LCD or DLP

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
45 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as
    time passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP
    after a few years and have a display that is as good as the day you
    bought it. Advantage DLP.
    Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
    Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    will always drive you nuts.
    I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
    me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
    advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
    image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least
    on paper.

    In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
    > I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
    > LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michael Lankton wrote:
    > LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as
    > time passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP
    > after a few years and have a display that is as good as the day you
    > bought it. Advantage DLP.
    > Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
    > Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    > If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    > will always drive you nuts.
    > I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
    > me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
    > advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
    > image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least
    > on paper.
    >
    > In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
    >
    >>I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
    >>LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
    >>
    >>

    Actually, changing the lamp is as easy and inexpensive in an LCD
    television as DLP. This is very important but is a wash when comparing
    LCD and DLP.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Rick" <Rick@rick.net> wrote in message
    news:u4qdnTaRU4qVClncRVn-qA@midco.net...
    > Michael Lankton wrote:
    >> LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as time
    >> passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP after a
    >> few years and have a display that is as good as the day you bought it.
    >> Advantage DLP.
    >> Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
    >> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    >> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    >> will always drive you nuts.
    >> I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
    >> me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
    >> advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
    >> image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least on
    >> paper.
    >>
    >> In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
    >>
    >>>I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
    >>>LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    > Actually, changing the lamp is as easy and inexpensive in an LCD
    > television as DLP. This is very important but is a wash when comparing LCD
    > and DLP.

    True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to have a
    degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there to
    degrade other than the bulb?

    When I went to buy my set I had my mind made up on getting a DLP because I
    thought they had the better picture, but then I started reading about
    reliability issues with the color wheels, rainbows, etc. In the end I
    bought a Hitachi 60V715 LCD mainly because I thought it was the best T.V.
    for the money. I think both technology's are still evolving so you just
    have to get the set that looks good to you and that you can get the best
    deal on. I also bought the 4 year extended warranty and I never buy
    extended warranty's, but felt it necessary considering the how new these
    technologies are. BTW, I also got mine 36 months interest free, helped make
    my decision.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to have
    a
    > degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there to
    > degrade other than the bulb?

    While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
    system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip vs
    the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
    passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.

    The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
    degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
    people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these problems
    have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
    instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
    you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
    images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
    from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
    sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be more
    sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
    panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
    applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
    significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more abuse
    of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.

    Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
    next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be more
    reliable.

    Leonard
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
    news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
    >
    > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    >> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
    >> have
    > a
    >> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
    >> to
    >> degrade other than the bulb?
    >
    > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
    > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
    > vs
    > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
    > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
    >
    > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
    > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
    > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
    > problems
    > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
    > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
    > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
    > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
    > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
    > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
    > more
    > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
    > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
    > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
    > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
    > abuse
    > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
    >
    > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
    > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
    > more
    > reliable.
    >
    > Leonard

    Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
    DLP's are going to be much more reliable?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:NJ2xd.56635$yf.31807@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    >
    > "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
    > news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
    > >
    > > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > >> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
    > >> have
    > > a
    > >> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
    > >> to
    > >> degrade other than the bulb?
    > >
    > > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The
    DLP
    > > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP
    chip
    > > vs
    > > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the
    light
    > > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
    > >
    > > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
    > > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors,
    many
    > > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
    > > problems
    > > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
    > > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video
    projectors
    > > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
    > > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat
    damage
    > > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go
    bad
    > > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
    > > more
    > > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on
    the
    > > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
    > > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
    > > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
    > > abuse
    > > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
    > >
    > > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
    the
    > > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
    > > more
    > > reliable.
    > >
    > > Leonard
    >
    > Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
    > DLP's are going to be much more reliable?

    LCD is a well established technology that predates DLP by many years, DLP is
    new and only one company, TI, builds the chips. Every major manufacturer
    with any research capacity is working on technologies to replace LCD, and
    the reflective technologies seem to be the future. I did not say that LCD
    was much inferior to DLP, but there are advantages to the latter. LCD is
    not a bad buying decision if you like the way it looks or see rainbowing in
    the DLP. The fact is, however, that the problems with rainbowing are
    minimal and much less than early designs, and LCD is rapidly becoming an
    also-ran in performance at most price points.

    Leonard
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
    news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
    >
    > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > > True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
    have
    > a
    > > degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
    to
    > > degrade other than the bulb?
    >
    > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
    > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
    vs
    > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
    > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
    >
    > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
    > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
    > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
    problems
    > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
    > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
    > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
    > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
    > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
    > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
    more
    > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
    > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
    > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
    > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
    abuse
    > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
    >
    > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
    > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
    more
    > reliable.

    Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no brainer
    that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

    >
    > Leonard
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
    technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for a
    42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
    throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
    lost out to today's RCA color system. Clearly, the future must lie with
    totally solid-state sets, not with spinning mechanical gizmos.

    The real issue should be choosing either an affordable RP technology or an
    expensive true solid-state one such as direct view LCD and plasma.

    The amount I was willing to spend right now to indulge my HD craving was
    enough for my Sony RPLCD, and for what it's worth the picture is perfectly
    beautiful 99 per cent of the time, aside from the odd movie scene shot in
    near darkness without much contrast. I can forgive that missing 1 per cent
    since it's saving me big bucks over the cost of a comparable plasma, and
    those same bucks will probably pay for a better set later on.

    In a nutshell, enjoy something affordable now while technology marches on
    and prices inch downward. Every time I watch a good DVD movie I'm
    persuaded once again that my RPLCD gives good value.

    --
    Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
    Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
    Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
    > When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
    > technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for a
    > 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
    > throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
    > lost out to today's RCA color system.
    >
    The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
    almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
    unwatchable.

    The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
    reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD (especially
    the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.

    John
  10. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "larrylook" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote in message
    news:CbOdnRsjkMudiVjcRVn-vg@comcast.com...

    > Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no
    brainer
    > that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

    Care to guess which they had more of to sell or which they were getting
    bigger commissions or spiffs on?

