Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

This year's Samsung DLP's vs. the New models to come

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
January 30, 2005 11:23:40 PM

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

Hey all,
I visited a shop today and was quite impressed by the Samsung HLP5085W model
and the HLP5063W one.
Both are DLP and 50". I know that the first one noted is 4th generation
light engine compared to the 3rd generation and I also realize that newer
models are to com.
That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063 or wait for the
new technology coming this year?
I don't even know though if it will be improved or not......
Thanks so much for the amazing feedback so far and
Take Care
Tec
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 30, 2005 11:45:54 PM

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

"Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> Hey all,
> I visited a shop today and was quite impressed by the Samsung HLP5085W
model
> and the HLP5063W one.
> Both are DLP and 50". I know that the first one noted is 4th generation
> light engine compared to the 3rd generation and I also realize that newer
> models are to com.
> That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063 or wait for the
> new technology coming this year?

I just face this dilemma and decide on the 5063. It arrived and I'm happy
with my decision. The SD picture is decent and better that on my older
hln437w samsung. Also you may get a good price on the 5063 since new model
is soon to be in stores. The remote is also better than my hln 43" set.
You have to plunge in at some time. A state of the art home theater now
will be oldfashioned and antiquated in 10 yrs - I suppose it's a fact of
life. I doubt you'll see a real important difference in good HD content in
terms of picture unless you have incredible eyes. I say plunge in, although
I'm sure you'll hear opposing viewpoints.

> I don't even know though if it will be improved or not......
> Thanks so much for the amazing feedback so far and
> Take Care
> Tec
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 2:48:10 AM

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

In article <zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com>,
"Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote:

> That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063

The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063; there is no comparison.
The 5085 costs more, but does not need a stand or base, so that takes
care of the difference in price unless you already have something to put
the 63 on.

the 4663 and 5663 have been replaced by the 4674 and 5674 respectively,
so the 5063 may be replaced by a 5074, but I don't know whether that
will come to pass. The 85 series is better than the 74 series, and
slightly more expensive; the 74 series is more expensive than the 63
series.

The 63 and 74 series are virtually identical in appearance; there are
minor differences in dimensions. The 85 series has the speakers on the
sides of the monitor screen, so the entire set is much wider than the
respective models in the 63 and 74 series.

One problem with the 63 series is that component 1 will accept only a
480i signal, I've been told.

I have a 5685 and it is absolutely terrific.

> or wait for the new technology coming this year?

Who knows when it will come out, what improvements it will have, or how
much it will cost? Only you can decide whether it's worth the wait or
whether you want something now.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Related resources
January 31, 2005 5:24:42 AM

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

New models will not only cost less but sport chip sets that do a better job
with conventional NTSC material and the entire up-conversion process. HDMI
will have been better sorted out. Many if not most will sport built in
digital tuners and, as far as DLP models, blacker blacks, better gray scale
and greater contrast potential will be real advances. If you can wait till
early Fall you can catch some of this, but some of today's better sets are
very decent products.

Richard.
January 31, 2005 5:24:43 AM

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

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KFgLd.9971$8H2.436@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> New models will not only cost less but sport chip sets that do a better
job
> with conventional NTSC material and the entire up-conversion process. HDMI
> will have been better sorted out. Many if not most will sport built in
> digital tuners and, as far as DLP models, blacker blacks, better gray
scale
> and greater contrast potential will be real advances. If you can wait till
> early Fall you can catch some of this, but some of today's better sets are
> very decent products.
>
> Richard.
>
>
January 31, 2005 5:24:43 AM

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

Thanks,
I guess I am willing to wait but want to make sure the wait is worth it.
Take
Care
tec
"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KFgLd.9971$8H2.436@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> New models will not only cost less but sport chip sets that do a better
job
> with conventional NTSC material and the entire up-conversion process. HDMI
> will have been better sorted out. Many if not most will sport built in
> digital tuners and, as far as DLP models, blacker blacks, better gray
scale
> and greater contrast potential will be real advances. If you can wait till
> early Fall you can catch some of this, but some of today's better sets are
> very decent products.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 8:16:59 AM

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

Tec,

There will *always* be a "next best thing" waiting just around the corner.
A year ago I was saying the same thing. "Should I get one of the HLN models
or wait for the new HLP models?" It ended up being quite frustrating as
Samsung would announce models coming out at a certain time only to extend
those times further and further.

