[wceend]

I though I knew which PJ to buy but there I heard of the Mitsubishi XD200.


I have seen the Piano, Panasonic AE100, the Infocus LS110 (with the new software update) and the Epson TW100; all in a very good comparison at Grobi TV in Germany. My conclusion was that the Epson is the best PJ in the price category, (although the difference between the Epson and the Infocus was very smal).


So, I almost made the decision to buy the Epson and suddenly I read an very positive article about the Mitsubishi XD200. I tried to look for more information of users but I could not find enough and unfortunately not the most important info of a comparison between the Mits and the Epson.


I hope that there someone is who have seen the Epson in comparison with the Mitsubishi and I would appreciate it very much if you give your comments.


Thank you all for your time.


Greetings,


Casper

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

According to Projectorcentral the Mitsubishi isn't a native 16:9 machine, which is a strike against it if you want to view DVD's... which I assume is the plan.


I'm also looking at machines in this price range, going to buy one fairly soon. The TW is on top of my rather short list at the moment, and for me at least no machine that doesn't have 16:9 panels will dethrone it.

 

[mpilon]

A couple of things -- try a search of this forum for 'xd200' and you'll find what others have written and asked about it.


I've also spent some time with projectorcentral.com -- especially the article on 4:3 vs. 16:9:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/cons...cfm?ci=formats


Before reading this I was set on a native 16:9; after reading it, 4:3 seems preferable to me as much of what I will watch is still 4:3 (NTSC broadcasts and old movies).


the implication above that 16:9 is necessary for DVDs isn't true -- it's a choice of where you want your black bars.


if you're watching 4:3 on a 16:9 projector your bars are on the sides; if you watch 16:9 on a 4:3 your bars are on top and bottom.


if I buy a native 4:3 projector the width of the material stays the same -- and sports broadcasts, music videos (usually 4:3) will occupy the whole screen, rather than only a conspicuous part of it.


it comes down to what you watch and how well the projector you pick scales those sources to fit its display device.


one particular SVGA (~ 800x600) projector was rated very well for DVD because it didn't have to do any scaling and the picture was very sharp and mapped image pixels to display pixels 1:1. any displays above SVGA will involve scaling when you watch DVDs because the DVD has fewer pixels than the display.


I picked the XD200 (and will be buying as soon as the damned room is ready) because it _is_ native 4:3, has great scaling and Faroujda deinterlacing and DCDi. The only HDTV we'll _ever_ have is via satellite and I'll wait some years before upgrading to it. until then it's old and new movies on DVD and 4:3 NTSC broadcasts.


take a look at that article and see which of the options fits how you watch -- and let the specs take a back seat.


Mark

 

[satighe]

Two cents worth:


I have had the xd200 for about 2-3 months now, and am VERY pleased with it. (I replaced an older NEC LT84 DLP).


I compared it to the Panasonic 711xu and decided, hands down, on the xd200. The color is amazing. The lumens are more than adequate.


I too was somewhat confused by all the reviews, and had heard some less than favorable things about Mits. However, I have no Buyers Remorse whatsoever.


I am very happy with my selection.

 

[Grubert]

How much does the XD200 suffer from rainbows?


Thanks.

 

[satighe]

I'm apparently very lucky, or the "rainbow problem", is just a myth. But, I, or anyone who has watched either of my DLP projectors has mentioned any sort of problems. Furthermore, they said they really enjoyed watching with them.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

A 16:9 native projector will use more pixels to display a 2.35:1 image than a 4:3 one will.


For me, the widescreen movies are a priority and thus 16:9. I also won't be needing to fiddle with zoom and the like, just point the 16:9 projector at the 16:9 screen and then watch material with bars either on top (for 2.35:1) or on the side (for 1.33:1, tv square).


1.33:1 material really is low priority for me while I want to enjoy movies at maximum resolution, so it's 16:9 for me. Already have a 16:9 TV where I practice what I preach...


Everyone has their own set of priorities.


Either way, that 800x600 projector might look good but a 16:9 projector with higher resolution will show a better, more film like image, if the scaling is done right and using equivalent technology otherwise.


The article above was a; written by someone who openly stated that he wants a big 4:3 image and himself uses a 4:3-all-the-way setup, with little interest in HDTV or even maximizing his DVD viewing (IMHO) and b; he also forgot to mention that you don't lose 25% of the panel height at 2.35:1, you lose more. 25% is if you view 1.85:1 material. I'm too lazy to count how much it actually is at 2.35:1 with a 4:3 projector but it has to come to something in the 40%-ish range.


The article did explain the options well, despite the bias, so it just solidified my opinions that 16:9 is indeed better for me.

 

[Grubert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmo Jaskari A 16:9 native projector will use more pixels to display a 2.35:1 image than a 4:3 one will.

Yes, but the XGA resolution is a perfect match for the horizontal resolution of PAL anamorphic DVDs (1024x576), just like the Infocus LS110's 848x480 pixels (in wide mode) are an exact match for NTSC anamorphic DVD.


As the ProjectorCentral article says, you can use a 16:9 screen with a 4:3 projector. If the projector has a "small 4:3" mode (like the Panasonic LC75 has), then you can pretend you have a 16:9 projector and display 4:3 material in the central part of the 16:9 subset of the XGA panel.


The question of the exact benefits of having a panel with more resolution than the source resolution has been discussed in the past, but I don't remember if any conclusion was reached.


Don't get me wrong: I'm also interested in the TW100, but IMO all those 1280x720 projectors appeal much more to people with access to HD material (which rules out us negligible Europeans).


Regards.