92" Mitsubishi DLP @ CES!!! - Page 4

Your Samsung, like mine, uses 960 x 1080 wobilation which as I'm sure you have experienced still means 1920 x 1080 to your eyes. If at anytime someone can watch a DLP and say they see ' half resolution' their eyes and brain must operate differently from everyone else and constaintly see the rainbow effect.



A 12" stand sounds about right to me to keep the center of the display at or very near eye level when seated.

I posted that video, so I saw it for sure. Watching it on my laptop I don't see any discrete reflections, unless you're referring to the slightly washed out look from certain angles.

I think gtgray put it well that all is speculation until there are some real reviews, and regular people have a chance to see it.

Nevertheless, 92 inches!

During the dark scenes is where you see the reflections for a split second. Like i said it's going to be like the CRT's, it's one way they're getting more contrast. If the CRT's didn't have the glossy screen they would have noticeably less contrast.

Well, our curiosity and speculation will eventually give way to knowledge.

Here's hoping for the best.

92 inches!

Not much to speculate on a glossy screen. It's gonna have reflections from any source of light. I don't have too many issues with my present 73" but with my 65" CRT and it's glossy screen I definitely had times I had to darken the room. In my experience a glossy screen is going to make a big difference in reflections.

Still may not keep me from purchasing it though.

Based on my experience with computer displays, there are many varieties of glossy screens. I have seen screens that are as reflective as mirrors, and others that incorporate layers that reduce reflection. while still presenting a glossy, bright, contrasty image. So, until somebody with a penchant for information actually sees one, it's wait and see.

There's a website that allows you to compare screen sizes, even between displays with different aspect ratios. 92 inches is really big, and would provide a very cinematic experience in one's living room.

Check out the difference between 73, 82 and 92 inches.
http://www.displaywars.com/

Thank you for the link. It's 2.35:1 option allows comparisons of the 92" Mits to the ultrawidescreen sets announced at CES from LG and Vizio. The Mits still wins in my book even with the black bars of 2.35:1 material: still bigger. Interesting to see them together.

Hah! I was using 16 x 9? Was I incorrect?

EDIT
Please ignore previous remark. I see, now, that you're comparing the 92 to the ultrawide sets. Sorry,

The largest ultra-widescreen or 21:9 "cinemawide" display was 71" at the show from LG with the same panel to be used by Vizio. Smaller sizes are coming sooner. They are cool.

I've attached a screen grab of the comparison with the Mits.

I just worry about the smaller height of 16:9 and 1.85:1 material on the ultra-wides (actually, 16:9 would be about 56 inches diagonally: the size of my current HDTV so the same height as my set only much wider).

The diagonal of 2.35:1 material on the largest ultrawide would of course be 71 inches diagonal. The same material would be just over 87 inches with a 50.6% larger area on the Mits.

What?? The 6xxx series offers significant boosts in performance in many areas. The numberings were confusing for people, but it doesn't compare to this. They just simply x'd out the whole 700 region of the cards. The 6870 was the new and improved 5770, whereas the 6970 was the new 5870. They offer more performance but they just removed a model region and bumped up another..

And on that note... i unsubscribe till summer.

I. for one know nothing either way regarding model number differences, except regarding where it has relevance for me. I'm pretty much determined to get the 838 models in any series, or whatever the equivalent is on the 92, because for me the sound bar is an attractive feature. I've heard it, with a decent subwoofer and was very impressed. I'm also one who believes that some of the signal processing features, like dark detailer, have potential value. These are pretty much the only model number distinctions I'm aware of, although there may well be others.

There are some on another thread who own the 82 , and only got a sharp picture when they used some of these features. And there are those who view the use of these features as video heresy. And people argue over this with real vitriol.

So people have strong feelings on these forums, not always for any real reason, and the back and forth exchange about the importance or non-importance of model numbers should not trigger controversy.