Luckily I think the TV technology has made so much progress that even if you
get one of the "old" DLP models it will still look fantastic. In November I
happened to find a guy selling an HLN model used at about half the price of
the new ones. For me that ended up being the perfect combination of quality
and value.

Unless you can afford to drop $6,000 every 6 months in order to buy the
latest and greatest TV then you need to just make a decision on a set that
you really like the picture and the price is something you can handle. I'm
really happy with my used model. Plus since I spent so much less I won't
feel bad getting a new one in 5 years. If I had dropped $4-5k I probably
would have been stuck with it for 10+ years.

Good luck!

Brad



"Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> Hey all,
> I visited a shop today and was quite impressed by the Samsung HLP5085W
> model
> and the HLP5063W one.
> Both are DLP and 50". I know that the first one noted is 4th generation
> light engine compared to the 3rd generation and I also realize that newer
> models are to com.
> That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063 or wait for the
> new technology coming this year?
> I don't even know though if it will be improved or not......
> Thanks so much for the amazing feedback so far and
> Take Care
> Tec
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 8:17:00 AM

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

In article <fbjLd.11722$p%6.360@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A year ago I was saying the same thing. "Should I get one of the HLN
> models or wait for the new HLP models?"

BTW, what are the major differences between the HLN and HLP models?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 10:27:36 AM

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

larrylook wrote:
> "Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>
>>Hey all,
>>I visited a shop today and was quite impressed by the Samsung HLP5085W
>>and the HLP5063W one.
>>Both are DLP and 50". I know that the first one noted is 4th generation
>>light engine compared to the 3rd generation and I also realize that newer
>>models are to com.
>>That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063 or wait for the
>>new technology coming this year?
>
> I just face this dilemma and decide on the 5063. It arrived and I'm happy
> with my decision. The SD picture is decent and better that on my older
> hln437w samsung. Also you may get a good price on the 5063 since new model
> is soon to be in stores. The remote is also better than my hln 43" set.
> You have to plunge in at some time. A state of the art home theater now
> will be oldfashioned and antiquated in 10 yrs - I suppose it's a fact of
> life. I doubt you'll see a real important difference in good HD content in
> terms of picture unless you have incredible eyes. I say plunge in, although
> I'm sure you'll hear opposing viewpoints.

And here's the opposing viewpoint. Under most circumstances, I'd agree
with larry here, but this year is a special case. Samsung is
introducing the first of their 1080p sets in February. While these will
cost more than the current 720p sets, there is a substantial difference
in image quality between the old and the new. I saw these sets at CES,
and the image quality is unbelievable. It's not just the resolution,
they've also significantly improved the contrast performance.

There are other issues to consider, though. First, there are no 1080p
signal sources at present, except maybe a few HDPC setups (which is
mostly what was on display at CES). But the new HD DVD formats should
be able to drive these new sets to their full resolution, and those will
reach the market later this year.

And then there's the question of which Samsung to wait for. The one
shipping in February (56" HLR5688W, list $5000) may be quickly surpassed
by additional 1080p sets from Samsung in June (67" HLR6768W, list $7000;
61" HLR6168W, list $4500; and 56" HLR5668W, list $4200). So it's a bit
confusing. At the moment, all we've got to go on is Samsung's press
release.

I've got an HLN437w at the moment, and I'm thinking seriously about
selling it later this year and replacing it with one of the new models.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 12:56:48 PM

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

And Sony has the SXRD sets coming out.
But I haven't seen a price point yet.. probably very scary :-)
They are supposed have the full HD pixel count.

