[Corpsman]

This is not meant to be a flame/fan boi thread. Basically the only company left making DLP televisions is Mitsubishi. Looking at their new 837 line, the picture is great and the blacks are fantastic.


I need to purchase a ~65" TV for a secondary unit. This will go into a room with moderate ambient lighting. Some LCD's have a tendency to have screen reflection while the DLP does not. LCD's draw a tremendous amount of power compared to DLP. DLP are less expensive for comparable screen sizes.


LCD's have a much slimmer chasis and have better viewing angles. So if those aren't really important issues, why should I go LCD? I am considering a Mitsubishi WD65835 for $2200 or Sharp LC64SE94U for $3000. If I choose to go smaller I am looking at Samsung LN55A950 $3600 or Sharp LC52SE94U $1800.

 

[MasterLock]

I have both DLP and LCD televisions. As you suggested, you'll get more screen size per dollar out of a DLP set, and in my opinion, DLPs have better picture quality as a group when compared to LCDs. Not an entirely fair comparison, given there's only one real player in the DLP market these days, but still worthy of mention.


Mitsu DLPs are great, as are the Samsungs if you can snag one (just went out of product a little while back). The only drawback to DLP is the rainbow effect if you have one with a color wheel, which I believe most or all of them use. In a nutshell, it's a distracting burst of color and light as your eyes move quickly from one side of the TV to another. Most people don't see it, but when I saw it on my set I kind of fixated on it for a while and lamented. After a time I more or less forgot about it, and it hasn't bothered me since.


The biggest advantage to LCDs is the relative ease of moving them around. DLPs, by contrast, are semi-permanent. Still easy enough to relocate if necessary, but not nearly as easy as an LCD of the same screen size.


At the end of the day, this is what I generally recommend to people who are facing the DLP vs. LCD conundrum: DLP for screen sizes above 56", LCD for screen sizes below 56". It also helps if you've had some view-time with a DLP, to see if the rainbow effect has an impact on you. However, I don't think this is much of an issue anymore with newer sets.


As an aside, I think Samsung and others moved away from DLP and toward LCD/plasma because there's more money in the latter. The average consumer gravitates toward flat-panel displays for the coolness factor before anything else. Even if the image on a comparable DLP is better, average Joe will pick the LCD every time. On top of that, average Joe will always want to pay less for a DLP, and, in general, DLPs are always [negatively] associated with the bulky and hard to maintain projections of yore. As such, Mitsu is the only one left, because they cater to a very specific and well-informed niche market with their DLPs (ie: high end home theater). They even market them as such on their web page. Excellent sets.

 

[westa6969]

The Form Factor of LCD is what the Consumer wants obviously and out of sweet spot viewing.


For HT Size current Mits DLP's are dominant and price per inch is now a helluva value (excluding the LaserVue of course).


These huge DLP's are tempting as hell at current pricing but if I brought one home my wife would make life hell just as she did when I got an SXRD and she had fits with it's huge form factor dominating the room and it had to go since a late in life divorce nearing retirement is just too damn expensive for a TV. WAF plays a big role in many households but were I single I may have that 80+" in it's own room.


RPTV's failed because they took them out of their dedicated viewing areas and placed them in the bright open aisles of the stores where your walking by 2' from the screen

and they look like crapola in that environ and then look up at all the LCD's they blow away the DLP's when a consumer see's them like that.


SONY ended the SXRD because it took twice as many people and three times the parts to build an SXRD versus LCD and you can get a helluva lot more warehouse and shelf space and vertical wall space versus what an RPTV requires.


I would always have LCD but it is tempting to park a 70+" DLP at the bargain basement prices they are at today.

 

[aydu]

I too have both LCD and DLP sets in my house. I like the pop to the picture of the LCD set, and it works well in both darnened and well lit room environments.


The DLP set is bigger (65") and produces an outstanding image quality. When watching content, bigger is better. When I first bought the DLP set I was upgrading from a 42" set to the 65. My wife said "oh my" when she first saw the size of the new set. Knowing her vocal tendencies well, I detected that she was not saying this in a good way - "oh my referring to a diamond carries a different tone than the same words applied to a TV.