    Not a single manufacturer that I deal with expects LCD to be more reliable.
    It is important to understand that the rest of the sets are very similar and
    you are more likely to have lamp ballast, power supply, fan, digital, or
    tuner problems with either than have either a DLP chip or LCD panel problem,
    in the long run.

    Leonard
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I hear peeple say about the motion smear on the LCD and the Rainbow effect
    on the DLP's but I have never personally witnessed either. I watched the
    Falcons beat the Panthers last night after watchin the KY-Louisville
    basketball game yesterday afternoon, and not a smear out there.

    Go figure.

    Jim (Sony 42" LCD)

    "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
    news:cq3d97$12qn$2@news.iquest.net...
    > In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
    > Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
    >> When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
    >> technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for
    >> a
    >> 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
    >> throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
    >> lost out to today's RCA color system.
    >>
    > The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
    > almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
    > unwatchable.
    >
    > The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
    > reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD (especially
    > the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.
    >
    > John
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Sorry for the top post...
    Same here, I watched the game on my Sony 42' LCD RPTV and I didn't see any
    smear or anything. I guess it all boils down to what you can get at the
    time. I did a lot of research and I went with the LCD RP. I'm happy with
    it and the Antenna HD reception is excellent! I'm not a salesman or
    anything, I just want the best value for my dollar.
    Strychnine

    "Jim" <jwhite18816NOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:Y5fxd.4312$RH4.2331@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >I hear peeple say about the motion smear on the LCD and the Rainbow effect
    >on the DLP's but I have never personally witnessed either. I watched the
    >Falcons beat the Panthers last night after watchin the KY-Louisville
    >basketball game yesterday afternoon, and not a smear out there.
    >
    > Go figure.
    >
    > Jim (Sony 42" LCD)
    >
    > "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
    > news:cq3d97$12qn$2@news.iquest.net...
    >> In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
    >> Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
    >>> When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
    >>> technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went
    >>> for a
    >>> 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
    >>> throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
    >>> lost out to today's RCA color system.
    >>>
    >> The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
    >> almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
    >> unwatchable.
    >>
    >> The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
    >> reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD
    >> (especially
    >> the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.
    >>
    >> John
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:39:35 -0500, "larrylook"
    <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote:

    >Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no brainer
    >that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

    What they tell you in stores have more to do with what they want to
    sell than what you want to buy.
    Thumper
    To reply drop XYZ in address
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <NJ2xd.56635$yf.31807@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
    jdotson@stx.rr.com says...
    >
    > "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
    > news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
    > >
    > > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > >> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
    > >> have
    > > a
    > >> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
    > >> to
    > >> degrade other than the bulb?
    > >
    > > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
    > > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
    > > vs
    > > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
    > > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
    > >
    > > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
    > > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
    > > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
    > > problems
    > > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
    > > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
    > > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
    > > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
    > > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
    > > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
    > > more
    > > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
    > > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
    > > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
    > > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
    > > abuse
    > > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
    > >
    > > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
    > > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
    > > more
    > > reliable.
    > >
    > > Leonard
    >
    > Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
    > DLP's are going to be much more reliable?
    >


    Because they have to pay TI royalties, and to purchase
    the chip. LCD's can be built "in house" at half the
    cost, so net profit for the manufacture is higher.


    --
    www.fiveminutesoffame.com
    Get your five minutes of FAME
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <eIydnSrN0vxMJFjcRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
    "Strychnine" <BeERm3@b33R.IcYEKoLD.N3t> writes:
    >
    > Sorry for the top post...
    > Same here, I watched the game on my Sony 42' LCD RPTV and I didn't see any
    > smear or anything.
    >
    Perhaps the most significant artifact is that you'll find that the
    Sony Wega can cause small detail to nearly disappear when it moves through
    the field f the screen. I haven't seen that effect in any other place
    except when applying frame averaging on video. I definitely haven't seen
    it intrinsically on DLP or CRT. I was quite surprised...

    On the positive side, the Sony does have an apparently 'sharp' picture.

    John
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...

    >
    > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
    the
    > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should
    be more
    > reliable.
    >
    > Leonard

    Note that this is not a consensus opinion but just your preference.
    DLPs are *not* objectively better looking. Take a look at the latest
    issue of the perfect vision where they compare a Sony WEGA IV LCD to
    the Toshiba DLP. Side by side the pictures were very similar.
    However, after you read the review, you sense that the LCD was the
    preferred TV (though they didn't declare a winner in this 'shoot-out').

    I can't watch DLPs. They give me a headache and the 'shimmering' on
    bright broadcast elements is very distracting. As is motion artifacts
    that I often notice. Of all high def TVs to chose from, DLPs would
    actually be my last choice.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "burwil" <burwil@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1103556243.512875.78820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
    > > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    >
    > >
    > > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
    > the
    > > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should
    > be more
    > > reliable.
    > >
    > > Leonard
    >
    > Note that this is not a consensus opinion but just your preference.
    > DLPs are *not* objectively better looking. Take a look at the latest
    > issue of the perfect vision where they compare a Sony WEGA IV LCD to
    > the Toshiba DLP. Side by side the pictures were very similar.
    > However, after you read the review, you sense that the LCD was the
    > preferred TV (though they didn't declare a winner in this 'shoot-out').
    >
    > I can't watch DLPs. They give me a headache and the 'shimmering' on
    > bright broadcast elements is very distracting. As is motion artifacts
    > that I often notice. Of all high def TVs to chose from, DLPs would
    > actually be my last choice.

    I said mostly. Not always. Actually, my preference is still a good CRT
    based set, front or rear projected, depending on the application. You will
    find people who prefer any of the technologies, and no one is telling you
    what to watch. There is much closer to a consensus that DLP looks better in
    general than LCD than vice versa, however. If you look at the trends in
    manufacturing among the major players, it is definitely away from LCD for
    front and rear projection applications. Even Sharp considers DLP and
    similar technologies to be the future for these applications, and they have
    been doing LCD for longer than most.