Jim Gilliland wrote:

> larrylook wrote:
>
>> "Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>>

--
Ric Seyler

--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 31, 2005 5:41:14 PM

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

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063
>
> The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063; there is no comparison.
> The 5085 costs more, but does not need a stand or base, so that takes
> care of the difference in price unless you already have something to put
> the 63 on.
>
> the 4663 and 5663 have been replaced by the 4674 and 5674 respectively,
> so the 5063 may be replaced by a 5074, but I don't know whether that
> will come to pass. The 85 series is better than the 74 series, and
> slightly more expensive; the 74 series is more expensive than the 63
> series.

Not correct: the 4674 and 5674 are replacements for last years
467w/567w sets, with the thin bezel case. They are not replacements for
the xx63 series, and sell at a premium because of smaller size for a
given viewable area and a different chipset that has higher contrast.

> The 63 and 74 series are virtually identical in appearance; there are
> minor differences in dimensions. The 85 series has the speakers on the
> sides of the monitor screen, so the entire set is much wider than the
> respective models in the 63 and 74 series.

There are fairly substantial differences in appearance between the
xx63 sets and the xx74 sets (though not as large as between those two
lines and the xx85 sets). The xx63s have much wider bezels than the
xx74s, a 56" 5674 will fit into about the same space (width-wise) as a
5063.

> One problem with the 63 series is that component 1 will accept only a
> 480i signal, I've been told.

That was (mostly) true of the older HLN sets, not this years HLP sets
(it was 480p that it would only accept).

Scott
January 31, 2005 11:42:03 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-919871.23481030012005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com>,
> "Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063
>
> The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063; there is no comparison.
> The 5085 costs more, but does not need a stand or base, so that takes


Thanks,
I think the 5085 looks better too.....the thing that actually turns me off
of it is the pedastel funny enough. I want to have the dvd player, centre
channel and receiver under the set in a cabinet.
Take Care
Tec
February 1, 2005 2:02:53 AM

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

In article <michelle-919871.23481030012005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com>,
> "Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > That said, what would you do.....buy the 5085 or the 5063
>
> The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063;

If by higher off the ground, yes. :) 

> there is no comparison.

There certainly is room for comparison. Although the 85 is technically
superior.

> The 5085 costs more, but does not need a stand or base, so that takes
> care of the difference in price unless you already have something to put
> the 63 on.

Many places are including the base with the 63s these days, so that
doesn't take care of the difference in price at all.

And many people LIKE bases. The 5085 takes up more total space, because
you have to put your stereo equipment somewhere, even if you add the
wrap around shelves it takes more space and then it costs even more,
widening the price gap further.

Personally, I do not like the look of the speakers on the side. Since
they are permantly muted in my home theatre anyways I'd prefer them not
to exist at all... and thus prefer the less obtrusive ones on the 63/74.

I wouldn't want an 85 myself for its form factor. And I don't think its
picture is really sufficiently advanced to put up with it. To each their
own though. I don't begrudge you your satisfaction with the 85 in the
least.

> the 4663 and 5663 have been replaced by the 4674 and 5674 respectively,
> so the 5063 may be replaced by a 5074, but I don't know whether that
> will come to pass.

This isn't really correct at all. 63 and 74 are more like two branches
off the same trunk. The 63 sports a gen3 chip, a radical update from
gen2; including as a principle advancement over gen2 that its much
cheaper to make; the 74 sports a gen2+ chip which is gen2 with some
refinements.

That said the 63 is not merely a cheaper gen2, there have been several
technical advancements, but yes, generally the 74 is considered to
deliver a slightly better picture (it has better contrast).

In any case the successor to these models will derive from the gen3
chip; while the 74 is at a 'dead end' technologically. That's why I
don't think the 74 is really a 'successor' to the 63. The 63 and 74 are
really just both successors of a common ancestor.

The 85 is a gen4 set, and really a successor to the 63's gen3, afaik.

> The 85 series is better than the 74 series, and
> slightly more expensive; the 74 series is more expensive than the 63
> series.