Once everything was hooked up and we watched a few things, I asked her if the set was too big. I was pleased that she asked if this was the biggest size they had.


To me, DLPs deliver a more lifelike image than LCD. I have seen a good number of sets and have never found one to match the image of my DLP on HD broadcasts. Even the nightly news in HD is a treat, due to the detail present in the image.


I do like the LCD for the brightness and sharpness of the picture. It makes most any programming "pop" which is what HD viewing is all about.


Screen size is the deciding factor to me. If there was an LCD in the 65+ inch range, that didn't cost an arm and leg, I'd seriously consider it when looking for a new set.


I would not sacrifice screen size for a technology. Once you go big, it's hard to go back.

 

[gsw]

I tell you what, I am really struggling to replace my HLS-6188. Not because I don't like the picture, I have just decided I need to go down in size a little bit.


I have had a UN55B6000 side by side with the DLP all week, and still can't make a decision. There's certainly tradeoffs: the LCD is a tad sharper, has a deeper black, perfect geometry, better viewing angles, lots more menu options and features, and newer tech (firmware updates, etc).


It all boils down to the picture, though, and the DLP has good blacks, better motion resolution, better uniformity, less reflectivity, less input lag and produces a very dynamic, life-like picture that is hard to match with the LCD.


Most say you need to set the backlight to 3 or 4 on these LCDs, but I find that, watching them side-by-side, it is too dim at that level and doesn't approach the realistic picture of the DLP unless I set it to 9 or 10. Even then, the DLP still has a tiny edge in the you-are-there kind of feeling, but with more video noise. The LCD still has a little bit of a processed look.


If my DLP had better noise reduction, it would be no contest: I would return the LCD. I do like the noise reduction in the B6000; it helps make SD watchable at the close seating distances needed for an immersive experience with HD.


I am on the verge of returning the B6000 and trying to pick up a used HLS568x. I really don't get when people go on about how awesome LCDs are. They still don't look as natural to me especially when there's motion.

 

[mdLCD]

The DLP is no longer fits my needs. My Sammy blows the DLP out of the water and I could care less about the screen size if the PQ doesn't satisfy me.

 

[gsw]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mdLCD /forum/post/16925806


The DLP is no longer fits my needs. My Sammy blows the DLP out of the water and I could care less about the screen size if the PQ doesn't satisfy me.

Which Sammy blows which DLP out of the water? I have been watching one of the best LCDs and one of the best DLPs (both Sammys) side by side in my own home for a week now with all kinds of content, and there is no blowing of anything out of the water.


Where does this terminology come from, anyway? "Blows it out of the water"? One TV "destroys" another? Are all modern tv buyers video-gamers? Or does anybody watch movies anymore

 

[adone36]

The 6000 is not "one of their best", it is "cool" for people that want "thin".

 

[aydu]

There is a line of thought that goes "I bought it, it was expensive, it must be the best". Not always accurate, but does make you feel better about spending an excess amount on a TV.

 

[hdinept]

Sort of the Sony line of thinking...at least in the past.

Went with the B630 over the LED edge lit models ( I saw the corner darkness and some flashlighting in BB and decided it wasn't worth 600 more) and have been very happy so far. Coming from a Panny plasma had to tone it done a bit but the pic looks just fine when modified.

 

[mengu7]

top 3 things that bother me about DLP are:

1. terrible input lag compared to plasma and LCD. avoid DLP if you're a gamer

2. lamp replacement every 2 years or so.

3. although not as big and heavy as old projection TV, they still take up big space compared to 1.2"-4" thick LCDs.


traditonally DLP have more screen size per dollar advantage. (although I saw a Sharp 65" LCD for $2499 clearance at electronics express)

PQ is debatable, but I MUCH prefer LCD.


if it was 2005,2006 I probably would've chosen a DLP due to much better size per dollar advantage. but today I don't see one single reason to even consider a DLP, and I think that's the reason why most retailers don't even carry them anymore. quality of LCD TVs are getting better and better while prices are coming down significantly.

 

[aydu]

If you want a big screen tv, DLP is still the king of the hill. 65 - 85 inch screens are a rarity in LCD (65 seems to be the top size, and rare).


