92" Mitsubishi DLP @ CES!!! - Page 5

trust me comparing this tv (or any tv) to a FP under ambient light is NIGHT AND DAY. You can always drop the shade during the day, ambient light isnt a big problem for glossy/reflection, it's direct light, especially sunlight.

Sure it wont look good under direct sunlight or any direct light (true for all tvs) and glossy only makes it worse. But under normal ambient light or at night with lights on, it will look just fine, where as a FP is next to unwatchable.

This will be epic! the first tv in history that's 92" and priced reasonably that the average consumer doesnt need to take out a mortgage to buy.

It's sad how slow the progression to larger screen are for led/lcd/plasma, they are barely hitting 70" right now, i was hoping there would be a few choices at 90"+ by 2011, oh well. At least there is 1 choice now, even though it's a fat rptv, still very excited.

I agree with you. I was reading some articles today about glossy versus matte, and if you don't have illumination behind you, or patches of sunlight, reflection isn't such a huge issue. Glossy screens are brighter, have deeper blacks and more vibrant colors, and are sharper than matte screens, because matte screens utilize a certain amount of light scattering.

Also, it's not clear entirely what the Mits Clear Contrast screen is. A couple of years ago, Sony was working on glossy screens with little micro protrusions on them that decrease reflections while maintaing the benefits of the glossy screen. So the jury's still out.

Apropos of nothing, I've been scouring the news about this model, but it's all a rehash of the superficial CES reports.

yeah i am really not that concerned about the glossy screen, i think the worries are way overblown.

My macbook pro is glossy screen, so are my 24" pc monitors. They are just fine. Only when i bring the macbook outdoors on a sunny day, it became a problem with the reflections.

Glossy is better anyway, has more pop than matt.

Matte screens, as I mentioned, utilize light scattering which blurs the image, and lowers brightness and contrast.

Even with a matte screen reflections are an issue. Modern plasmas have advanced coatings to deal with reflections. The current matte finish screens will generate hotspots that are reflections of specular lighting sources in the room. This is because of the mirrors bouncing light back.

You can either adjust your lighting in the room to work with this display or not. I have a 4 year old plasma in my bedroom that required extensive draperies to enjoy during the day.

I am much more interested in overall brightness. Reflections are very manageable problem for me in my room, virtually none during the day and if the artificial light is selected and placed properly it will not be a problem at night.

If the lighting is sufficiently off axis it is essentially scrimmed.

Excellent points, all of them. Particularly interesting is your pointing out that matte screens have there own "kind" of reflections, which, by the way, I can see on my old Mits RPTV.

In an earlier post I mentioned that not all glossy screens are equal, due to the utilization of advanced coatings on some of the newer displays. And, as cited earlier, Sony was working on modifying the physical surface structure of glossy screens (modeled after the lenses of bees' eyes) to control reflections.

Like you, I want to know about the 92's light output.

My Sony 70" Q006 had bad reflection problems solved by putting a 36w. 6500K backlight behind the TV and turning off all other lights in the room. The reflections from my North-facing windowwall were livable in the day. Like others, I agree that there are no satisfactory workarounds for brightness, while reflections can be managed. I agree with GTGrey's opinion of prices a year from now. Then, I'll be needing a replacement large TV and this TV will be at the top of my list, if it's bright enough. Otherwise, it's continued waiting for 70" Flat Panel prices to come down out of the stratosphere.

In foot lambert terms what would be the difference in foot lamberts between the Mitsubishi 92-inch DLP and the foot lamberts of the cost no object brightest front projector on planet Earth with the brightest screen?

Quite a large question! The answer can't be specific, because no one knows what the foot lambert output of the 92 is. Someone more familiar than me with front projectors can probably opine as to the typical or maximum output of available projectors, but I imagine that there are front projectors which pump out a good deal of light, and highly reflective screens which would efficiently reflect light back to your eyes. If you coupled certain projectors with the right screen I'm sure you could exceed the light output of the Mitsubishi DLPs.

In all honesty, who wants to watch a horror flick or a sweet movie in the daylight.... Not me.. This daylight stuff and the ones who use it to knock down is really silly.

I think front projection is great, particularly if you have a dedicated space and the need for a truly large screen.

