I currently am using a Mitsubishi x-100 LCD. Resolution is 1024x768 as set from my HTPC(very up to date). My question is this- how does a 800x600 DLP compare to a 1024x768 LCD as far as pixellation? How much better would a 1024x768 DLP be? Any responses would be appreciated as I've got the "upgrade bug".
800x600 DLP vs 1024x768 LCD
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
My contribution would be to say that in regards to Screen door, and 8x6 DLP will be the same, if not better, in this regard, than a 1024x768 LCD.
------------------
David Mendicino
------------------
David Mendicino
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
From what I know, the SVGA DLP pixel structure is not as bad as a LCD pixel structure with the same resolution, because DLPs have less "unused" area or gaps between the pixels. With a 100" diagonal screen, I did not really notice the pixels unless I got rather close to the screen. DLPs do have better blacks than LCDs but are not as bright which I think actually helps the black levels. When comparing the SVGA DLP and the XGA LCD, I think the screen door effect would be about the same, but I could be wrong.
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Chuck-
I have the same projector, the X-100, purchased in Aug 1999. I've had recent urges to upgrade, too. But in my opinion, wait a year or so for the Good Stuff to hit the streets.
New DLPs with Archimedes/ high speed/ RGBRGB color wheels will be here, more 16:9 LCOS/ LCD/ DLPs will be available, and even better and cheaper 4:3 LCD/ DLP/LCOS will be released.
FYI, the Panamorph maker, Cygnus, have been using an X100 clone (Chisholm) for demo and development testing on the Panamorph 1.78 lens the past few months!
I've decided to hold onto my trusty Mits X100 until something *significantly* better for *reasonable cost* (~$3000-$4000) with the equivalent feature content (dual Component/ VGA inputs, power zoom lens, power focus, dual separate S-video/composite inputs) hits the streets. In August of 1999, this feature content in a 1024x768 was difficult to find for $2995 (to my door, free shipping from projectorpeople.com)
I have not regretted owning the X100- my first projector. In a light controlled room with the brightness/contrast tweaked and my GeForce2 HTPC tweaked, the image is very good in most movies on a Da-Lite Model B 1.3 screen.
The contrast ratio is starting to annoy me, but all non-HT hobbyists who have watched movies in my HT have been impressed and have no issues with the image.
I believe my expected Panamorph will only improve the image and "hold me over" until that magic "perfect projector" comes along...
The 2.35 Panamorph will allow me to use a gray screen (making a 70%+ brighter image for the Mits 600 lumens), improving black levels, keeping me happy until next year http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif .
[This message has been edited by Rgb (edited 08-22-2001).]
I have the same projector, the X-100, purchased in Aug 1999. I've had recent urges to upgrade, too. But in my opinion, wait a year or so for the Good Stuff to hit the streets.
New DLPs with Archimedes/ high speed/ RGBRGB color wheels will be here, more 16:9 LCOS/ LCD/ DLPs will be available, and even better and cheaper 4:3 LCD/ DLP/LCOS will be released.
FYI, the Panamorph maker, Cygnus, have been using an X100 clone (Chisholm) for demo and development testing on the Panamorph 1.78 lens the past few months!
I've decided to hold onto my trusty Mits X100 until something *significantly* better for *reasonable cost* (~$3000-$4000) with the equivalent feature content (dual Component/ VGA inputs, power zoom lens, power focus, dual separate S-video/composite inputs) hits the streets. In August of 1999, this feature content in a 1024x768 was difficult to find for $2995 (to my door, free shipping from projectorpeople.com)
I have not regretted owning the X100- my first projector. In a light controlled room with the brightness/contrast tweaked and my GeForce2 HTPC tweaked, the image is very good in most movies on a Da-Lite Model B 1.3 screen.
The contrast ratio is starting to annoy me, but all non-HT hobbyists who have watched movies in my HT have been impressed and have no issues with the image.
I believe my expected Panamorph will only improve the image and "hold me over" until that magic "perfect projector" comes along...
The 2.35 Panamorph will allow me to use a gray screen (making a 70%+ brighter image for the Mits 600 lumens), improving black levels, keeping me happy until next year http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif .
[This message has been edited by Rgb (edited 08-22-2001).]
Joined
·
12,276 Posts
The 800x600 DLP is going to have much less "space" between the individual pixels. Whether you would notice them or not depends on some things such as your screen size and viewing distance. If you were sitting 16' away from a 7' wide screen, I doubt you'd see the pixels on either unit. As you get closer, the LCD pixels would be come more apparent than the DLP to a certain point. I have seen a 848x480 DLP and at 14' away on an 8' wide screen, and I couldn't see the pixels. I have also seen a 1366x768 LCD on the same screen, and I could see the pixels more during lighter scenes. In truth, it's hard to say which is better. It really depends on which units you are actually looking at.
