92" Mitsubishi DLP @ CES!!! - Page 2

Street price is likely to be less, and there is a real advantage to having a screen that size, visible in daylight, and completely self contained. The image looked pretty bright in that video. I highly doubt they're using the same bulb as in the 82.

Yea, a projector would never work in my house for a number of reasons, but this TV (much like all the DLPs I've had) would be quite dandy.

To get this HDTV to work in my space, I would have to get different speakers, a new stand (a low one to keep the center at eye level) and find some place to put a lot of equipment.

Talk about a BIG difference: in screen size at least.

I used two tape measures (seen in the photo) to get the picture as close to scale as possible. I used 82" wide by about 55-1/2 to 56" high which should hopefully be just a little over actual size.

The built-in speakers in the upper end models (as in the 838 series) really surprised me, even in the acoustically unfriendly showroom of a dealer in LA, where I auditioned the 82 inch set. If you got a good subwoofer you might be happier than you think.

92 inches sounds great to me. It'll be interesting to read reviews, admittedly rarer than hen's teeth for Mits DLPs. But because of the high visibility and "audacity" of such a big set, I'll bet we get some sort of review.

Attached, I've included a picture of the tv stand I want to use. It would unfortunately raise the center of the Mits above the eye line (red line).

Questions for Mits owners:

1. Would the light output still be OK at this height (about at the lower 2/3 of the screen)? This height would require looking slightly up like in a theater and wouldn't cause neck pain or anything. :-)

2. How is the image quality of 3D on Mits HDTVs? Cross-talk?

Thanks

Here's another video from CES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpsLMRu6VE

The viewer comments on how bright and sharp the image is,
even in 3-D. It looks brighter in the video than a similar YouTube I saw of the 82 inch. You also get a good sense of the size of the screen when the gentleman briefly walks close to the screen.

Hopefully this means a nice little price drop on a 2011 82".

Similar to what happened with 73" in recent years. I could see myself paying under 2 grand for an 82". 2 grand would be my limit though.

My wife is not near as happy about the existence of this new beast from Mits as I am. Assuming a mid summer 2011 launch, street prices should be tolerable by this time next year. If I ugraded from my WD-82837 any sooner than that marital trouble might soon follow.

So far it looks very promising.... judging from the the youtube, the PQ and image brightness appears impressive. If it really does make as much light as it appears, I imagine they did not go any bigger is because you probably could not get anything much bigger through a standard residential door way. I guess they could do knock down kits at some point. People talk about front porjectors, they won't work in my application, but this beast could be just about perfect.

My current space could easily accomodate a 120" model. If this does become my next TV a very, very short stand will be in order. Components may have to go in a rack to the side.

And in a year or two they will bump it up another 8" to 15" to stay just far enough ahead of LCD to keep a niche market.

I'm sorry, but its still a bulb and still a color wheel. It needs to be a LaserVue at this size, and it needs to be at whatever price they are selling the bulb version for.

Was there really anything stopping them from releasing this size set a few years back, except they want to be able to keep a certain margin? What actual new engineering goes on here, besides the same features they add to all the new models?

I guess there are certain instances where RP makes sense over FP (remember you can also do a RP setup with a projector--and you have a lot more flexibility and don't have such a hard time dealing with geometry and focus issues since you have a closed cabinet). But at this size, if I'm going to have a bulb anyway, I'll probably just go FP.

Same here. :lol:

I've spent some time with the 73" model and I've watched the 82" for maybe an hour .. I also have a FP HT ..

I think that at this size, 92" .. it becomes a viable alternative to FP .. these RP DLP units are quite bright, and have a great PQ in a normal living room environment .. as well as being the only game in town for a set of this type .. I don't see how, at the rumoured price point, you could do any better PQ wise ..

I would also guess Mits knows it's going to be quite some time before affordable LED/LCD displays reach this size .. and there is a market for this size and larger .. in fact, other than room restrictions, I don't know if there is a limit on how large a set like this can be ..

It comes with the same set of issues any DLP comes with .. possible rainbows if you are sensitive .. lamp replacement as needed ..

I think my point is that PJ's, even in this down economy, have been a fairly strong seller .. however, many are reluctant to place a unit on the ceiling, deal with a screen, be ready to live in a bit darker environment especially during the day if you have windows, etc ..