However, there's nothing in any rulebook that says you have to watch an RPTV in a brightly lit room. You can still turn down the lights and create the same mood as in your front projection theater. It's just that an RPTV for many is more flexible, and a 92 inch RPTV is the first real alternative to front projection for those wishing a cinematic experience.

There is no wrong or right here, just a matter of choice.

I wouldn't be suprised if Mitsubishi used a glass screen or something less flexible and more sturdy. I mean 92" is huge and it will need a lot of support to keep the screen from bowing or being to fragile.

Good point. We can hope that Mitsubishi makes improvements, addressing such things as screen sag and its association with image geometry issues. (Although geometry problems can come from other components in the display process.) The 73 inch forum has a number of posts concerning screen sag and insufficient screen rigidity.

I just wish someone who works for Mitsubishi would let us know about bulb wattage and light output.

That is an odd question. I can tell you that 16 ft lamberts is considered an optimal amount of light for a font projectors when calibrated for a light controlled room, most setups front projections setups are not that bright. The current Mits 82" DLPs make a good bit more light that that when calibrated.

I don't think the question is meaningful or really useful as who the heck knows what the ultimate cost is no object cofiguration is or what it measures, or what the Mits 92 measures. What would be the point of comparing a $4-5K consumer rear projector against a cost is no object front projector? One could build a a cost is no object customer rear projector and that might be something you would compare against a cost is no object custom front projector configuration. People do build customer rear projectors, their main drawback is they take up large amounts of room. Clearly, they can produce results that are significantly better that what Mits can do. Given sufficient space you can easily have way better optics than Mits is going to invest in their consumer boxes. You can use multiple projectors with very big lamps i you want.........

So gosh who knows what a cost is no object projector of any stripe can do. It after all is by definition unlimited and multiple projectors to light one screen is not any kind of technical hurdle only a cost one. I am sure given sufficient amount of resources you could build something that would be blindingly bright to look at. Why not use the search light from a light house as a projector lamp... if you get my point.

How much more light output can you get from an 82 when it's properly calibrated?

Do you happen to know if the newer color wheels have white segments on them?

YMMV, but I am going to say at around a hundred hours the 82" sets, with no clipping will probably make around 21-22 for the 2009 and perhaps 23-24 ftl on the 2010. You can push it up a bit more but your are likely to start clipping one on or more colors too much. I have not spent much time with the 738s so I don't really understand their clipping behavior as well. What I have found is that once you get the 82s much brighter than that you will notice more SSE. If they are not clipping color, the SSE threshold rises.

The secret to calibrating these sets well is to use small window APL patterns for both grayscale, gamut and gamma. This is particularly true of the sets with the dynamic irises. The sets and the meters need to be fully warmed up, say an hour or more before you calibrate. The meter needs to be nice and tight to the screen and you need the room as dark as possible.

I don't care for the Mits supplied CMS, it is less fluky on the 2010 but still not granular enough to get the very best the sets are capable of. Something like the iScan Duo is head and shoulders above the CMS in the Mits.. but that calibre of VP can only pass 3d through, so while it can take the calibration of the Mits sets to a nicely higher level for 2d you might as well use the factory CMS for 3d, unless you can afford a higher end VP, like the Radience VP or the Radience 3d Mini.

These more expensive VPs can actually decrypt a frame packed or other 1.4 3d format, apply video processing to it it inclduding full color management then reencrypt it to the appropriate HDMI 1.4 format. Of course if your source can do checkerboard, the not much more expensive than a good switcher ,iScan Duo, can do full CMS on a checkerboard source as that is just an ordinary 1080P source.

The more you push the light output on the 2009 lamp sets, the more wiggle you will find in the calibration. I can't say if the 2010 lamp, power supply and ballast is more steady at the ragged edge, but it might be.

Thanks for the info regarding calibration.

Do you know if the Mits color wheel has a white segment? Apparently you can get more brightness out of color wheel based DLPs if there is a white segment.

Any new information on this 92" Mitsu? I am ready to place my order but someone recently said this may come out late summer now.