    Display induced motion artifacts are worse on LCD than any other technology.
    Just about the only display induced artifact related to motion in a DLP is
    rainbowing, and the newer sets have minimized that to the point that
    virtually no one notices it anymore. The better LCDs are also very good, but
    clearly inferior to DLP in this respect. Of course, you may be particularly
    sensitive to DLPs imperfections. Some people are bothered more by certain
    issues. If you don't like it don't buy it. PDP low level grunge drives me
    nuts.

    The Sony is a fine set. We sell a few of them, but people mostly prefer the
    Mitsubishi and Optoma DLPs in head to head comparisons.

    Leonard
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
    news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
    > Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    > If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    > will always drive you nuts.

    I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see a
    screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes are
    different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a store and
    stare at each set before you buy.

    Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty won't
    kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.

    For the record, I love my DLP.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:15:22 GMT, "FlyingElvis"
    <flyingelvis@totallymod.com> wrote:

    >"Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
    >news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
    >> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    >> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    >> will always drive you nuts.
    >
    >I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see a
    >screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes are
    >different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a store and
    >stare at each set before you buy.
    >
    >Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty won't
    >kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.
    >
    >For the record, I love my DLP.
    >
    Just out of curiosity, is your 61" DLP the new 6.85" deep RCA Scenium
    HD61THW263? I haven't been able to see it yet, but I've read the two
    reviews of it, the CNET negative review and the Sound and Vision very
    positive review at
    http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=1&article_id=717&page_number=3&preview=
    and I'm real curious.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    There is no consensus about DLP being better LCD....cite it. Just
    because you say it is so doesn't make it so.

    As far as motion artifacts are concerned, everything I have seen or
    read on other boards point to DLP being worse. Especially with SD
    television where dithering and motion artifacts can get quite ugly. I
    frankly don't think you have spent much time watching LCDs....I've
    compared them side by side for football and I can't see how you can say
    that motion is handled better by DLPs. It's just not true.

    There is no television technology with more PQ flaws than DLP. Clay
    faces on DVDs (quite humerous looking sometimes), rainbows that many
    see, pervasive dithering on less than the best sources, 'shimmering' on
    bright scenes, and bad blacks (compared to CRTs),

    BTW, my current TV is a Pioneer Elite CRT so I am also quite particular
    about my PQ. Enough so that I spent a couple hours last weekend
    pulling off the screen and cleaning the CRT lenses and
    lenticular/fresnel screens. Both DLP and LCD technology take a back
    seat to my Elite. Only in bright rooms does picture quality suffer
    compared to fixed pixel displays. Arguing that DLP displays a better
    picture than LCD is a fruitless cause. Both have significant display
    flaws that make choosing one over the other and exercise of choosing
    the flaws you can more easily live with.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In <urNxd.3473$iC4.294@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> FlyingElvis wrote:
    > "Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
    > news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
    >> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal
    >> breaker. If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can
    >> because they will always drive you nuts.
    >
    > I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see
    > a screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes
    > are different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a
    > store and stare at each set before you buy.
    >
    > Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty
    > won't kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.
    >
    > For the record, I love my DLP.
    >

    Dittos about the DLP, I love mine too. You are right about LCDs, a
    certain percentage of pixels need to be dead for them to replace the
    screen. At 2% that is over 18k pixels on a 1280x720 display. Ridiculous.
    I am fortunate in that my 3 year old 17" Apple Cinema Display has only
    two dead pixels that I can find running screen color tests, and I would
    never notice them if I wasn't looking for them. I sure as hell would
    notice dead pixels on a 52" sitting in my living room, and it would
    drive me nuts.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Michael Lankton wrote:

    > Seems like you have chosen convergence issues and interlacing
    artifacts.
    > You're right, all display technologies are flawed. Pick the defects
    you
    > can live with and be happy with your set.
    >
    > CRT RPTV-interlacing artifacts

    Wrong.

    > convergence issues

    Wrong.

    >picture gets soft as guns age

    Wrong....at least after four years of ownership. Wrong. Everytime I
    see a HD demo/live source material I'm struck at how well my Elite
    compares. Heck, it's still better than just about everything I see
    (except plasmas....maybe).

    I suspect you don't own a high-def CRT or if you do it's either not
    very good or in need of repair.

    Hotspotting....very slight brightness drop around edges and corners.
    Yes. Poor bright light viewing. Yes. Limited viewing angle. Yes.

    Really, I don't care that people state a technology preference....or
    even trash another technology in favor of another. But I will call
    people out on stating something along the lines that
    'majority/most/expert opinion believe that DLP is superior PQ wise to
    LCD.' Just ain't so. In fact, read the newest issue of The Perfect
    Vision and see the Toshiba DLP v. Sony Wega comparison. They don't
    come out with a winner but it reads as if the LCD was preferred. Go to
    the AVS rear projection forum and see a recent poll where readers are
    split almost 50/50 between LCD and DLP preference. In the end, most
    unbiased observers will say choose the techology that accomodates your
    flaw tolerances best. We are in a 'tweener' era where the newer techs
    are struggling to iron out the kinks, each one flawed in different
    ways.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "FlyingElvis" <flyingelvis@totallymod.com> wrote in message
    news:urNxd.3473$iC4.294@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
    > "Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
    > news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
    >> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
    >> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
    >> will always drive you nuts.
    >
    > I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see a
    > screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes are
    > different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a store and
    > stare at each set before you buy.
    >
    > Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty won't
    > kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.
    >
    > For the record, I love my DLP.

    How close were you sitting to that LCD TV to see the "screen-door effect"?
    I tried it with my Sony 60XS955 the other night and found that I could only
    see it if was sitting no farther than 3 feet from the screen, and I had to
    strain to see it at that distance. At any normal distance from the screen,
    there was no screen-door effect.

    I also worried about bad pixels before I got my TV but there were none. And
    none on any of the LCD TV's I looked at closely in stores before I bought
    it. A dealer I know told me that he rarely saw any anymore and that the few
    that he had seen could not be seen by the TV viewer from a normal viewing
    distance. So, I don't think that this is something you need to worry too
    much about.