Better being defined in terms of PQ? Yes. That is the general consensus.

> The 63 and 74 series are virtually identical in appearance; there are
> minor differences in dimensions. The 85 series has the speakers on the
> sides of the monitor screen, so the entire set is much wider than the
> respective models in the 63 and 74 series.
>
> One problem with the 63 series is that component 1 will accept only a
> 480i signal, I've been told.

The HLP-xx63 series accepts 480i/480p/720p/1080i on both component
inputs. What you say is true of older models (HLM etc) but is *not* true
of the hlpxx63.

I'm certain I've corrected you on this before. If you must persist in
spreading this 'information' at least do the fact checking instead of
relying on what 'someone told you'.

Don't take my word on it. Check the specs for yourself.
February 1, 2005 4:23:27 AM

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

"RicSeyler" <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote in message
news:hwsLd.13119$gS5.1862@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> And Sony has the SXRD sets coming out.
> But I haven't seen a price point yet.. probably very scary :-)
> They are supposed have the full HD pixel count.
>
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>
>> larrylook wrote:
>>
>>> "Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zZydnShECtI0FWDcRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
>>>
>
> --
> Ric Seyler
>
> --------------------------------------
> "Homer no function beer well without."
> - H.J. Simpson


Visit sony.com/qualia_006 for some interesting information. The first set to
be introduced still uses a light bulb. Sets sold in Japan use LED's with
superb results I hear; but you would not want to pay for one of those
babies. In two years that technology will likely take over in the Sony line.

Richard.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 1, 2005 12:35:30 PM

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

In article <lNOdnb7_At3EQ2PcRVn-rA@rogers.com>,
"Tecumseh" <tecumsehcanada@rogers.com> wrote:

> I think the 5085 looks better too.....the thing that actually turns
> me off of it is the pedastel funny enough. I want to have the dvd
> player, centre channel and receiver under the set in a cabinet.

Samsung markets a rack that fits under the TV and that wraps around the
back of the pedestal; it lists for $499, but I've seen it on sale for as
low as $349. Of course, that negates the price advantage over the 5063
with its pedestal.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 1, 2005 12:39:22 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c6858f3e2d8c0fa9899ee@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > the 4663 and 5663 have been replaced by the 4674 and 5674
> > respectively, so the 5063 may be replaced by a 5074, but I don't
> > know whether that will come to pass.
>
> This isn't really correct at all. 63 and 74 are more like two
> branches off the same trunk.

Best as I can tell the 4663 and 5663 have been discontinued; Samsung
isn't making any more of them. Therefore, they've been replaced by the
74's.

> In any case the successor to these models will derive from the gen3
> chip; while the 74 is at a 'dead end' technologically. That's why I
> don't think the 74 is really a 'successor' to the 63.

I didn't say it was a successor; I said it replaced it.

> > The 85 series is better than the 74 series, and slightly more
> > expensive; the 74 series is more expensive than the 63 series.
>
> Better being defined in terms of PQ? Yes. That is the general
> consensus.

Yes, better PQ.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 1, 2005 12:43:47 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c6858f3e2d8c0fa9899ee@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > One problem with the 63 series is that component 1 will accept only
> > a 480i signal, I've been told.
>
> The HLP-xx63 series accepts 480i/480p/720p/1080i on both component
> inputs. What you say is true of older models (HLM etc) but is *not*
> true of the hlpxx63.

On both 6163 sets I tried in my home, I could get a 480P signal from my
DVD player on component 2, but not on component 1. (I could not get
anything from my DirecTV HD receiver on either component input, BTW.)

The installer told me that component 1 could accept only 480i in the 63
series. He's a professional, and should know what he's talking about.

> I'm certain I've corrected you on this before.

This is the first I've seen anything from you about this.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 1, 2005 10:18:21 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in
>
> The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063; there is no comparison.