Pricewise, DLP is a bargain.


A local shop had to change their ad banner on their building from "Big Screen TVs" to "Home Theater" due to the downsizing of screens. This is according to the owner of the shop.

 

[Corpsman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mengu7 /forum/post/16927879


top 3 things that bother me about DLP are:

1. terrible input lag compared to plasma and LCD. avoid DLP if you're a gamer

2. lamp replacement every 2 years or so.

3. although not as big and heavy as old projection TV, they still take up big space compared to 1.2"-4" thick LCDs.


traditonally DLP have more screen size per dollar advantage. (although I saw a Sharp 65" LCD for $2499 clearance at electronics express)

PQ is debatable, but I MUCH prefer LCD.


if it was 2005,2006 I probably would've chosen a DLP due to much better size per dollar advantage. but today I don't see one single reason to even consider a DLP, and I think that's the reason why most retailers don't even carry them anymore. quality of LCD TVs are getting better and better while prices are coming down significantly.

I have a PS3 attached to my 73" DLP and one attached to my Sharp LCD. Neither set has lag issues while playing video games. Is this type of assumptions/statements just regurgitation of rhetoric? How is it that you describe it as "terrible" when I notice none? I have a media niche. My DLP 73" Takes up no more room than an LCD placed in the same spot. As far as "heavy", my 73" DLP weighs much less than a comparably sized LCD or Plasma would weigh, if they had a set that large. DLP lamps do not have to be replaced every 2 years and when they do need to be replaced they are only $100.

 

[steam engine]

Anyone know if we might have a 65" LCD for $6,000 or less by Christmas? i find the RE very distracting in a DLP.

 

[mengu7]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Corpsman /forum/post/16931872


I have a PS3 attached to my 73" DLP and one attached to my Sharp LCD. Neither set has lag issues while playing video games. Is this type of assumptions/statements just regurgitation of rhetoric? How is it that you describe it as "terrible" when I notice none? I have a media niche. My DLP 73" Takes up no more room than an LCD placed in the same spot. As far as "heavy", my 73" DLP weighs much less than a comparably sized LCD or Plasma would weigh, if they had a set that large. DLP lamps do not have to be replaced every 2 years and when they do need to be replaced they are only $100.

notice I said lamp replacement "every 2 year or so" and I think that is a reasonable estimate. of course, there will be cases where people replacing a lamp every 6-8 months or every 3-4 years. I thought they were a bit more more than $100 for the parts only but I could be wrong.
http://tv.about.com/od/dlp/a/DLPprojlamp.htm


as for input lag, some people are less sensitve than others. the lag might be non issue for some but unreasonable for hardcore gamers who are playing timing sensitive games. but the fact is, DLP is known to have the worst input lag compared to plasma and LCD. gamers should consider that info if they're shopping for a HDTV.


my friend bought a Samsung 56" DLP back in 2006. since his room is pretty small, he complains that it takes up too much space in his room. he said multiple times that he wish he had a slightly smaller size 52" LCD that he could just hang on his wall to save some space. but back when bought the TV(2006) that wasn't an option because 50"+ LCD price was just too high.

 

[KyleLC]



Quote:
Originally Posted by steam engine /forum/post/16932212


Anyone know if we might have a 65" LCD for $6,000 or less by Christmas? i find the RE very distracting in a DLP.

Sharp has been making 65" TVs for about three years that have been available for less than $6000. Sony recently came out with one with a MSRP of $4999, and Sharp and Samsung are coming out with new ones, too.


See this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1164745

 

[StylinRed]

ive got both


honestly i dont notice a real difference between either, i think the only real concern with people is the aesthetic value; some people just want to get as much space as they can out of an area even though they won't be using that extra 8" anyway


i dont really buy into the "lag" issue for gamers... im heavily into fps games and im always on the top3 for scores etc and i dont feel that a dlp hampers my gaming expierience at all compared to an lcd or plasma/ however i have heard people complain all the time about screen lag i just assume they suck and they have to find something to blame

 

[steam engine]

Thanks for the info Kyle