    Some stores, such as Sears and Ultimate Electronics, have 30-day periods
    when you can return a TV set for any reason. That eliminates some of the
    worry about such things as bad pixels.

    mack
    austin
  24. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In <1103637530.720446.272640@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> burwil wrote:
    > BTW, my current TV is a Pioneer Elite CRT so I am also quite
    > particular about my PQ. Enough so that I spent a couple hours last
    > weekend pulling off the screen and cleaning the CRT lenses and
    > lenticular/fresnel screens. Both DLP and LCD technology take a back
    > seat to my Elite. Only in bright rooms does picture quality suffer
    > compared to fixed pixel displays. Arguing that DLP displays a better
    > picture than LCD is a fruitless cause. Both have significant display
    > flaws that make choosing one over the other and exercise of choosing
    > the flaws you can more easily live with.
    >
    Seems like you have chosen convergence issues and interlacing artifacts.
    You're right, all display technologies are flawed. Pick the defects you
    can live with and be happy with your set.

    CRT RPTV-interlacing artifacts, convergence issues, picture gets soft as
    guns age
    JVC D-ILA-convergence issues, motion blurring, strange color
    reproduction
    LCD RPTV-screen door, lcd wears out and inaccurately reproduces color
    over time, motion blurring, absolutely incapable of rendering dark
    detail (pop in Pirates of the Caribbean DVD, cue up to the fight in the
    cave scene and compare, you'll see what I'm talking about)
    DLP-some see rainbows, dithering on poor source material-analog cable
    looks like dog poo on one
    Plasma-too short a life span for how expensive they are
  25. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    DLP's use the spinning wheel to save money. Only one DLP chip is used to
    reproduce all colors. The wheel is red - green - blue glass (simplified)
    that is in front of the DLP chip at the right time to make the color image
    happen. LCD's use three panels, one for red, one for green, one for blue. In
    future, DLP's can use three chips, one for each color. No wheel needed. High
    end DLP projectors already use this technology.

    "Charles Gillen" <see-my-sig@below.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13...
    > When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
    > technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for
    > a
    > 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
    > throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
    > lost out to today's RCA color system. Clearly, the future must lie with
    > totally solid-state sets, not with spinning mechanical gizmos.
    >
    > The real issue should be choosing either an affordable RP technology or an
    > expensive true solid-state one such as direct view LCD and plasma.
    >
    > The amount I was willing to spend right now to indulge my HD craving was
    > enough for my Sony RPLCD, and for what it's worth the picture is perfectly
    > beautiful 99 per cent of the time, aside from the odd movie scene shot in
    > near darkness without much contrast. I can forgive that missing 1 per
    > cent
    > since it's saving me big bucks over the cost of a comparable plasma, and
    > those same bucks will probably pay for a better set later on.
    >
    > In a nutshell, enjoy something affordable now while technology marches on
    > and prices inch downward. Every time I watch a good DVD movie I'm
    > persuaded once again that my RPLCD gives good value.
    >
    > --
    > Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
    > Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
  26. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Funny the preview doesn't show it hot linked....<sigh>
  27. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    I checked out your AVS forum discussion links. Everything there
    appears centered on Samsumg DLP's having an audio sync problem when
    used with external speakers. The consensus also appears that it's
    related to signal processing issues of the Samsung units. I found no
    discussion there that it has anything to do with the DLP display
    technology. This is exactly consistent with what Leonard said,
    several posts back, when you claimed audio sync was an issue with DLP
    in general. He said it was more likely a digital signal processing
    issue of some low end units, not the display technology.

    There are even posters saying that they hooked up recent Samsung units
    and they worked fine, with no noticeable audio sync issues. Others
    said they only notice it when using both the internal and an external
    audio system, which Samsung advises against. When doing that, they can
    hear a slight echo. Then, we have some of the perfectionists
    suggesting particular video games to try playing to be able to notice a
    sync problem. So some people expect to buy a relatively inexpensive
    HDTV and then go out of their way to look for perfection. On that
    basis, you can find issues with many HDTVs, regardless of display type.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    > I checked out your AVS forum discussion links. Everything there
    > appears centered on Samsumg DLP's having an audio sync problem when
    > used with external speakers. The consensus also appears that it's
    > related to signal processing issues of the Samsung units. I found
    no
    > discussion there that it has anything to do with the DLP display
    > technology. This is exactly consistent with what Leonard said,
    > several posts back, when you claimed audio sync was an issue with DLP
    > in general. He said it was more likely a digital signal processing
    > issue of some low end units, not the display technology.
    >
    > There are even posters saying that they hooked up recent Samsung
    units
    > and they worked fine, with no noticeable audio sync issues. Others
    > said they only notice it when using both the internal and an external
    > audio system, which Samsung advises against. When doing that, they
    can
    > hear a slight echo. Then, we have some of the perfectionists
    > suggesting particular video games to try playing to be able to notice
    a
    > sync problem. So some people expect to buy a relatively inexpensive
    > HDTV and then go out of their way to look for perfection. On that
    > basis, you can find issues with many HDTVs, regardless of display
    type.

    I'm glad you took time to research this. These sound sync issues are
    not connected to other display technologies....though you might find an
    odd connection here and there with LCDs or plasmas or whatever. But
    there have been alot of complaints revolving around sound sync and DLP.
    Many of these people are gamers who have hooked up their consoles to a
    DLP and discovered an unexpected surprise.

    Regarding your point that this issue appears only in connection with
    external speakers.....most DVDs have the sound encoded in a format that
    assumes digital speakers. If you do not have them, you are not
    experiencing home theater as it is meant to be experienced. It never
    occurred to me, actually, to watch HD or DVDs without front and rear
    speakers, center speaker and a subwoofer.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate this
    sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what is
    supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with some
    Samsung units. That is far different from it being a DLP display
    problem in general, which is what you claimed. This is like saying
    there is a problem with CRT technology display RPTV's, that they are
    prone to turning themselves off randomly and hence inferior, because a
    while back Toshiba had that problem with some of it's RPTV units.
    Many systems have had problems of one type or another totally unrelated
    to the particluar type of display.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    > Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate this
    > sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what is
    > supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with some
    > Samsung units.

    Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a DLP.
    And the link was made with lip sync>>>>Samsung>>>>DLP because for a
    long time Samsung was the only DLP player in the market. Of course,
    the market has changed and other manufacturers have entered. Still,
    this problem isn't present with LCDs, CRTs, or plasmas.....not such a
    pervasive problem. Make the semantic argument if you like.

    I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
    technology...which you have focused on. It has others....and IMO, more
    than any other display technology (clay faces, bad blacks, shimmering,
    dithering, rainbows, eye fatigue, headaches, etc.) And getting back to
    the origin of my comments, I contested a view from another poster who
    claimed that DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best
    picture of all RPTVs. So, in other words, I'm not hung up on sound
    sync specifically.

    >That is far different from it being a DLP display
    > problem in general, which is what you claimed. This is like saying
    > there is a problem with CRT technology display RPTV's, that they are
    > prone to turning themselves off randomly and hence inferior, because
    a
    > while back Toshiba had that problem with some of it's RPTV units.
    > Many systems have had problems of one type or another totally
    unrelated
    > to the particluar type of display.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    burwil wrote:

    > I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
    > technology...which you have focused on.

    Dude, you're still doing it -- still claiming that the sound sync has
    something to do with the DLP itself. THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED!
  32. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    burwil wrote:
    > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    >
    >>Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate this
    >>sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what is
    >>supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with some
    >>Samsung units.
    >
    > Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a DLP.
    > And the link was made with lip sync>>>>Samsung>>>>DLP because for a
    > long time Samsung was the only DLP player in the market. Of course,
    > the market has changed and other manufacturers have entered. Still,
    > this problem isn't present with LCDs, CRTs, or plasmas.....not such a
    > pervasive problem. Make the semantic argument if you like.

    > I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
    > technology...which you have focused on.

    Lipsync is NOT a shortfall of DLP technology, period. It was an issue
    with certain Samsung sets, which happened to be DLP sets. If those same
    sets had been designed by Samsung with LCD technology, then the sync
    issue would have been on LCD sets. The problem that you are describing
    is unrelated to the technology.

    Furthermore, there are many, many people who have had sync problems with
    LCDs, CRTs, and plasmas. Sync issues can result from many sources,
    starting far back in the broadcast chain. Your attempt to paint this as
    a DLP problem is way off the mark.

    > It has others....and IMO, more
    > than any other display technology (clay faces, bad blacks, shimmering,
    > dithering, rainbows, eye fatigue, headaches, etc.)

    Clay faces and bad blacks do exist with DLP technology in some cases.
    However, the same problems exist - and are FAR worse - on LCD projection
    technology.

    Dithering is inherent in any technology that transforms one broadcast
    format to another (SD to HD, or 1080 to 720, or 720 to 1080), so it is
    unrelated to this discussion - it affects all of these sets equally.

    "Rainbows" are unique to one-chip DLPs. Of all the phenomena that you
    mention, this is the ONLY one that is uniquely DLP-related. And even
    this one goes away for any set that uses a three-chip DLP design.

    DLP is far from perfect, but for many (but by no means all) HD customers
    it is the best available choice today. Each of the technologies has its
    virtues and its drawbacks, and that's why none has dominated the market
    yet. DLP has its "Rainbows", LCD has its poor contrast and motion
    artifacts, Plasma has its cost and lifespan issues, CRT has size and
    weight concerns. None are perfect, yet each may turn out to be the
    "best" choice for some set of customers.

    For the record, I've had my Samsung DLP set in use here for exactly one
    year, and I'm delighted with it. I've never seen a "rainbow". I did
    have an LCD set here for a week or so before I bought the DLP. I
    returned the LCD because the black levels were so poor. I've never
    regretted that decision - the DLP was clearly the best choice for me.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    burwil wrote:
    > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    >
    >>Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate this
    >>sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what is
    >>supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with some
    >>Samsung units.
    >
    >
    > Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a DLP.

    So what? Please take a remedial logic course at your local community
    college. What you are saying is equivalent to saying:

    Yugos are bad cars. They use gasoline engines therfore all gasoline
    engines are bad.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  34. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Comments imbedded.

    "burwil" <burwil@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1104120094.337142.243840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    > > Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate this
    > > sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what is
    > > supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with some
    > > Samsung units.
    >
    > Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a DLP.
    > And the link was made with lip sync>>>>Samsung>>>>DLP because for a
    > long time Samsung was the only DLP player in the market. Of course,
    > the market has changed and other manufacturers have entered. Still,
    > this problem isn't present with LCDs, CRTs, or plasmas.....not such a
    > pervasive problem. Make the semantic argument if you like.

    You are the one playing with semantics and missing the point. The sync
    issue has nothing to do with DLP as a technology as opposed to others and
    your argument was a falacious attempt to support your opinion that DLP is
    the most flawed display technology.

    > I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
    > technology...which you have focused on. It has others....and IMO, more
    > than any other display technology (clay faces, bad blacks, shimmering,
    > dithering, rainbows, eye fatigue, headaches, etc.) And getting back to
    > the origin of my comments, I contested a view from another poster who
    > claimed that DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best
    > picture of all RPTVs. So, in other words, I'm not hung up on sound
    > sync specifically.

    I believe you threw it out in response to my posts which did NOT argue that
    "DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best picture of all
    RPTVs". I was making the comparison between LCD and DLP, and after many
    converstations with manufacturers reps, those doing sales, service training,
    and technicians, I have yet to find one who thinks that LCD will prevail as
    a technology for rear and front projections applications. Even Sony does
    not claim that the technology in LCD is inherently superior to DLP, only
    that it is more well established and mature. Sony has at least two other
    technologies in the pipeline to replace LCD as a projection technology, one
    more similar to DLP, and one more similar to LCOS.

    Please don't change my statements to justify your more polarizing position
    and recriminations.