Total confusion now.
I visited two stores today in Toronto and one of them had the 5085 on for
$3499 while it lists at $4999. The other is a most amazing television only
store where the sales manager is very knowledgeable and seems trustworthy.
I asked him point blank about the 5085 vs. the 5063 and said hands down that
the 85 "looked" better initially because of the higher contrast ratio of
2500:1 instead of 1500:1. But, he maintains that the 5063 uses the 3rd
generation chip set with more mirrors compared to the 5085's "2b" chip set
and has an overall better picture quality.

I thanks all of you guys here for educating me on this line of tv's but just
when my mind was getting settled, it is now opening the debate up again.
????????????
Thanks
Take Care
Tec
February 1, 2005 11:11:37 PM

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

In article <michelle-83D13D.09434701022005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <MPG.1c6858f3e2d8c0fa9899ee@shawnews>,
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > One problem with the 63 series is that component 1 will accept only
> > > a 480i signal, I've been told.
> >
> > The HLP-xx63 series accepts 480i/480p/720p/1080i on both component
> > inputs. What you say is true of older models (HLM etc) but is *not*
> > true of the hlpxx63.
>
> On both 6163 sets I tried in my home, I could get a 480P signal from my
> DVD player on component 2, but not on component 1. (I could not get
> anything from my DirecTV HD receiver on either component input, BTW.)
>
> The installer told me that component 1 could accept only 480i in the 63
> series. He's a professional, and should know what he's talking about.

An HLP set? Or HLN/HLM? What you said was true of OLDER models. *Not*
the HLPs. (There was both an HLN 63 series, and an HLM 63 series.)

> > I'm certain I've corrected you on this before.
>
> This is the first I've seen anything from you about this.

Usenet can be funny that way. :/ 

This other responder to your post:

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=41fe43...
24a1866201%40visi.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D480p%2Bsteiner%
2Bcomponent%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D41fe438a%25240%252410768%
2524a1866201%2540visi.com%26rnum%3D2

Made the same comments I did.

Please check your facts regarding the HLP series. They are not correct.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 1, 2005 11:11:38 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c698256ca17c5969899f1@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > I'm certain I've corrected you on this before.
> >
> > This is the first I've seen anything from you about this.
>
> Usenet can be funny that way. :/ 
>
> This other responder to your post:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=41fe43...
> 24a1866201%40visi.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D480p%2Bsteiner%
> 2Bcomponent%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D41fe438a%25240%252410768%
> 2524a1866201%2540visi.com%26rnum%3D2

That wasn't you. Also, it was in response to the same message of mine
that you responded to.

> Please check your facts regarding the HLP series. They are not
> correct.

When someone whose reliability tells me something, I don't have any
reason to check it out unless someone who is knowledgeable disagrees
with him.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 1, 2005 11:11:38 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c698256ca17c5969899f1@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > The installer told me that component 1 could accept only 480i in
> > the 63 series. He's a professional, and should know what he's
> > talking about.
>
> An HLP set? Or HLN/HLM? What you said was true of OLDER models. *Not*
> the HLPs. (There was both an HLN 63 series, and an HLM 63 series.)

Actually, that didn't come up, so he might have thought I had meant an
HLN.

But that still doesn't explain why I couldn't get any signal on
Component 1 on either of those two sets. (I never thought to try 480i
on the component cable, so I don't know whether it would have worked.)

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 2, 2005 2:20:02 AM

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

In article <michelle-04ECAB.14181401022005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <MPG.1c698256ca17c5969899f1@shawnews>,
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm certain I've corrected you on this before.
> > >
> > > This is the first I've seen anything from you about this.
> >
> > Usenet can be funny that way. :/ 
> >
> > This other responder to your post:
> >
> > http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=41fe43...
> > 24a1866201%40visi.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D480p%2Bsteiner%
> > 2Bcomponent%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D41fe438a%25240%252410768%
> > 2524a1866201%2540visi.com%26rnum%3D2
>
> That wasn't you. Also, it was in response to the same message of mine
> that you responded to.

Correct on both counts. But that was rather obvious.

