AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Members,


I am starting a new thread on the new thin DLP from InFocus. It is the ScreenPlay 50md10. It looks like it has a November release.


I have been looking and waiting for the 74 series from Samsung due out anyday now. I just learned about the InFocus models. It is thinner then then any current DLP and it is from a manufacuture that has lots of experience with DLP. I also noticed it has the DarkChip2 which is suppose to increase black levels. It is more expensive but is it worth it?


Can I get some expert opinions and discussions on these new DLP sets. Has anyone seen them (i.e. CEDIA) in person and can talk about their picture quality? I can't seem to find what the contrast ratio is.


Well this is why we search the threads here so start chiming in!


Thanks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,078 Posts
It does look nice, but a huge price premium to save about 8 inches in depth.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
TJK-


Well we are closer to competing with Plasma's. I also believe it may have a better picture with the DarkChip. I am not sure of the color wheel though.


Between all of us, I hope we can get more details.


Anyone else?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
I (thought) I saw this last week at Beset Buy. Are there more than 1 RCA thin set?! Or is this thread ignoring that they are the same set and highlighting only the InFocus version? (available in Nov instead of now, I guess)
 

· Coyote Waits
Joined
·
27,309 Posts
I have enough problems understanding a light path constricted to ~14". Under 7" is beyond my ability to comprehend. :rolleyes:


What does it take to transfer an image from that itty bitty chip to a big big screen when the chip is less than 7" from the screen? That's my scientific question for today.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
They should be very, very nearly identical sets.


The price appears to be at least 10% cheaper than the cheapest 61% plasma if I have it right and it's half the price of some similarly-sized plasmas.


At least at 61 inches, this has a niche. I personally find it kind of revoltingly ugly and think that WAF might be low, but there is definitely a niche.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I have seen the 61-inch model in action and it is fantastic. It wasn't a side-by-side comparison to Plasma, but I cannot imagine anything looking better. As for how they do it in 6.5-inches of depth, I don't understand the technical details, but I know that InFocus believes they have it well patented.


My understanding is that the 61-inch model is the first one to come out - just beginning to hit the street. A 50-inch and 70-inch model will follow (I believe in the first quarter of next year). I believe that all 3 sizes will come out under 3 brand names: RCA Scenium Profiles (for the mass market), ScreenPlay (for high-end dealers), and Clarity Visual Systems (for digital signage - http://www.clarityvisual.com/product...are/bengal.asp ).


The model number on the first RCA model is HD61THW263 (user's manual: http://www.rca.com/documents/HD61THW263 (IB)_703314_25.pdf), and you can get some decent info on it in a Google search. It lists for $9999 MSRP, I believe, but the Google search turned up some sites (reputable???) selling for as low as $7000. If I'm not mistaken, that puts it in the price range of a similarly equipped 50-inch Plasma.


The downside to this technology (versus Plasma) is the need for the bulb, but it is also a strength. Replace the bulb and you've virtually got a new TV - with no burn in. Can't say that after 4000 hours with a Plasma.


SUGGESTION: maybe this thread title should be changed to "RCA/InFocus TV ..."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
"Can't say that after 4000 hours with a Plasma."


No, you can't. But since current plasmas last 60,000 hours, who really cares?


Now, that said, you added a lot off really good info, so I want to compliment that. :)


However, there is nothing patentable about the process they use (unless there is some clever digital processing to "undistort" the picture a bit; and I'm not sure).


The "magic" is a super duper short throw lens and a clever pairing of mirrors (one in the base of the TV on the front, the other on the back behind the screen) that mimics most RPTV sets, just a lot closer together.


These guys deserve kudos for bringing to market what a lot of people have just talked about. But it's pricey vs. regular DLP, fairly uninteresting at 50 inches in my opinion because it's "plasma priced", not really going to hang on anyone's wall because it's too big and, well, ugly....