    > >That is far different from it being a DLP display
    > > problem in general, which is what you claimed. This is like saying
    > > there is a problem with CRT technology display RPTV's, that they are
    > > prone to turning themselves off randomly and hence inferior, because
    > a
    > > while back Toshiba had that problem with some of it's RPTV units.
    > > Many systems have had problems of one type or another totally
    > unrelated
    > > to the particluar type of display.

    You obviously missed or chose to ignore this very good analogy that makes
    your use of the sound sync issue look quite silly and desparate.

    Look at the choices that manufacturers are making. The only major player to
    move toward LCD as a projection technology more than toward DLP is Sony, and
    they see it only as a temporary bridge to newer displays. Even sharp is
    using DLP in projectors because there are advantages. Consider the higher
    end of the home theater market. Runco moved to DLP several years ago.
    Yamaha and Marantz have very fine projectors as well and could choose any
    technology the want. Which do they chose? DLP.

    The point always was that both technologies have advantages and
    disadvantages, both have different looks, and some people will choose
    either. Those of us who deal with them evey day and have serviced the sets
    for many years seem to come to the same conclusions in the vast majority of
    cases. The Sony and Panasonic LCD based RPTVs are very good, the Samsung
    DLPs which most people have seen as their reference are a poor example of
    DLP and have had lots of problems that have not been typical of the other
    DLPs available over the past few years, and there are much better
    implimentations of the DLP technology. For almost as long as the Samsung
    has been available, BTW, we have had the Optoma sets which for a long time
    were the better alternative. Now there are other, better products
    available. Also, before the Samsung we had front projection DLPs, both
    single and three ship systems. From this experience it is clear that the
    problems with the Samsung product does not represent the technology well at
    all.

    I still prefer a good CRT based system, but I am sure that will not be the
    case for very long. I also doubt that it will be LCD that convinces me to
    move away from a CRT based set.

    Leonard
  35. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > Comments imbedded.
    >
    > "burwil" <burwil@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1104120094.337142.243840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > >
    > > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
    > > > Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate
    this
    > > > sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what
    is
    > > > supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with
    some
    > > > Samsung units.
    > >
    > > Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a
    DLP.
    > > And the link was made with lip sync>>>>Samsung>>>>DLP because for a
    > > long time Samsung was the only DLP player in the market. Of
    course,
    > > the market has changed and other manufacturers have entered.
    Still,
    > > this problem isn't present with LCDs, CRTs, or plasmas.....not such
    a
    > > pervasive problem. Make the semantic argument if you like.
    >
    > You are the one playing with semantics and missing the point. The
    sync
    > issue has nothing to do with DLP as a technology as opposed to others
    and
    > your argument was a falacious attempt to support your opinion that
    DLP is
    > the most flawed display technology.

    Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem. It just
    happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world and they *do*
    have the problem. And I have not heard this occuring with other
    Samsung display products.

    >
    > > I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
    > > technology...which you have focused on. It has others....and IMO,
    more
    > > than any other display technology (clay faces, bad blacks,
    shimmering,
    > > dithering, rainbows, eye fatigue, headaches, etc.) And getting
    back to
    > > the origin of my comments, I contested a view from another poster
    who
    > > claimed that DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best
    > > picture of all RPTVs. So, in other words, I'm not hung up on sound
    > > sync specifically.
    >
    > I believe you threw it out in response to my posts which did NOT
    argue that
    > "DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best picture of
    all
    > RPTVs". I was making the comparison between LCD and DLP, and after
    many
    > converstations with manufacturers reps, those doing sales, service
    training,
    > and technicians, I have yet to find one who thinks that LCD will
    prevail as
    > a technology for rear and front projections applications. Even Sony
    does
    > not claim that the technology in LCD is inherently superior to DLP,
    only
    > that it is more well established and mature. Sony has at least two
    other
    > technologies in the pipeline to replace LCD as a projection
    technology, one
    > more similar to DLP, and one more similar to LCOS.

    You said, "There is much closer to a consensus that DLP looks better
    in general than LCD than vice versa, however. If you look at the trends
    in
    manufacturing among the major players, it is definitely away from LCD
    for
    front and rear projection applications. That was a qualified and very
    accurate statement when considering the feedback that I get from
    manufacturers tech reps that I deal with."

    Perhaps you need to write your sentences clearer. One can easily claim
    that you are making the argument that these reps see the DLP picture as
    better.

    >
    > Please don't change my statements to justify your more polarizing
    position
    > and recriminations.

    LOL, polarizing???? Looking back on your posts in this thread you are
    the one that is polarlizing.....trashing LCD at every opportunity.
    Writing your comments in such a way as to suggest there is a definitive
    belief among those 'in the know' that DLP is the superior technology,
    with the better picture and LCD technology is on the way out. Please
    note, this view is in *your opinion*. Really, that is quite
    presumptuous and arrogant on your part.

    >
    > > >That is far different from it being a DLP display
    > > > problem in general, which is what you claimed. This is like
    saying
    > > > there is a problem with CRT technology display RPTV's, that they
    are
    > > > prone to turning themselves off randomly and hence inferior,
    because
    > > a
    > > > while back Toshiba had that problem with some of it's RPTV units.
    > > > Many systems have had problems of one type or another totally
    > > unrelated
    > > > to the particluar type of display.
    >
    > You obviously missed or chose to ignore this very good analogy that
    makes
    > your use of the sound sync issue look quite silly and desparate.

    You have been the DLP shill in this thread. Haven't figured out if you
    are an investor, seller or perhaps both. In any case, it is clear to
    me that your views are not impartial and to the buyer....beware.