I would be happy to learn that the 92 has some new technology. I called Mitsubishi just to ask the most basic questions about new features, and there is no information. In the absence of even the simplest information people will wonder, particularly because many users have a real hope for new technology by Mitsubishi... e.g. laser or other sources of illumination... or some advance with the DMD technology. Sometimes new model numbers, for many devices and many manufacturers, do not herald major technological advance.

So it will be great when one of us has a chance to see the 92 inch, or to get some interesting and exciting information on specs.

Looking to replace my 65" crt rp with a bigger screen and this 92 MITS would fill the bill and avoid light control issues inherent in a FP system. I would guess MIts will want close to 5K for this beast. For that kind of money you can get a nice front projector and bigger screen, with change left over to address light control issues. If Mits can sell this for under$ 3500, it's a close call versus going FP. I would expect most good FP setups available for under $5000 to provide a better over all picture, including better edge to edge focus. I trust there are others facing this same decision and I welcome their input.

Between $5000 and $6000 according to the Mits reps at CES.

I have a 70" RP in the family room and a 3-chip DLP 12' FP in a dedicated HT. For watching movies, there is no experience like a big screen in a dedicated room. BUT, I did the FP setup myself and I'm convinced that FP is limited to the dedicated video enthusiast or people that can afford professional help. IT IS NOT SIMPLE setting up an FP home theater. On the other hand, the Mits 92 is simple--just put the box on a stand and turn it on. It also is large enough to come close to the HT experience. My 70" RP is just a large TV, while the FP is truly a theater. I'll probably replace my 70" RP with the 92" Mits, when the 70" hits it's expected failure, because my family room can accomodate it, and because it's expected street price in a year is not much different from high-quality 65" flat-panel sets. I think that Mits has hit a sweet spot with this set. It's sufficiently larger than equivalent-price flat panel sets to overcome the sex-appeal of "thin". I think it'll be very attractive to people contemplating 65" sets, provided it's no deeper than 20". Deeper than that and it becomes so hulking in size that it won't pass the typical WAF. We have to admit that "bigger" is generally a "guy thing" and if the TV takes over any room that is not a "man cave", it won't pass muster with our significant others.

I just hope the 92 inch is bright...brighter than the 82. I've scoured the news everyday for some mention of specs. Nothing.

My girlfriend likes big screens. The bigger the better.

It's useful that you underline the point that FP requires a dedicated space and dedication in general! The 92, potentially, is a cinematic experience for one's living room.

I honestly think the 'difficulty' and 'sacrifice' of a front projection setup is often overblown to create an artificial barrier to entry in order to maintain an air of prestige about the home theater community given the onslaught of $400 dlp office projectors and $200 chinese projection screens.

Truth of the matter is that $6 walmart blinds and a tapestry or drapes go a long way for light control, and you'd be suprised what kind of equipment $2-3k affords you in the realm of front projectors these days if you haven't looked in a few years.

I'm not saying the 92" isn't going to be the best option for some people, but don't take it for gospel that front projection is something you couldn't do until you've actually priced it out and considered it for yourself.

I just don't see how a TV and a FP are really interchangeable, at least not for me. They meet different needs. I easily have the room for a 92" TV, but a FP is not even a consideration for my space. If I had a dedicated room, then perhaps I would consider front projector, I don't so it is not a consideration. In any case I don't want to go to a dedicated space, I want to enjoy my large screen TV in my family room.

I am guessing that a careful shopper will be able to buy this beast for $3500 a year from now which would be my time frame. When all was said and done I paid around $2600 for 82837 a year ago when the SRP was at least $4k.

My point exactly.

Have you managed to find out anything more about the 92 inch...e.g. the bulb wattage?

Have not read a word. Yesterday is the 1 year anniversary of my 82". Even if the 92 were avaialble right now I would not yet be in the market. I like you am concerned about the brightness of such a beast, I also have no desire to pay full retail for one so... I am patient and in waitful watching mode.

Yes I am curious but I am not digging around.. I will end up sleeping on the couch soon enough over one, so no sense gettting myself or my marriage in a tizzy until there is half a chance of actually affording one.