I think the price is a deterrent for people who want DLP at 61 inches (why not find some more depth and spend 1/2 the price), but some will unequivocally sell at that size. The 70 inch is a "deal" in that there is nothing else in the category of flat panels that will be able to touch the estimated $12,000-14,000 MSRP for some time. And it's only about 1/2 inch thicker than the 61!


Mark
 

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
rogo,


Thanks for your reply. Thank you for correcting me, if I am mistaken ... I must admit that I am far from an expert on any of these technologies. I did not realize that the problems with Plasmas had been completely corrected. Burn-in is still an issue, I presume ... but maybe not to the same degree? The lack of burn-in is, of course, one of the nice features in this (and I guess all) RP DLP TV. It's nice to know that when you replace the bulb you pretty much have a new TV, in terms of picture quality. And I, frankly, can't imagine having to change the bulb any more often than every 3-4 years or so.


As for the patent-ability of the technology, all I can say is that I think the Company either has a patent or one pending. Again, I am not a techie, but my understanding is that there is more to making this happen in sub-7-inches than the simple explanation they show on their website. Otherwise, wouldn't others be doing this already?


As for whether or not it is ugly and/or able to be hung on the wall, I think that's open to discussion. I've seen one hanging on the wall - it is certainly doable (they sell brackets on their website) and it looks good to me. As for price, I think it really comes down to whether one is comparing it to thicker DLP's or Plasmas. At a street price of $7-8k, the fully-featured 61-inch model (with built in tuners, browser, wireless keyboard, etc.) looks pretty attractive relative to Plasma. And the 70-inch model will be unsurpassed by any DLP or Plasma - at a pretty decent price (maybe less than $12-14k?).


Again ... thanks for the discussion, Rogo (and others). I'm interested to see what people think about this unit.


I still think that the title of this thread should be changed to "RCA/InFocus Ultra-Thin (~7-inch) DLP-TV" ... who can change this?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Marshdom,


I have already attempted to change the thread title but it doesn't seem possilble. If you notice that in my first message it changed it there but it won't change the main thread heading.


I can start a new thread if it is desired.


Thanks for all your responses.


We should also talk about the extra cost on the InFocus might be for the DarkChip addition. This add-on is InFocus's attempt to make it high end DLP. I am sure Samsung will follow with these additions next year.


What does everyone think in comparing the RCA/InFocus to the 74/85 series Samsung DLP's?
 

· Coyote Waits
Joined
·
27,309 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by a1rmann
I have already attempted to change the thread title but it doesn't seem possilble. If you notice that in my first message it changed it there but it won't change the main thread heading.
A moderator can change the "subject" for you.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
8,738 Posts
Instead of making a 7 inch thick DLP to hang on the wall, which is still too big to to hang on a wall and stupid in my opinion, they should try to do something about the rainbow effect. It makes no sense for any manufacturer to make a DLP costing 12-14k, I don't care how thin it is, with one chip and a color wheel.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
32,174 Posts
"Thank you for correcting me, if I am mistaken ... I must admit that I am far from an expert on any of these technologies."


Anytime. No problem.


" I did not realize that the problems with Plasmas had been completely corrected. Burn-in is still an issue, I presume ... but maybe not to the same degree? "


Correct. Lifespan on plasmas is not an issue. Burn in is much less of an issue (in part due to longer-than-CRT lifespans) but burn in risk does exist.


"The lack of burn-in is, of course, one of the nice features in this (and I guess all) RP DLP TV."


Yes, it is. You can play Xbox all day, leave Tivo paused, whatever and the good part is you'll only waste electricity. :)


" It's nice to know that when you replace the bulb you pretty much have a new TV, in terms of picture quality. "


Right. "New" to the state of the art when you bought it though. In 3-4 years, the "new" TV will be a lot better, I'd bet.


"As for the patent-ability of the technology, all I can say is that I think the Company either has a patent or one pending. Again, I am not a techie, but my understanding is that there is more to making this happen in sub-7-inches than the simple explanation they show on their website. Otherwise, wouldn't others be doing this already?"