    > Look at the choices that manufacturers are making. The only major
    player to
    > move toward LCD as a projection technology more than toward DLP is
    Sony, and
    > they see it only as a temporary bridge to newer displays. Even sharp
    is
    > using DLP in projectors because there are advantages. Consider the
    higher
    > end of the home theater market. Runco moved to DLP several years
    ago.
    > Yamaha and Marantz have very fine projectors as well and could choose
    any
    > technology the want. Which do they chose? DLP.
    >
    > The point always was that both technologies have advantages and
    > disadvantages, both have different looks, and some people will choose
    > either. Those of us who deal with them evey day and have serviced
    the sets
    > for many years seem to come to the same conclusions in the vast
    majority of
    > cases. The Sony and Panasonic LCD based RPTVs are very good, the
    Samsung
    > DLPs which most people have seen as their reference are a poor
    example of
    > DLP and have had lots of problems that have not been typical of the
    other
    > DLPs available over the past few years, and there are much better
    > implimentations of the DLP technology. For almost as long as the
    Samsung
    > has been available, BTW, we have had the Optoma sets which for a long
    time
    > were the better alternative. Now there are other, better products
    > available. Also, before the Samsung we had front projection DLPs,
    both
    > single and three ship systems. From this experience it is clear that
    the
    > problems with the Samsung product does not represent the technology
    well at
    > all.
    >
    > I still prefer a good CRT based system, but I am sure that will not
    be the
    > case for very long. I also doubt that it will be LCD that convinces
    me to
    > move away from a CRT based set.
    >
    > Leonard
  36. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    burwil wrote:

    >
    > Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem.

    Don't be so sure about that. I have several DVDs that have bad audio
    tracking on my CRT RPTV. By your "logic" that means that the problem is
    a CRT RPTV technology problem.

    > It just
    > happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world and they *do*
    > have the problem.

    What you are saying is equivalent to (again):

    Yugos are bad cars. They use gasoline engines. All gasoline engines are bad.

    Do you see the equivalence of the two statements? Do you know what
    "equivalence" means?

    > And I have not heard this occuring with other
    > Samsung display products.

    Again, what does that have to do with the display technology? Audio is
    not rendered via the DLP chip.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
  37. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    burwil wrote:

    > Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem. It
    > just happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world
    > and they *do* have the problem. And I have not heard this occuring
    > with other Samsung display products.

    But nobody is showing the slightest evidence as to why this is a DLP
    problem rather than a Samsung problem.

    Now, here is the evidence for why it is NOT a DLP problem:

    DLPs operate by moving tiny mirrors extremely quickly. Each pixel on
    the screen gets its correct brightness by means of a tiny mirror
    flipping from one position to another at just the right moment so that
    enough light gets reflected to the screen, and no more. To do this,
    their movements are timed to the microsecond. You see? DLPs are by
    their nature time-synchronized far MORE accurately than any audio
    signal ever gets to be. There's no way that DLP can, on its own,
    introduce any timing error. If it did, it would completely fail to
    make a picture.

    LCDs, on the other hand, operate slowly, and are quite capable of
    introducing a momentary lag that people just might be able perceive.
    If so, the sound portion of the TV set may be adjusted to account for
    that. Though it's not likely to be a problem, an LCD display is at
    least capable of introducing a time-synchronization error. But a DLP
    display is absolutely and utterly NOT CAPABLE of creating such an
    error. If you had a big engineering staff and TRIED to create a DLP
    display that had such a drawback, you would not be able to do it.

    The only possible source of errors is the firmware that decodes the
    video and audio streams from the digital input and has to present them
    to the output hardware at the correct times. There are many
    circumstances where errors can occur; on my set (which is a non-DLP
    Samsung), any time I'm getting bad over-the-air reception, sometimes
    the video and audio get thrown out of sync by as much as a whole
    second. And they may stay that way for quite a while. I have to
    suspect that the synchronization data in the aud-vid stream is really
    rather inadequate for recovering from errors...
  38. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
    news:1104210800.511743.116660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > burwil wrote:
    >
    >> Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem. It
    >> just happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world
    >> and they *do* have the problem. And I have not heard this occuring
    >> with other Samsung display products.
    >
    > But nobody is showing the slightest evidence as to why this is a DLP
    > problem rather than a Samsung problem.
    >
    > Now, here is the evidence for why it is NOT a DLP problem:
    >
    > DLPs operate by moving tiny mirrors extremely quickly. Each pixel on
    > the screen gets its correct brightness by means of a tiny mirror
    > flipping from one position to another at just the right moment so that
    > enough light gets reflected to the screen, and no more. To do this,
    > their movements are timed to the microsecond. You see? DLPs are by
    > their nature time-synchronized far MORE accurately than any audio
    > signal ever gets to be. There's no way that DLP can, on its own,
    > introduce any timing error. If it did, it would completely fail to
    > make a picture.
    >
    > LCDs, on the other hand, operate slowly, and are quite capable of
    > introducing a momentary lag that people just might be able perceive.
    > If so, the sound portion of the TV set may be adjusted to account for
    > that. Though it's not likely to be a problem, an LCD display is at
    > least capable of introducing a time-synchronization error. But a DLP
    > display is absolutely and utterly NOT CAPABLE of creating such an
    > error. If you had a big engineering staff and TRIED to create a DLP
    > display that had such a drawback, you would not be able to do it.
    >
    > The only possible source of errors is the firmware that decodes the
    > video and audio streams from the digital input and has to present them
    > to the output hardware at the correct times. There are many
    > circumstances where errors can occur; on my set (which is a non-DLP
    > Samsung), any time I'm getting bad over-the-air reception, sometimes
    > the video and audio get thrown out of sync by as much as a whole
    > second. And they may stay that way for quite a while. I have to
    > suspect that the synchronization data in the aud-vid stream is really
    > rather inadequate for recovering from errors...
    >
    I occasionally have the same problem with my RP CRT and have come to the
    same conclusion.
    This long and silly tirade against DLP technology has become tiresome.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Paul Kienitz wrote:
    > burwil wrote:
    >
    > > Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem. It
    > > just happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world
    > > and they *do* have the problem. And I have not heard this occuring
    > > with other Samsung display products.
    >
    > But nobody is showing the slightest evidence as to why this is a DLP
    > problem rather than a Samsung problem.
    >
    > Now, here is the evidence for why it is NOT a DLP problem:
    >
    > DLPs operate by moving tiny mirrors extremely quickly. Each pixel on
    > the screen gets its correct brightness by means of a tiny mirror
    > flipping from one position to another at just the right moment so
    that
    > enough light gets reflected to the screen, and no more. To do this,
    > their movements are timed to the microsecond. You see? DLPs are by
    > their nature time-synchronized far MORE accurately than any audio
    > signal ever gets to be. There's no way that DLP can, on its own,
    > introduce any timing error. If it did, it would completely fail to
    > make a picture.
    >
    > LCDs, on the other hand, operate slowly, and are quite capable of
    > introducing a momentary lag that people just might be able perceive.
    > If so, the sound portion of the TV set may be adjusted to account for
    > that. Though it's not likely to be a problem, an LCD display is at
    > least capable of introducing a time-synchronization error. But a DLP
    > display is absolutely and utterly NOT CAPABLE of creating such an
    > error. If you had a big engineering staff and TRIED to create a DLP
    > display that had such a drawback, you would not be able to do it.
    >
    > The only possible source of errors is the firmware that decodes the
    > video and audio streams from the digital input and has to present
    them
    > to the output hardware at the correct times. There are many
    > circumstances where errors can occur; on my set (which is a non-DLP
    > Samsung), any time I'm getting bad over-the-air reception, sometimes
    > the video and audio get thrown out of sync by as much as a whole
    > second. And they may stay that way for quite a while. I have to
    > suspect that the synchronization data in the aud-vid stream is really
    > rather inadequate for recovering from errors...

