Why the hatred for DLP? - Page 13

Thanks for the response.

So would you say your set is cinematic? Have you watched any 3D material?

If my rp crt didn't die, I would still have it. That said, it had a beautiful picture which impressed many people, however, due to the mirror like "screen" (which I later found out I could have removed) it was nearly unwatchable during the day.

I considered the DLP projectors, but I too remembered seeing the "rainbow" effects on earlier models and inaccurate colors out of the box ( I never had to have my rptv calibrated) and now there was no way for me to even try one out in a showroom.

The plasma I replaced it with has no glare during the day while watching straight on and a small amount of glare from the sides, and the colors are simply amazing, it definitely has that immersive feel to it.

My CRT RP might always be the best TV I ever own. I took the glare screen off on day one, and it provided the best daytime viewing you will ever see. Windows open, bright lights turned on in the house- perfect picture with no glare. It's a Mitsubishi, and you just take off clips on each side of the screen and slide the glare screen cover right out. I'm a bit irritated that TV's are no longer built with taking these horrible screens off in mind. Well, at least for DLPs. My DLP has a matte screen, but there's still some glare and the bumpy matte coating gives the effect of being covered in glitter in bright scenes(I assume that's what it is caused by). On the other hand a clear screen is unwatchable except in complete darkness.

My latest findings about hatred with DLP RPTV is really not hatred. It seems it is either status (Cost & Wow factor) or ignorance. Though they both push the TV owner into the Cost & Wow factor criteria.

Mostly the Wow factor is new tech or following the Plasma route.

I am finding the reverse for LED DLP RPTV owners... It is more like LED DLP owners have a hatred (affinity) for being classed in with the old Bulb / Color Wheel DLP RPTV.

Even further, Mits owners will get bent out of shape, when told there laserview is really LED view.

Like what I said, hatred goes into a status class and seeing LED DLP keeping up with the rest fairly well.

Oh, then there is the Calibration factor... Once you see a proper calibration on LED DLP, you may have envy or hatred depending on your purchase.

Of course they will. Because you're wrong. A Light Emitting Diode is not the same as a Laser Diode, other than they both emit light.

One will not find a Samsung LED DLP with this warning



http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/asset/file/owners_guide/OG-L75-A94.pdf
Edited by Augerhandle - 7/21/12 at 10:18am

Glad you posted that Augerhandle. Laser Diodes are certainly different, as regular LEDs do not output coherent light.

LED, Laser LED they all be LED... Geezo, like we are to think a standard 30ma LED is driving the light output on LED based DLP.

A simple statement would have sufficed, but again your been arrogant since knowing ya.

Nope, I am not wrong... just being general with my statement, as many get confused with the word Laser being include with LED, as they are not as technical.

Show me a light engine from Mits, it is not much different than Sammy. Sammy uses Laser LED and there is a warning like that in the Sammy service manual.

I did make a simple statement. "A Light Emitting Diode is not the same as a Laser Diode, other than they both emit light." Here's another, "A Ferrarri Enzo is not the same as a Schwinn bicycle, other than they both can be driven on pavement." The similarity pretty much ends there.
Can you post a link to the manual to prove your claim that Samsung warns about lasers in its DLPs?

Let me save us all some time. Here's the service manual http://www.schematicsforfree.com/files/Video/Products/TV/Samsung%20HL67A750.pdf?action=download

Not one mention of Laser, or one warning to that effect. Nothing mentioned except LEDs. The same with the owner's manual. No Laser warnings at all.

Also, your statement directly contradicts what you stated less than a week ago in another thread, in which you attempted the opposite argument:

Edited by Augerhandle - 8/18/12 at 8:05am

Texas Instruments invented a truly wonderful technology with DLP. Consumer televisions based on it FAIL in design/execution as a general rule. The chassis/optics aren't properly sealed from airborne contaminants, high voltage parts and bulbs farmed out to the lowest bid from China. Considering the dust issue alone DLPs look wonderful for about a year, look ok for 1 to 2 more and there after start to look genuinely ugly. Unless you're looking at the biggest screens, there isn't a real price advantage over LCD/Plasmas anymore. Cleaning the optics/mirrors properly is a time consuming/meticulous affair beyond the ability of most people, as well as many professional techs for that matter (which is why Samsung and others insist techs replace the entire light engine rather than attempt to clean it). It's too bad, really. TI could have stipulated certain design paremeters along with licensing of the technology to prevent most or all of these issues, thereby protecting the reputation of the technology needed for them to continue making money on it.

At this point between the newest x-gen gigantic quattrons that look fantastic and larger/lower wattage plasmas I would only recommend a DLP to people like myself that dont mind completely dissassembing the thing every two years to spend a day (or two) cleaning it out. A flat panel and microfiber cloth is the best combination for most people. If used DLP sets werent so available (and nearly free) on craigslist I doubt I would mess with them either.

And the used market is going to be the only place to get RP DLP TVs very soon with Mitsubishi leaving the market. With Samsung leaving in 2008, Mits was the last out there. Sucks because you could not beat the price/performance of at 70"+ DLP RPTV.

Shan

Hatred? Acknowledging market realities and technology advancements and its impact of what used to be is "hatred"?