and dynamic than the film look of Movie in the Theaters.

Processing doesn`t mean you`re getting a accurate picture as most calibrators turn off all that stuff do to the noise it contaminate the original source with.

To compare real picture quality you have to ISF DLP top of the line 60" along with the top of the line Samsung 55" in search of the most accurate less digitized look. I think you will see that DLP is more than worth the money spent.


If you ISF an LCD, the brightness and Sharpness and Contrast on steriods, the post processing will all be shut down! you will end up where DLP is starting out.

the truth is I like all this technology has it`s flaws but it`s inproving every year. I will never say DLP is better than every LCD or Plasma or vice versa, because someone might be a gamer, or like to more tv than movies or might just like heavy processing on whatever they watch.

My brother has a Samsung and for two years hasn`t touch the video settings, I asked why? He said, "Because I like it just the way I seen it in the store". lol


the turth is the sets in the stores are set to "sell" the tv based on what attracts the eye. I see a major tradoff, bright picture, sharp, 3d like, but that also brings crushed white, grain, motion blur and digitized humans who skin sometimes look like cake makup is smears ever so slightly when they trun their heads from side to side.


Most people could see the tradoffs but I can. It doesn`t stop me from liking LCD, it just let`s me know that they don`t have accurate pictures, but they do have dynamic pictures.

Hmmm. It's interesting you day that. So would you say a plasma does not have accurate colors? That's kinda what they have been known for. What about DLP gaming?

It sounds like you have your mind set. So there would be no point in telling how much better my 82" set looks compared to most LCD and Plasma TV's. There would also be no point in telling you how my television is in a large room with many windows or that I have an LCD in my front room that the kids play PS3 and watch TV on, that cannot come anywhere near the PQ of the DLP.

The truth is, there is an unfair opinion out there that DLP's are somehow inferior televisions. I advise anyone who asks about my TV (at 82" you get a lot of interests) that if chassis depth is a non-issue, get a DLP.

I have an 82-837. What are the differences with the *38's? Do they use the same Texas Instrument chip? Do you think the additional 3-D options could be had for the 37's with a firmware update? Is the summer software upgrade only for the 38's?

Just bought a 65738 over the weekend to replace my 52725. Anyone remember how to get into the service menu? My screen is shifted to the left slightly and I thought you could adjust this in the service menu.
Thanks.

Chassis depth isn't an issue to me at all. As I've said before. I've considered it before due to huge picture and cheap price. I black out my room for my tv any way. Weather its LCD or plasma. Room is always dark. Yes. You own an LCD. But I do wonder how nice of an LCD It really is. Unless it's a Sammy 8500/Sony909/LG8500 then your really not giving led a fair chance. These are the tvs I need a fair comparison due. Due to amazingly beautiful picture. I can assure you. Show me a DLP tv that can produce a picture quality that's on par with it. Then I'll be all over it. Cheaper price. Bigger set? What would be there to lose? Also, input lag has to be very low. Like. 30 or less ms low.

I just ordered a WD-60738 over the weekend to replace my aging 2007 1080p Mitsu 65 inch. I'm definitely on board for early adopting 3D.


My question... Is the HDMI port 1.4 or 1.3? Or does anyone really know? I know the adapter that is coming out has to convert the 3D to the proper format but is the HDMI port 1.4?

I am mainly asking because I picked up an Onkyo TX-NR 807 not long ago at a killer price and don't want to have to replace it if I don't have to. Ideally I would run all devices into this and out to the tv like now, but I am thinking 3D will not work then. I am not sure the Onkyo will pass it along. I will upgrade to an 808 if necessary but prefer to not spend the $ if I don't have to.


Any thoughts?

Aaron

First off your set has the HDMI 1.4 spec so if the onkyo is 1.3 you could buy the panasonic Bluray player (350) which has two HDMI outputs 1.3 to your receiver fro Audio and 1.4 to the back of your tv for 3D video.

The adapter would be needed if you plan on connecting other 3D devices such as Direct TV and video game consoles.

Many tv`s can be calibrated to give accurate colors, but an "accurate picture" consists of the image as a whole.

You can have accurate colors and still have them set to blooming levels where the flesh tone is the accurate or correct color, but it`s set soo high that the person appears to have heavy make-up on his face and egment ehancers are then added, giving the person a digitized look.

Take a look at the C-Net reviews for the WD65737 and the Samsung model you provided.

The consumer reviews for both 2009 models is the exact same! 3.5 stars 22 reviews for the Wd65737 and 3.5 stars 33 reviews for the Samsung.

Personal preference is what it boils down to. You could be attracted to your tv for different reasons than someone who is attracted to a DLP set. since both techonlogies have threir flaws, we simply pick the one we feel best fits are needs and reproduce the best 1080P picture while doing it.

You seem to feel that no DLP can outshine your Samsung but ou fail to understand that if your tv could be mine today, 24 months from when I pop in my new bulb...you LCD will have wilted and and the fashlight you have on behind the set won`t be able to give that extra light it needs to compete with my lamp. lol

24 months? That's a little low. Considering I've bad my 1st samsung LCD tv for 5 years now. Without a single problem. Yet it still looks as good as it did from day 1.

the negative reviews in regards to the PQ from some reviewers on C-NET seems to be exactly what I see in LCDs, but not many people have the eye that can see these things.

Here is what a few people stated in regard to the Samsung model you mentioned earlier:

Cons: picture quality is bad next to any sony lcd, white looks light blue and background of picture has horrible detail, panel creates a lot of glare and colors are "so bright that makes it look fake." 120hz-240hz create ghosting samsung is just not there yt


Here is what another reviewer said:

Cons: price, blooming, off-angle viewing


You some people can see what I see, when the guys says : "colors are "so bright that makes it look FAKE"

He`s referring to the overall digitized look of the pictures being unnatural looking.

Notice a few words here. SOME. Your really trying to dish out the THE BEST LCD out there isn't up to par with a DLP? And you point out cons you've read in a review? You give cons but disregard the benefits which is a pure sign of you being a fan boy and denying yourself to see the truth. FACT. DLP is CLEARLY out dated.

What did you manage to type that yourself? Bad next to ANY Sony? So C-Net as well as 1000 other sites and owners of this set are clearly wrong of the value of this set?


You or any DLP owner out of all people are saying you wouldn't get a DLP set because of off angle viewing? Considering DLP sets have THE WORST of angle viewing to date? Blooming? This set has THE LEAST amount/practically no blooming at all. Sure, you can create blooming by having crappy settings. But why would someone do this exactly? I'm sorry but again. The fact that you clearly tried to post off angle viewing on an LCD as a CON coming from you owning a DLP is just sad and shows you really have no idea what your talking about. It's like saying your buying a Tv to save energy yet buy a 65 inch plasma. Wouldn't add up much now... Would it. Buying a hummer to save gas. I guess in your gas its complete opposite. Buying a Prius for horsepower.


I'm not even going to continue with everything else stated. As I said. There is clearly no point in me going on(or you) about this after trying to throw out a con you can find rather then a con you can see.