[jlsavs]

Hi Y'all,


I am having a tough time deciding on purchasing either a low-end FP (like Nec lt150), or a 42" plasma display (50" is too $$) . My seating is limited to 9 feet or less - and watch mostly DVD - Hd content is years away up here in Canada.


Are there any folks out there that have both? and can advise on their comparitive qualities?


jlsavs.

 

[Jonmx]

At that close of a seating, I would probably go with the plasma. The reason to get a projector is for a large screen effect, and at that seating distance, a larger screen would be overwhelming.

 

[Dave T]

Plasma has the advantage of better picture with ambient light. FP is more portable, which is kind of nice, and (I think) would give you a better picture. Also, can you get a 42" plasma for anything less than twice the price of an LT150? I don't think so, unless prices have come down a lot since I last looked.


You could also get a much bigger picture with FP. Still small for FP, as Jon said, but bigger than you'd get with the plasma. At 9 feet, you could get a 5' wide screen if you like it big, or a 4' wide screen if that's too large. A 42" plasma is only about 3' wide.


- Dave

 

[Reed W]

If you have light control, and that is a big if, then I would go with the front projector.


Since you say you are watching mostly DVD, then you are in effect trying to create a "home theater". Even with a smaller screen, six feet wide or less, a front projector is much more like a theater experience than a plasma set.


I sit 11.5 feet back from my 85" wide screen and it does not seem to big.


As always look carefully at both technologies and decide for yourself which one provides a more "movie like" picture to your eyes.


When I was considering a RPTV I went to several dealers and sat exactly 11.5 feet from the screen. I kept saying to myself, "thats a nice movie I am watching on TV". For me a projector has created a "home theater" experience.


Reed.

 

[Carl Gearhart]

Reedw comments are perceptive and right on. Either technology works, but an FP holds greater potential for the home theater "experience", plus the flexibilty of adjusting picture size whenever you want (zoom, etc). Plasma pricing is also generally still a negative

 

[Reed W]

Thanks Carl.


I would add that a couple of the reasons many people pass on front projection are fears about complexity and cost.


Digital projectors, while maybe not the ultimate in picture quality vs 9" CRT, have allowed a whole new group of people into front projection. With the help of folks here at the Forum you can set-up a very satisfying home theater for a fraction of what it cost just a few years ago.


Jump in, you will be glad you did!!! Reed.

 

[woofer]

I have an NEC MP2 42" Plasma which i have been using for about 4 months.

I was about to upgrade to the NEW MP3 NEC in the hope of ridding some of the very Annoying traits associated with a Plasma display.


When i auditioned the MP3 i had the chance to view a DAVIS Cinema Ten and DAVIS DPX-16 ( both DLP projectors).


I was so impressed with the DLP projectors that i purchased the DPX-16.

I am viewing an 85" screen at a distance of 11 feet.


With the Plasma i never really obtained the "Theatre Effect" that i desired.

The clarity of the picture from the DLP is far superior to my MP2 Plasma...not to mention" NO" False Contouring, Dot Crawl,Creeping Moss.ect......


I have just auditined the DA-Lite "High Contrast Da-Matt" screen and found it to improve greatly the Black level and colour saturation of the DLP.


Try to view BOTH options , both have their own Pro,s and Con,s...


For me its FP all the way!