Anyone here have personal experience with modern 3D DLP TVs?

[mkanet]

I'm in the market for a new HTPC display. I've never owned or seen a DLP TV in person. I have one room that needs a large 3DTV/PC monitor; which the size of the the TV (in depth) is not at all an issue.

I'm curious how does the best DLP TV's picture quality stack up against plasma and LCD? Is the only issue with DLP TV's the physical size of the TV's depth only?

[medwynd]

Originally Posted by mkanet

I'm in the market for a new HTPC display. I've never owned or seen a DLP TV in person. I have one room that needs a large 3DTV/PC monitor; which the size of the the TV (in depth) is not at all an issue.

I'm curious how does the best DLP TV's picture quality stack up against plasma and LCD? Is the only issue with DLP TV's the physical size of the TV's depth only?

I have a Mitsubishi WD-82738, 82" 3D DLP and like it a lot. Before I picked it up this year I had a 71" Samsung that I liked a lot as well.

I don't find the depth of the tv an issue at all. It is nothing like the old rear projection sets. I think the whole tv weighs maybe 125 pounds, easy enough for me and the wife to move.

I'm still not really sold on 3D. I have tried it out on this tv and it worked fine, I just can't see investing that much money into the technology right now. The cost of glasses, etc is just too expensive.

With a DLP you are paying for size. The trade off with and LCD is the extreme contrast you get with an LCD. I personally have never really been a fan of plasmas having seen issues with burn in on my friends plasma sets.

A DLP has been perfect for us. We have had a DLP for 6-ish years now and love it. You get a large screen at an affordable price without having to worry about a pixel going dead on an LCD or worrying about the burn in on a plasma. For us it pretty much was a no brainer.

I do recall hearing something about some extremely large LCD's coming out soon and I think Mitsu just released there 92" DLP sets.

[mkanet]

Thanks for responding so quickly. However, I'm curious what the picture quality is like compared to plasma/LCD. I dont care about the depth of the TV either at least for the room I need it for. I just want to know if DLP goes head on with plasma and LCD how it compares in terms of picture quality (color reproduction, brightness, detail, motion, viewing angle, etc.

Originally Posted by medwynd

I have a Mitsubishi WD-82738, 82" 3D DLP and like it a lot. Before I picked it up this year I had a 71" Samsung that I liked a lot as well.

I don't find the depth of the tv an issue at all. It is nothing like the old rear projection sets. I think the whole tv weighs maybe 125 pounds, easy enough for me and the wife to move.

I'm still not really sold on 3D. I have tried it out on this tv and it worked fine, I just can't see investing that much money into the technology right now. The cost of glasses, etc is just too expensive.

With a DLP you are paying for size. The trade off with and LCD is the extreme contrast you get with an LCD. I personally have never really been a fan of plasmas having seen issues with burn in on my friends plasma sets.

A DLP has been perfect for us. We have had a DLP for 6-ish years now and love it. You get a large screen at an affordable price without having to worry about a pixel going dead on an LCD or worrying about the burn in on a plasma. For us it pretty much was a no brainer.

I do recall hearing something about some extremely large LCD's coming out soon and I think Mitsu just released there 92" DLP sets.

[Fuzzy]

I consider DLP as far superior to pretty much any LCD or plasma on the market. The more modern, LED lit, DLP's picture quality is, well.. perfect. The ONLY trade off with a DLP is the form factor. If you have a location that works with it, then it's a non-issue. For me, I have it in a corner, so it doesn't matter. My parents have on in an alcove above their fireplace (so it's flush with the wall). Their's is a lamp based TV, and I certainly wouldn't recommend lamp based. The quality suffers, especially as the lamp ages, and light output decreases. My 3 year old Samsung HL-T6189S though, with LED lighting, is still as perfect as the day it was delivered.

I don't see how you can consider contrast BETTER on an LCD. On an LCD screen, an off pixel can still only be so dark, because the back light is behind the entire array, all the time. DLP, on the other hand, when a pixel is off, it is completely off. No light is reflected to that portion of the screen.

As for 3D, i have never considered the cost to be too much, though I bought early, before 3D sets were trendy. BASIC 3D glasses are relatively cheap. It's the 'fancy' looking ones that are trying to look like sunglasses that are expensive (I think I paid $120 for the transmitter and 2 pairs of glasses for my samsung from i-glassesstore.com). I bought them long before 3D BluRay, and actually used them quite often for gaming (big screen, 3D gaming, is a great experience).

[stanger89]

So you guys don't have an issue with the rear projection-ness? Personally never seen a rear projection set I liked, though I haven't looked at them in a while.