They may have a patent pending on something. I'm not really doubting that, but here's some info you might not have considered:


(1) NEC showed an ultra, ultra short-throw projector more than a year ago. It does not work the same way as this TV, but could easily be built into a TV. There are, in other words, multiple ways to skin the cat.


(2) The "reason" no one has done this before is there was never any reason to. You cannot do this with a CRT -- period -- because the "imagers" are way, way too large. You need a microdisplay set to make this work. And, really, a reflective, single-chip design makes it much, much easier. That means it'd be much harder to do this with LCD (transmissive not reflective and 3-chip instead of 1) and harder to do with 3-chip LCOS.


The DLP RPTV market was "invented" about 2-3 years ago (when the Samsung products made it mainstream after the failures in the market by Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Panasonic -- the latter two having made comebacks into the arena of late). I'm guessing Infocus started work on this sometime around then... The key development was spending the fortune required on the lens and getting that to work right.


Again, after that there might be some clever tweaking of the electronics to avoid having such a short-throw image avoid distortion -- I dunno how that would work or why it'd be needed, but it might be there. And the mirror setup is quite clever and a bit novel -- but fundamentally a lot of same old, same old.


There are a lot of potential patents in the universe and I'm not saying they don't have a few pending, but the point is someone else could indeed do the same thing if they had the talent and the R&D money. Their implementation might be different, of course.


I think they might not because I suspect the marrket here is very small. It certainly seems attractive at 61 inches and there are enough TVs sold in that size that -- again -- they ought to sell some. But very few 70 inch TVs are sold and this product is unlikely to dramatically grow that market. As said, at 50, I think they'll either need to go awfully cheap or give up on that -- it's overall not compelling enough.


I bet the sales targets are in the single-digit thousands per year for each of RCA and Infocus.


Mark
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
A quick search on the uspto web site for patents with InFoucs as the assignee, gave 58 hits. One that caught my eye was


6,793,342: Reduced form factor projection system


Edit: BTW,I saw the 7 inch InFoucs hanging on a wall at a home show and it looked OK to me.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Auditor55
Instead of making a 7 inch thick DLP to hang on the wall, which is still too big to to hang on a wall and stupid in my opinion, they should try to do something about the rainbow effect. It makes no sense for any manufacturer to make a DLP costing 12-14k, I don't care how thin it is, with one chip and a color wheel.
Auditor we have finally found a subject that we agree on. ;)

If you want to charge those numbers you had better get have a patent on eliminating rainbows and skip the shrinking in depth. Now that people might pay the premium for.!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I don't know how many of you have actually seen this set, but my local BB has it and to tell you the truth it looks like garbage. The 52" Toshiba dlp, samsung 5063, mits dlp, and other dlp's look signifigantly better than that to me. It makes it even worse when they have a 50'' Pioneer plasma about 5 feet to its left which destroys the RCA in terms of PQ. I like RCA/Infocus' idea about a wall mountable dlp but from what I have seen, they sure need a lot of work.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,273 Posts
Saw one of the "thin" 61" RCA DLPs at BB yesterday. I was decidedly underwhelmed by the picture quality compared to the normal thickness DLP sets that were next to it playing the same video feed. Of course, it could be that BB had a poor feed to the RCA set, so my impression may be wrong.


I first saw the set while standing up and thought that the picture vertical viewing angle appeared to be narrower than the standard DLP sets. Perhaps the tradeoff of pricey optics to get the thinness also includes more limited vertical viewing angles?


The set also has this large bottom box area beneath the screen where I assume the optics go. What is with the large white panel on front of the bottom box? Ugh.


Finally the set was listed for > $8K! My fearless prediction? The RCA thin DLPs will NOT sell like hot cakes. Not even like cold frozen stale cakes in the middle of a blizzard.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top