Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD or DLP

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • TV
  • LCD
  • Home Theatre
  • Product
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
December 18, 2004 1:10:13 PM

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.

More about : lcd dlp

Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:47:35 PM

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.
>
>
December 18, 2004 9:47:36 PM

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.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:07:37 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:07:38 AM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:06:21 AM

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?
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:06:22 AM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:39:35 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 4:26:25 AM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 11:14:31 AM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:00:48 PM

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
December 19, 2004 4:11:20 PM

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
December 19, 2004 4:11:21 PM

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
>
>
December 19, 2004 5:56:58 PM

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
December 19, 2004 7:44:29 PM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:21:07 AM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 10:24:03 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 12:20:35 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 7:15:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 7:15:23 AM

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...
and I'm real curious.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:58:50 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:50:59 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 2:08:07 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:48:31 PM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 6:58:12 PM

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
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:02:15 PM

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
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 1:00:36 AM

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

Funny the preview doesn't show it hot linked....<sigh>
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 8:50:52 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 12:39:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 6:56:26 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:01:34 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 2:46:07 AM

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!
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:13:30 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:54:14 AM

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:41:01 AM

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:51:42 PM

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
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:02:24 PM

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
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:13:20 AM

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...
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 2:38:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 9:45:52 AM

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.
January 8, 2005 9:16:52 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 9:16:53 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 7:20:39 PM

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.
January 9, 2005 12:49:30 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:53:36 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:53:37 AM

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.
!