I have gone from a 65' DLP, to a 72", to an 82" between April 2006 and January 2010. My wife has been extraorrdinarly patient and generous but this next set will be a very delicate deal. It is not like a new receiver. I could spend 5 grand on a new receiver and as long as it was swapped out when she was visiting the mother-in-law she would never know nor care. The 92" set will be a kind of in your face sort of thing.... literally the 800lb gorrilla in the room.

I am trying to be extremely conservative on technology buys over the next 10-12 months so I can convince myself in the meantime I am not a completely wasteful spendthrift, when I make this next upgrade. This one will get far more scrutiny than my other big DLPs. It has to be a really great set as I will have to live with it 40 to 45 monthsr. I allow myself a TV budget of around a hundred twenty a month (main TV only), so you can get an idea of the amortization.

I will be lazy and check this thread every few days and I am sure somebody will have something to add soon enough. Mits usually does their product announcements in late April. So we are probably 90 days away from getting our first reliable specs.

Just move the couch further away from the TV, and answer her queries with "I don't notice anything different, honey."

ha...that should work^^

OR, just build a wider tv stand with the same characteristics and color as your current stand and then you can really say

"Nothing has changed hun, what are you talking about?"

This immediately comes to mind....

Well, if you're going to take that route you can't do it halfheartedly. You're going to have to get reproductions of all your paintings and photographs, done to a larger scale, and put them in place of the old ones. New vases and other bric-a-brac can be done by local craftsmen. Not much you can do about wall placement, but you can try to keep your wife's attention occupied by lots of fast talking.

Guys, who cares about the technicals

IT'S 92 INCHES AND CAN BE VIEWED OUTSIDE A BATCAVE!

You cannot compare this to FP, FP can only be used in a dedicated batcave with no ambient light. It's not practical to install a fp in a normal living room (i tried for a while). You cant just turn it on for 10 mins of news, or 30 mins of tv shows, not to mention when freinds/family are there you cant let them sit in pitch blackness and if you leave the lights on, the FP pq looks like a first gen rptv from the 90s. Oh and good luck trying to use it during daylight hours/

So if you have a dedicated dark room, definitely go with a FP. But for those of us living in the city/apartments, this is a godsend. I cannot wait..

Lastly for those complaining they dont need a 90"+ screen, you obviously havent seen one in action at full 1080p. Because once you do you never go back, it's a different viewing experience once you go from <70" to >90"

It may not look so great outside of a Batcave just because of the glossy, reflective screens. From the YouTube videos from CES posted earlier in the thread, I think that would be a dealbreaker for me. I wouldn't want to be able to see reflections of people sitting there in front of the screen or walking around the room every time a dark scene comes on.

I understand why Mitsubishi opted for the glossy screen to help improve the perceived color and picture quality, but that means a lot of people can't drop this set into their living rooms unless they're almost as light-controlled as one of those Batcaves.

It's a shame cause I agree, my 65" 2001 has a glossy screen and it can be annoying. At 92" if the screen has any gloss at all it's gonna be bad. Even on my 73" I have 2 sconces on a dimmer 35 feet away and those have to be off for anyone sitting in a certain area.

I want to remain optimistic about what the 92 inch might offer. After all, none of us have seen it...so...

One would hope that engineers at Mits were not oblivious to the same concerns we have. You would think that someone involved with design would say, "Before we sink millions into this thing, maybe we should cut the reflections."

At least you would think so.

Anyway, the jury's out until one of us (or an objective reviewer) sees one.

I'm concerned about brightness.

I would love to be optimistic but if it's a glossy screen it's a glossy screen. I don't how it's possible reduce reflections other than reducing the gloss of the screen but that would still mean more reflections. I don't think brightness or contrast is going to be an issue, the glossy screen really will make a big difference where that is concerned.

And no it's 92" so I don't think reflections would keep them from putting it on the market. Just the sheer size will sell it. I'm sure there's many that will purchase it and just deal with the reflections, that includes possibly myself. I and many others did it with the CRT's at 65". It's just that now we don't have the issue in these sets and 65" to 92" with a glossy screen is an entire wall of reflections.