Fortunately, I'm not sensitive to RE. But when viewing 3D material, when each eye is limited to the 960x1080 pixel layout, the reduced resolution is very visible to me if I'm sitting close enough. In fact, for some reason I can also see it w/o glasses when my eyes scan across the screen, such as when following a text ticker. I'm not complaining, I've been perfectly happy with my now 2.5 y.o. 73 set, but like all technologies, there are pros and cons. Although I know it will never happen, I dream of a full 1920x1080 wobulated chip that can do full 1080p in 3D, and upscale 2D content. Oh, and it should run at 240hz sub-frame rate, and move away from the lamp and wheel.

Glad the thread is still alive.

I pretty frequently search for anything on this model, but ultimately it's always superficial information from CES, rehashed, and rechewed to the consistency of oatmeal.

A pretty reticent bunch, the Mitsubishi folk. Supposedly Mits talks about things in April.

I'm intrigued.

I decided not to wait on 2011 models, and just got a 73838. Can't wait to hear about this big boy though.

73838 is a great set, no doubt about it. Bright and stunning.

I was just about to buy the 82" for $2500 but decided to wait for the big 92. I know it will probably cost me an extra $4k for 10 inches but I am going for it.

Maybe $3000-$3500 difference.

Anyway, if they give the set sufficient brightness, 92 will be stellar, IMHO.

The Mitsubishi folk are like Trappist monks. Not too chatty (about this set).

If anyone has any inside contacts with Mitsubishi, could you please try to find out a realistic release date and any additional details. I'm also curious what light source they are using as the lamp in the 82" model was barely up to the challenge according to some posts. Lighting up a 92" screen would require more lumens than the 82".
They are either using a more efficient lamp, gone to an improved light path, or are using a higher wattage lamp. Maybe all three combined with a better screen. Your're right, they are as secretive as trappist monks. You would think they would want additional details to leak out before they lose their limited market to those switching to alternative display technologies. They make a big bang at CES and than disappear. What are they trying to do? Lose our interest and win a race to irrelevancy?

The usual response I've gotten when I call Mits is that final details and specs may not be settled until official announcement.

One thing for sure is that many companies seem not to listen to consumers too much. For example, I , like many smartphone users, want a tablet with phone functionality...a true convergence device. In Europe the Galaxy Tab was sold as a tablet/phone, but the company and carriers all crippled the phone functionality for the US model, and other, subsequent small tablets for the US have followed suit. Yet many reviewers of the US models have criticized this move, and blogs are full of people wanting a small tablet phone.

When I finally reached corporate for my own carrier, the rep with whom I spoke was happy with her own, eye-crippling, mini screen device, and obviously gave little heed to my need and waves of consumer discontent.

Putting aside the notion that these companies are hierarchical, and view consumers as the bottom of the chain, marketing departments just don't seem to see the larger picture, or possibly they don't see brand loyalty as important anymore.

Frustrating.

Couldn't agree more with your concluding statement, taichi4. I used to have brand loyalty until the brand I was most loyal to (Sony) abandoned it's customers. I just had a top-end European dryer that was 6 years old serviced and the tech, who was in his 50's said he was getting out of the business because he wasn't getting paid enough when all the unpaid extra training time was included. He said many of his cohort were expressing the same thoughts at training sessions and that no young people were entering the field. I think that we are entering a period when it will be extremely difficult to repair any tech device and we have to evaluate each purchase on the basis of cost per year of factory warranty. It's all going to be cost, because everything is throw-away when it breaks. We'll give the vendors the same loyalty they give us.

Sounds like you had an LCOS SXRD.

I've been wondering if, some day, not in 2011 or 2012 ... will Mit's put a 4K ( by 2k) DLP chip in this monster? I've also seen some webpages about Mit's upscaling efforts to UHD in development. Doubt any of that would be ready in 2011 or 2012. Can always hope.

Separately, the news is no news. Talked to the floor manager at local Mit's dealer in Renton, Washington state. He literally said the Mit's rep had never mentioned the 92 to him or their staff. The floor manager kept telling me I was mistaken. Saw some internet bloggers were speculating about early availability two weeks ago. The news is no news.

I'm still underwhelmed by the current 82" The 73 and 65 look goood presently.

I've got hopes the new "high-contrast" screen can deliver.

Paul's TV knows about the 92. Not more than us, but that it's coming.