I highlighted it not as a citation of what I think I previously said to
you, but to reinforce that someone else agrees with me, to induce you to
check your facts.

As to why I didn't bother to provide a link back to my first message: I
have little doubt you honestly never saw my previous reply. As I said,
usenet can be funny that way. Hell, the message I linked to above still
hasn't shown up in my own newsreader.

> > Please check your facts regarding the HLP series. They are not
> > correct.
>
> When someone whose reliability tells me something, I don't have any
> reason to check it out unless someone who is knowledgeable disagrees
> with him.

I'm not criticising you for not checking it then. I'm strongly
suggesting you check it *now*.

Furthermore, I am not disagreeing with your tech, He was refering to the
older HLN/HLM 63s, and NOT the HLP 63s. Your tech didn't make an error.
You are.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 2:20:03 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c69ae8495bf40539899f6@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> As to why I didn't bother to provide a link back to my first message:
> I have little doubt you honestly never saw my previous reply. As I
> said, usenet can be funny that way. Hell, the message I linked to
> above still hasn't shown up in my own newsreader.

And to add to the confusion, the cox news server didn't have any
messages at all most of Sunday and half of Monday; then Monday evening
it reposted a bunch of messages from Saturday, and didn't get caught up
until sometime this afternoon.

> > When someone whose reliability tells me something, I don't have any
> > reason to check it out unless someone who is knowledgeable
> > disagrees with him.
>
> I'm not criticising you for not checking it then. I'm strongly
> suggesting you check it *now*.

Nah; the two of you explained it in sufficient detail that I believe you.

> Furthermore, I am not disagreeing with your tech, He was refering to
> the older HLN/HLM 63s, and NOT the HLP 63s. Your tech didn't make an
> error. You are.

Or he was in error and thought that the HLP 63s had that same problem.
If I recall correctly, I told him the full model, but my memory may be
faulty on this point.

Regardless, it was mostly a matter of miscommunication, and that has
been straightened out now.

I still wish, though, that I knew the reason that the component inputs
didn't work properly on the HLP 6163 I had.

And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 2, 2005 3:31:41 AM

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

In article <__ydnVOGi86qgZ3fRVn-ow@rogers.com>,
tecumsehcanada@rogers.com says...
>
> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in
> >
> > The 5085 is heads and shoulders above the 5063; there is no comparison.
>
>
> Total confusion now.
> I visited two stores today in Toronto and one of them had the 5085 on for
> $3499 while it lists at $4999. The other is a most amazing television only
> store where the sales manager is very knowledgeable and seems trustworthy.
> I asked him point blank about the 5085 vs. the 5063 and said hands down that
> the 85 "looked" better initially because of the higher contrast ratio of
> 2500:1 instead of 1500:1. But, he maintains that the 5063 uses the 3rd
> generation chip set with more mirrors compared to the 5085's "2b" chip set
> and has an overall better picture quality.

Ultimately, it boils down to: Don't worry what a sales rep tells you has
the better picture quality. Look at them both and choose the one you
like better.

The sales rep is often more motivated to move 'older units', 'higher
margin units', 'units that are included in a manufacturers incentive
program',...
February 2, 2005 5:04:46 AM

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

In article <michelle-422F4D.18195401022005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <MPG.1c69ae8495bf40539899f6@shawnews>,
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > As to why I didn't bother to provide a link back to my first message:
> > I have little doubt you honestly never saw my previous reply. As I
> > said, usenet can be funny that way. Hell, the message I linked to
> > above still hasn't shown up in my own newsreader.
>
> And to add to the confusion, the cox news server didn't have any
> messages at all most of Sunday and half of Monday; then Monday evening
> it reposted a bunch of messages from Saturday, and didn't get caught up
> until sometime this afternoon.
>
> > > When someone whose reliability tells me something, I don't have any
> > > reason to check it out unless someone who is knowledgeable
> > > disagrees with him.
> >
> > I'm not criticising you for not checking it then. I'm strongly
> > suggesting you check it *now*.
>
> Nah; the two of you explained it in sufficient detail that I believe you.
>
> > Furthermore, I am not disagreeing with your tech, He was refering to
> > the older HLN/HLM 63s, and NOT the HLP 63s. Your tech didn't make an
> > error. You are.
>
> Or he was in error and thought that the HLP 63s had that same problem.
> If I recall correctly, I told him the full model, but my memory may be
> faulty on this point.
>
> Regardless, it was mostly a matter of miscommunication, and that has
> been straightened out now.
>
> I still wish, though, that I knew the reason that the component inputs
> didn't work properly on the HLP 6163 I had.
>
> And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
> the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?