Personally I love DLP, but only in front projection, I've just never liked the way rear projection "looks", the ones I've seen tend to hotspot a bit. That an the focus never seems quite perfect and there's generally overscan.

[medwynd]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I consider DLP as far superior to pretty much any LCD or plasma on the market. The more modern, LED lit, DLP's picture quality is, well.. perfect.

Both of mine are lamp based, I haven't had any LED DLP's.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stanger89

So you guys don't have an issue with the rear projection-ness? Personally never seen a rear projection set I liked, though I haven't looked at them in a while.

Personally I love DLP, but only in front projection, I've just never liked the way rear projection "looks", the ones I've seen tend to hotspot a bit. That an the focus never seems quite perfect and there's generally overscan.

I'm right there with you with the exception of the diamond mitsubishi sets. I was going to get one of those before I decided on FP. Nice tv's if you get one with correct geometry and no hotspotting. Lamps being $100 is pretty sweet also. They go all the way tp 92" now so you can get a huge screen in a self contained unit.

[sleonard]

I have a Mitsubishi WD-73738 I got on clearance for $1000 last spring.

To my eyes the picture is superior in all ways to LCD and Plasma. I have it in a very bright living room with lots of windows and still have to turn the lamp down a bit (which also leads to longer lamp life). Contrast and color are great. The detail and motion are where DLP really outshine the competition. No motion artifact whatsoever (DLP is thousands of times faster than LCD) and the picture detail is so good you might as will be looking thru the actual camera lens. The picture is also uniform across the screen with no hotspots and the viewing angle is not a problem in my living room.

In sort, Modern DLP rear projection not only competes but is superior across the board.

It does however have some drawbacks. The thickness is not an issue for me but is for some, there is overscan that mostly affects PC desktops and there are some small geometry issues in the corners. I don't notice this when watching video but the straight lines in the Sage Menus show it. I couldn't keep my eyes off it at first but stopped noticing pretty quickly.

Also, bulbs will need to be replaced every few years unless you get one of the new and expensive Mits lasers, and there are a few moving parts such as color wheels that tend to go bad after a few years. I have a first generation Samsung DLP that has a bad "something or other" that will cost more to replace than the TV is worth. OTOH I don't think any other modern tech will last the 25 years a good old fashioned tube TV would. I now hope I get 10 years out of any TV I buy.

S

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by medwynd

Both of mine are lamp based, I haven't had any LED DLP's.

And unfortunately, you never will. When Samsung backed out of the DLP-RP market, it was because the market has chosen form factor over picture quality. The only reason mitsubishi is still making DLP's is for the size (in fact, they appear to be dropping anything less than 73" in the next year or so). It is a real shame too, because there really isn't a decent alternative to my LED DLP should it reach end of life.

[thomaszoo]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

And unfortunately, you never will. When Samsung backed out of the DLP-RP market, it was because the market has chosen form factor over picture quality. The only reason mitsubishi is still making DLP's is for the size (in fact, they appear to be dropping anything less than 73" in the next year or so). It is a real shame too, because there really isn't a decent alternative to my LED DLP should it reach end of life.

I have a Samsung HL67A750 that I bought in March 2009 that I am thrilled with to this day. No lamp to replace and no color wheel (like the lamp based DLPs). Very energy effecient compared to the even the most efficient LCDs or plasmas. Mine is in a corner and is tapered on the back so it actually looks more like a "flat screen". Since it is in a corner, you literally can't get far enough off-axis to make much of a difference in picture quality.

I actually bought it with the thought that in a few years really big LED LCDs would be reasonable with great pictures. I still haven't seen one that I would trade my Samsung HL67A750 for. Like Fuzzy, I am afraid there will not be a good alternative to my LED DLP when it reaches the end of it's life.

Wayne

[sleonard]

The Mitsubishi Laservue's are comparable to the LED DLP's, I believe. They use a laser instead of a replacable lamp and I don't think they have a color wheel either. They are quite pricey though.

S

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by sleonard

The Mitsubishi Laservue's are comparable to the LED DLP's, I believe. They use a laser instead of a replacable lamp and I don't think they have a color wheel either. They are quite pricey though.

S

That price makes them too far out of reach for the not any better pq. Once they figure out how to make them cheaper they will be fantastic.

I liked the samsung led dlp's but the lower end ones were horribly off as far as gamma and color go out of the box. Once you calibrate you are good to go, but we all know 90% of people don't bother to calibrate.

The 3D demos I saw for the dlp's were ok, but I'm not big on 3d anyway. Makes my head hurt.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

That price makes them too far out of reach for the not any better pq. Once they figure out how to make them cheaper they will be fantastic.

I liked the samsung led dlp's but the lower end ones were horribly off as far as gamma and color go out of the box. Once you calibrate you are good to go, but we all know 90% of people don't bother to calibrate.