This line of large DLP's helps fill a void and obviously is a money maker for Mits, otherwise they would not continue and expand the line .. I'm all for it ..

Although there are those that would say 92" is too small when comparing to a FP setup, I disagree .. there are many HT's with screens between 64 and 92" .. take a look at the offerings from many screen makers such as Carada .. they would not manufacture these sizes if folks were not buying them .. I run a 110" screen .. a 92" DLP, if I had a smaller room, would be a serious contender for me ..

Lastly, these sets, when properly calibrated/adjusted, are quite spectacular .. in a normal living room environment ..

I don't believe Mits has been holding back technology. Based on the fact that 82 seems to have been the upper limit for the previous bulb unit (light output, among other things) they've obviously made some technical improvements to achieve a bigger size.

My other theory is that they wanted to make a shipping box that would show up on satellite.

I also think it's an advantage not to have a high intensity light source potentially hitting your eyes as in a FP setup.

Lastly, buying this set, for many, may be a good test for the authenticity of their primary relationships.

Here's another video...sort of an ad, it appears, from Mits.
Nevertheless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwfTIGn62Kg

Viewers of the set seem to appreciate the brightness of the images in 3D, which is a good sign for the real light output of the set in general.

The 150/180 watt rating on the 73" model is more than enough to drive a RP 92" and greater size .. take a look at rated wattage on FP units .. this set is essentially a DLP FP in a box ..

When's Mitsubishi's keynote? Maybe they WILL announce a larger DMD being used in this model, in order to achieve enough light per square inch for the larger screen size.

I almost purchased an 82 inch, and one thing that held me back was that I felt it was not bright enough. A number of people on these forums have had a similar opinion. In contrast, the 73 inch seemed well mated to the 150/180 W bulb.

When I briefly surveyed bulb wattage on front projectors, they range upwards from the wattage nearly equivalent to these DLPs to significantly greater wattages. Moreover, most people watch their front projectors in darkened rooms.

Also, I don't think you can say that rear projection is essentially a front projector in a box. The way the light is reflected internally, and the kind of screen utilized makes it a bit of a different beast in my opinion. Directly projecting light onto a bright, and reflective screen is different than projecting it onto mirrored surfaces, and through a giant Fresnel, or whatever it is.

Perhaps gtgray might weigh in here, given his technical background.

I have 40 years background in this industry .. it's a projector in a box .. what else could it be .. ?? Regardless of the mirrors/lens .. it's still a projector in a box .. as wellm, not all projector screens are bright and reflective ..

Light is reflected, bent, signal-processed, and passed through a huge filter (the screen.) Not the same in my opinion.

Again, many FPs use higher wattage bulbs, and the proof is in the pudding. The 65 and 73 are quite bright...the 82 inch is not.

whatever .. I know the configuration .. it's a box with a projector in it.. OK sorry, it's a fancy box with some light being bent and processed.. the screen is not a filter, pretend it's a front projector behind the screen setup if that helps .. and your argument regarding lamps holds no merit .. many FP units use a similar wattage lamp .. the BenQ W1000+, Mitsubishi HC6800 both come to mind ..

I just called a major bulb vendor for FP and DLP and the gentleman with whom I spoke said the average wattage for FP bulbs (mostly Philips) sold is 250 watts, obviously higher than the 150/180 watt bulb used in the Mits.

Also, all FP screens reflect light, whether high gain or low gain, or matte or highly reflective. It's the degree of reflection that may be different, as well as the angle or planes in which that light is reflected. Rear projector screens absorb, diffuse and transmit light. There is a certain amount of light loss with RP screens.

Just from a preliminary search on this latter point, you might want to consider something excerpted from an article at this site:
http://www.projector.com/resources/p...screengain.php

"Interestingly, the shape of the lobe of light leaving a rear projection screen is not hemispheric - even when the screen has a gain of 1. And while the volume of the screen's transmitted light remains directly proportional to the amount of luminous flux from the projector, the two are never equal. This is so because all rear projection screens fail to transmit all of the light incident to their back surfaces. Quite a significant percentage of the flux in fact will be reflected by those back surfaces and some additional (but smaller) percentage will be absorbed by whatever medium is comprising the rear projection screens' substrates (typically acrylic or glass)."

sure ..

