Mits 82840 for $ 1999.00

No one can know if it will be bright enough for YOU!. The 82840 uses the same lamp as the 73 and the 92".

With a properly aged lamp and fully calibrated I get about 35 ft lamberts on a 92". I would expect nearly 40 ft lamberts out of the 82". Unless you are dealing with high ambient light levels it should be plenty. Scene transitions from dark to full white in a fully darkened room will be nearly blinding.

On my 92" I find I need a lamp every 2000 hours or so. You should be able to do better than that. You might even get away with the lamp on standard brightness. An 82 with a clear screen should produce the best picture of the bunch.

Jetmeck:

The 82840 with the Clear Contrast screen is a very good set. When Mits moved to Clear Contrast the picture on the 82" brightened considerably.

What you're giving up in size, you're getting back in brightness and size of the sweet spot (latitude in off axis viewing).

That's a good deal!

The 92840 has the same type if screen. The 82842 does not.

It doesn't have the Clear Contrast Screen, it has I believe it's referred as the matte screen?

Yeah, the 82840 has the Clear Contrast for sure:
http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/tv/WD-82840/specifications

They backed off the Clear Contrast for the 42 series probably because people didn't appreciate the reflections from screen surface.

But the CC screen permitted more light to pass through.

Has anybody noticed the specifications change on the 73840? It was originally listed as NOT having the Clear Contrast screen. Now the specs show the Clear Contrast screen included.

And it is noticeably sharper with the clear screen. Room lighting has to be taken into account. The 82840 is quite bright. The brighter the display the less effect of reflections. Point light sources need to be off axis. That is the key. I have table lamps on axis--- I don't use them. I have floor lamps on the same plane but space wide enough to be off axis.. I don't really have a problem with reflections. A coating would have been nice... RP DLP was a marginal business for Mits for the last several years. I think Sharp and their massively loss leading big LEDs poisoned the well for Mits and Mits quietly withdrew. Too bad just a few more details could have made the clear screen models sensational. A Lumagen Radiance will do that now. Too bad Mits never got the internal CMS right either. If they had the Lumagen would have been unecessary for those demanding realy accurate color across the board.

I'm glad gtgray answered as he did. I think the Clear Contrast screen is better than the matte, as the increase in brightness and shatpness (as gtgray points out), as well as better black level make the effort to place lamps out of the way well worth the effort.

yes they do. It's only mentioned on the models that have it

If you go to the link I posted, you can easily back out of that into a menu that will pull up the 82842 manual.
It doesn't have the CC screen.

The only reason that I and gtgray are mentioning this is because you wanted frank advice.

The amount of light control to avoid reflections off the screen has been exaggerated by some. I have a TV with a glossy screen, and it's fine with a floorlamp well to the side. I just turn off lamps behind me.

With the CC screen the 82" is as bright and contrasty as the 73", which to me was always the sweet spot for DLPs. I was surprised by the impact that the CC screen made on the picture compared to the previous year's model.

I'm sure you'll be happy in any case.

Maybe the hybrid has all the advantages without the disadvantages of the two screen types.

If you read reviews on Amazon for either the 82840 or the 82842, people are pretty happy with their sets.

If you have a dark room, as you said, you'll be appreciating the light output from the 82842 model.

And you'll have a larger screen than most people!