The 3D demos I saw for the dlp's were ok, but I'm not big on 3d anyway. Makes my head hurt.

90% don't care about it either. The laservue IS comparable in quality, but not in price... and frankly, it is there to make the tv's SEEM better by jacking up the price for no reason. LED backlights are the best, for color accuracy, clarity, black levels, AND price. Anything else is there to make you spend more money (either in the initial purchase for the 'My tv runs with LAZORZ' crowd, or in replacement lamps for the others).

and it's bad 3D content that makes you head hurt, not 3D in general. Good quality 3D is as easy on the eyes as looking out a window... but it's hard to make 'sensational' and 'good quality 3D' at the same time, so feature movies will always end up with some discomfort. I can send you some 3D films that are all done in accurate 3D space, and you'd be surprised how easy they are to watch (in some ways, easier than 2D).

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

and it's bad 3D content that makes you head hurt, not 3D in general. Good quality 3D is as easy on the eyes as looking out a window... but it's hard to make 'sensational' and 'good quality 3D' at the same time, so feature movies will always end up with some discomfort. I can send you some 3D films that are all done in accurate 3D space, and you'd be surprised how easy they are to watch (in some ways, easier than 2D).

Agree there to me there still isn't any better than avatar some 3d is just plain terrible

[Fuzzy]

Avatar was much better than a lot out there, mostly because it WAS all shot beyond the screen depth, enhancing the window effect. He also was paying attention of how long he was staying at the less comfortable scenes. Most the advances they developed into their cameras were all about being able to control the depth field to minimize unnatural composition.

Here's a good example of painless 3D. http://www.dzignlight.com/stereo/skydiving.shtml

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

90% don't care about it either. The laservue IS comparable in quality, but not in price... and frankly, it is there to make the tv's SEEM better by jacking up the price for no reason. LED backlights are the best, for color accuracy, clarity, black levels, AND price. Anything else is there to make you spend more money (either in the initial purchase for the 'My tv runs with LAZORZ' crowd, or in replacement lamps for the others).

I wonder why mits never looked into LED's for a light source? They would obviously be cheaper than the laser sets. I love dlp's especially for the price/performance aspect, I just wish samsung would have kept making them so we could still buy the LED sets to not worry about bulbs.

I think the only reason mits went with lasers was they could make the tv thinner (as stated above this is a "thin is in" time we live in which I don't understand). I guess they couldn't figure out a way to make them cheap too. I have to think that the laservue sets have a VERY small following. The price just gets you a thinner tv with no PQ benefit over led, or bulb. Well, the black levels might be a little better.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Avatar was much better than a lot out there, mostly because it WAS all shot beyond the screen depth, enhancing the window effect. He also was paying attention of how long he was staying at the less comfortable scenes. Most the advances they developed into their cameras were all about being able to control the depth field to minimize unnatural composition.

Most of Avatar I couldn't even tell was 3D, the parts I could tell were parts that were annoyingly-3D.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Most of Avatar I couldn't even tell was 3D, the parts I could tell were parts that were annoyingly-3D.

3D isn't supposed to stand out. As I mentioned, good 3D is actually supposed to make it a better experience, not a 'cooler' one. Do you notice the real world being 3D?

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

I wonder why mits never looked into LED's for a light source? They would obviously be cheaper than the laser sets. I love dlp's especially for the price/performance aspect, I just wish samsung would have kept making them so we could still buy the LED sets to not worry about bulbs.

I think the only reason mits went with lasers was they could make the tv thinner (as stated above this is a "thin is in" time we live in which I don't understand). I guess they couldn't figure out a way to make them cheap too. I have to think that the laservue sets have a VERY small following. The price just gets you a thinner tv with no PQ benefit over led, or bulb. Well, the black levels might be a little better.

The laser tv is no thinner than an LED one. The depth is basically the width of the DLP engine, plus the required reflection angle. Laser tv's are simply to put some new buzzword to keep the public thinking RP is still relevant... I KNOW it's still relevant, because I have one (the best one made).. and it is no longer made (but a few can still be bought for nearly twice what mine cost new).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

3D isn't supposed to stand out. As I mentioned, good 3D is actually supposed to make it a better experience, not a 'cooler' one.

Which is probably my biggest "problem" with 3D. It tends to be either annoying/gimicky or unnoticeable. So what's the point in investing in equipment to support it if it doesn't add anything.

Do you notice the real world being 3D?

I do, but more in an interactive way, I can focus on different differences, when I move my head, perspective changes. Neither of which happen/exist with 3D display (movies), which is another problem for me and 3D, I find myself constantly trying (unsuccessfully) to focus on different depths.