Thanks!
------------------
Jason Turk
AV Science, Inc.
http://www.avscience.com
716-454-1460 ext.204
[email protected]
Thanks!
------------------
Jason Turk
AV Science, Inc.
http://www.avscience.com
716-454-1460 ext.204
[email protected]
An 800x600 DLP show far less line structure than a XGA LCD. Of course it depends how far you sit from the screen. From 11 feet eyeball to screen you see virtually no line structure with a 800x600 DLP except on pointy objects like the tips of people's noses. Most XGA LCD's from 11 feet exhibit the full screen door effect.
Lenny
Lenny
When I started looking for a FP about 3 years ago, I didn't know about the various technologies and the pros/cons of each. I just knew what looked pleasing to my eyes.
But I still wasn't entirely happy. Since then, I checked out Davis DLP's (3 models), Kodak DLP's (made by Davis),Vidikron(2 chip)DLP, Dreamvision DLP, droolled over the Barco CRT's (but knew I could never afford one). I checked out the Sony VPL-W400Q as well. I sat roughly where I knew I would be sitting at home to audition them.
Then came the 10HT and WOAH! I took it home with me!
Personally, I couldn't care less what technology it was, I was just sick of seeing low res images (pixellation) and this didn't have any! My wife is the biggest critic because she takes every picture on face value and she also commented on how sharp the image was. My reference DVD to date is Blues Brothers 2000.
I see none of the screen door artifacts you mention.
We sit 20 ft back from the 9 and a half foot screen, (Actually just the white wall). All my DVD's are Pal R4. Is it possible that the extra 20% image information which Pal contains makes these artifacts insignificant? Have you guys seen a native PAL dvd, not just a PAL > NTSC (480i or p) conversion. There is a difference!
------------------
Tertiary adjunct to Unimatrix Zero-One
But I still wasn't entirely happy. Since then, I checked out Davis DLP's (3 models), Kodak DLP's (made by Davis),Vidikron(2 chip)DLP, Dreamvision DLP, droolled over the Barco CRT's (but knew I could never afford one). I checked out the Sony VPL-W400Q as well. I sat roughly where I knew I would be sitting at home to audition them.
Then came the 10HT and WOAH! I took it home with me!
Personally, I couldn't care less what technology it was, I was just sick of seeing low res images (pixellation) and this didn't have any! My wife is the biggest critic because she takes every picture on face value and she also commented on how sharp the image was. My reference DVD to date is Blues Brothers 2000.
I see none of the screen door artifacts you mention.
We sit 20 ft back from the 9 and a half foot screen, (Actually just the white wall). All my DVD's are Pal R4. Is it possible that the extra 20% image information which Pal contains makes these artifacts insignificant? Have you guys seen a native PAL dvd, not just a PAL > NTSC (480i or p) conversion. There is a difference!
------------------
Tertiary adjunct to Unimatrix Zero-One
In my experience screen door is about the same for SVGA DLP compared to XGA LCD. That's comparing a Dreamvision DLP to a Sharp DW100.
------------------
John
My HT Picts
------------------
John
My HT Picts
Joined
·
2,987 Posts
Quote:
leckian,
Your words mean (almost) nothing unless you give the screen size. Actually, from 11 feet it is still possible to see line structure even with a 1600x1200 DLP, IF your screen is 20 feet wide. If you'll give us the distance + screen size, we'll be able to calculate their ratio, which is the only meaningful data when talking about screen door effect.
[This message has been edited by Jones_Rush (edited 08-23-2001).]
| From 11 feet eyeball to screen you see virtually no line structure with a 800x600 DLP except on pointy objects like the tips of people's noses. Most XGA LCD's from 11 feet exhibit the full screen door effect. |
Your words mean (almost) nothing unless you give the screen size. Actually, from 11 feet it is still possible to see line structure even with a 1600x1200 DLP, IF your screen is 20 feet wide. If you'll give us the distance + screen size, we'll be able to calculate their ratio, which is the only meaningful data when talking about screen door effect.
[This message has been edited by Jones_Rush (edited 08-23-2001).]
Joined
·
386 Posts
I have viewed both an SVGA DLP (Davis DL450) and a XGA LCD on an 80" wide Da-Lite model B screen. my experience was that the DLP pixel structure was much less visible than it was for the LCD. On the 80" wide screen I lose any sense of pixel structure at a about 11' for the DLP. On the LCD I had to be at about 15' before pixel structure was no longer visible.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