Another "variable" is that the wattage of bulbs is not always correlated absolutely with light output. Within the same bulb type, higher wattage bulbs will produce more light, but there are light sources that may be lower in wattage but produce more light. They are more efficient.

Some of what appears from the videos to be a brighter picture may be due to the new screen design, but I'd be surprised if Mits is using the sane 150/180 watt bulb. I might be wrong, of course. In any event, this 92 inch set looks exciting.

on thing that people whom are discussing the brightness of the larger sizes always seem to miss:

the out-of-box settings are intended to be used in stores. not in your home.

every person I know that has a mits dlp is using natual mode, not brilliant.
once you put that 82" in your home it looks fantasitic.

I would like to know how many ft lamberts this beast makes when fully calibrated with no clipping. If the 92" could make 26 ft lamberts with a thousand hours on the lamp it will be a winner.

We shall see in due time just how much better this set will be. I have become quite fond of my 2009 82", but I don't believe that would be true if I did not have and Iscan Duo VP for color management. No question, that 2009 is challenged in normal daytime ambient light. I won't kid anyone that I think it makes enough light.

The potential is there for the WD-92840 to be the heart of a tremendous home theater and I hope Mits spent some time optimizing it. The 2009 82" has plenty of warts, the 2010s are better, so I hope this new animal was done right and we see at least as much improvement as 2010 brought over 2009 without all the funky HDMI issues some 2010 owners went through.

As you can tell from previous posts, I agree with you about brightness. I saw the 82 in five different environments (1 2009 82, and 4 2010 82s), and always wanted more light. If you're in the sweet spot, vertically and horizontally, the picture's great. But it's "challenged" as you say.

I wonder if the Clear Contrast screen is some variant of this kind of screen:
http://www.i4u.com/13701/woehburk-cr...ection-screens

Obviously, if you increase transmittance of light you get a brighter picture, and improved screen technology might benefit off axis viewing. In one of the Youtubes I posted, the camera moves considerably off the horizontal axis, and the picture remains bright and contrasty.

Here's hoping...

According to this the 92 inch model uses a glossy screen to boost contrast:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2011...sa92inch3dtv_1

"Unlike smaller televisions that use a matte screen, Mitsubishi has gone glossy in the 92-inch set, which DeMartin said boosts contrast at an added cost."

Is the added cost money or reflections or both?

I'm still considering this HDTV. It came out of left field for me but the 92" figure has really turned my head.

Surely this set will support all of the 3D formats that the other models can now with their firmware update:

A list of all supported 3D formats after upgrade is shown below -

Frame Packing 1080p/24Hz *
Frame Packing 720p/60Hz *
Side-by-Side 1080i/60Hz *
Top-Bottom 1080p/24Hz *
Top-Bottom 720p/60Hz *
Side-by-Side 1080p/60Hz
Side-by-Side 1080p/24Hz
Side-by-Side 1080p/30Hz
Side-by-Side 720p/60Hz
Checkerboard 1080p/60Hz
* These formats are HDMI 1.4a 3D mandatory formats, all other formats are optiona

I guess we just have to wait. Of course reflection came to my mind when I think of how glossy screens have become a common way to deepen color and heighten contrast on computer displays. Reflection really becomes an issue on those displays.

I'm hoping that there is more to the screen upgrade, and that other improvements have boosted the Lambert output as gtgray mentioned.

There's nothing like a big screen to give the cinema experience, and if this model has a beautiful picture, I'll find a way to buy one.

I'm also curious how the passive, polarized approach to 3-D being adopted by a number of HDTV makers this year pans out. Samsung, I believe, has figured out a way to achieve full 1080P using passive polarization. I have to say that I enjoyed Avatar more in IMAX 3-D (pasive) as opposed to the shutter glass approach used in a different theater. Passive polarization is being touted as brighter.

One thing I'm confused about is whether Mitsubishi's ability to accept all the differing 3-D active shutter modes means that they are outputted natively, or rendered ultimately in checkerboard. People on the AVS forums seem to have differing opinions.

Its not checkerboard or the native format, its alternating vertical lines of resolution as the chip wobulates left and right at 120hz.

Can somebody please estimate the minimum viewing distance for 1080p material? Trying to see if I could make this work....