    Sorry if I riled the DLP owners/supporters....that wasn't my intent.
    I've detailed the flaws in the picture/technology in order to
    counterpoint what I saw as anti-LCD and pro-DLP discussion. Yes, LCDs
    have their own flaws like screen door effect, murky blacks and others.
    But so do DLPs. In the end, you pick the technology that has the most
    appeal picture-wise and flaws that are most easily tolerated.....and
    what is most easily tolerated varies from person to person (for
    example, I can't watch DLPs without getting a headache). If you read
    other forums you will see advocates for each technology but what you
    won't see is a consensus that one technology provides a better picture
    than another. Simply not possible to say so given their very obvious
    flaws. And which package of flaws are better than another? As a CRT
    owner, I have no vested interest in the discussion. I simple call 'em
    as I see 'em.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Look into LCoS ...its a cross between LCD and DLP.
    If you get a DLP, make sure it has a 3 chip architecture instead of just 1.

    Take a look at D-ILA also.

    "Rob" <teacherrob9@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
    > LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
    >
  41. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <oVKDd.10$V76.19947@monger.newsread.com>,
    "CJ" <chrisj@illicom.net> wrote:

    > If you get a DLP, make sure it has a 3 chip architecture instead of
    > just 1.

    What consumer sets have a three-chip architecture?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In <oVKDd.10$V76.19947@monger.newsread.com> CJ wrote:
    > Look into LCoS ...its a cross between LCD and DLP.
    > If you get a DLP, make sure it has a 3 chip architecture instead of
    > just 1.
    >
    > Take a look at D-ILA also.

    JVC's D-ILA is their flavor of LCoS. LCoS is not a cross between DLP and
    LCD. It has no relation whatsoever to DLP. LCoS is LCD based, using
    three LCDs on silicon chips, one for red, green, and blue. Because of
    this it is still prone to convergence issues, noticeable to my eye
    looking at JVC D-ILA on the showroom floor. Also, D-ILA has motion
    blurring with sports. The color management is also strange; I was unable
    to adjust the display to reproduce natural looking greens when watching
    a soccer match. The colors were very Willy Wonka-esque, and toning them
    down made the image lifeless. My $.02, ymmv.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <michelle-DCFA0B.04020408012005@news.west.cox.net>,
    michelle@michelle.org says...
    > In article <oVKDd.10$V76.19947@monger.newsread.com>,
    > "CJ" <chrisj@illicom.net> wrote:
    >
    > > If you get a DLP, make sure it has a 3 chip architecture instead of
    > > just 1.

    3-chip vs 1-chip

    3-chip:
    No colour wheel (therefore no rainbow effect, and no moving parts, and
    no noice from colour wheel rotation/motor though of couse it still has
    cooling fans...)
    Convergence is an issue (those three chips need to be aligned)
    Price is significantly more... 3 chips cost more than one


    1-chip
    substantial price advantage
    no convergence issues (1 chip nothing to align)
    prone to rainbow effect

    moving parts are prone to failure, although few reports of dlp problems
    centre around colour wheel motors failing so this may be a red herring
    issue.

    I'd go with a single chip if the rainbows aren't visible to you, this is
    a technology game, just like PCs, and like PCs, you can spend top dollar
    on the latest highest performance model, but its still obsolete
    tomorrow. And 3+ years out even a more modest set will be better than
    the best today for prices that are lower than what you pay today for
    today's modest set.

    Unless money is really not an issue at all, spending top dollar for the
    best hdtv today is just a waste. Two years out your tv will be obsolete
    no matter what you buy... and that 14,000 TV you bought today will look
    inferior to a 4k model a couple years out.

    I do think 3-chip will be the future as prices drop, but I wouldn't
    stress about it being in the TV one buys today. If you do see rainbows,
    though, 3-chip will elminate that for you.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:02:04 -0700, Michelle Steiner
    <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    >In article <oVKDd.10$V76.19947@monger.newsread.com>,
    > "CJ" <chrisj@illicom.net> wrote:
    >
    >> If you get a DLP, make sure it has a 3 chip architecture instead of
    >> just 1.
    >
    >What consumer sets have a three-chip architecture?

    I would like to know this too. 3 chip DLP sounds great but I don't
    think it is available yet.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <kia1u09nqie3rn5m1fli6r790u1853f1pc@4ax.com>,
    mortguffman@hotmail.com wrote:

    > >What consumer sets have a three-chip architecture?
    >
    > I would like to know this too. 3 chip DLP sounds great but I don't
    > think it is available yet.

    According to dlp.com, 3-chip sets are commercial only.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV LCD Home Theatre Product