In broad strokes:

IIRC:
HLM = 2002 models, gen2? (I think)
HLN = 2003 models, gen2 DMD
HLP = 2004 models, gen3 DMD

In general there were improvements in viewing angle, reduction in
rainbow effects, reduction in the audio sync issues, increase in
contrast, overall image quality improvements (algorithms/firmware), etc.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 5:04:47 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c69d521c23cf90e9899fb@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences
> > between the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
>
> In broad strokes:
>
> IIRC:
> HLM = 2002 models, gen2? (I think)
> HLN = 2003 models, gen2 DMD
> HLP = 2004 models, gen3 DMD
>
> In general there were improvements in viewing angle, reduction in
> rainbow effects, reduction in the audio sync issues, increase in
> contrast, overall image quality improvements (algorithms/firmware),
> etc.

Thanks. The 63 series was early 2004, and the 85 series is late 2004
(plus being pedestal models)?

So, the 2005 models will be HLO? (asked half in jest)

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 2, 2005 2:04:25 PM

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

In article <michelle-CE54AE.23324001022005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <MPG.1c69d521c23cf90e9899fb@shawnews>,
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences
> > > between the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
> >
> > In broad strokes:
> >
> > IIRC:
> > HLM = 2002 models, gen2? (I think)
> > HLN = 2003 models, gen2 DMD
> > HLP = 2004 models, gen3 DMD
> >
> > In general there were improvements in viewing angle, reduction in
> > rainbow effects, reduction in the audio sync issues, increase in
> > contrast, overall image quality improvements (algorithms/firmware),
> > etc.
>
> Thanks. The 63 series was early 2004, and the 85 series is late 2004
> (plus being pedestal models)?

Mmmm...I'd say no. That's thinking too linearly. I'd say 63s and the 85s
are simply two different models. Yes the 74s, and 85s did appear later
in the year, but they aren't *really* replacements for the 63 or each
other either.

To use a car analagy, they are like Porsche Boxsters, 911s, & Carrera
GTs. They're all vehicles and none are replacements for the other
(although some are faster and/or more expensive), but next year there
will be new versions of each, at each price point, but all improved over
this years versions.


e.g. the 74 was marketed as a more 'upmarket' 63, and the 85, well it
has the 'new' pedestal design.

I fully expect the 2005 lineup to include an actual replacement for the
63, that further refines it. I wouldn't be the least be surprised to see
an 'upmarket' version of the 63 carried by premium stores with a few
refinements as a replacement for the 74. And of course, I'm sure we'll
see a new pedestal to replace the 85s. And then perhaps something
completely new besides.


> So, the 2005 models will be HLO? (asked half in jest)

Actually they already skipped it... M, N, *, P

:p 
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 2:04:26 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c6a539cccadb55b9899fc@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> > So, the 2005 models will be HLO? (asked half in jest)
>
> Actually they already skipped it... M, N, *, P

*doh* And based on someone else's reply, it looks like they're going to
skip Q, and go directly to R.

Thanks for all the info; most of it is academic to me as I already have
an 85 model, so I won't be in the market for another set for quite a few
more years.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 4:16:08 PM

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

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
> the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?

HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
(xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.

HLR - 2005 models.

Scott
February 2, 2005 9:17:10 PM

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

<NsdoO (at) S.visiP.AcomM> wrote in message
news:4200d298$0$21656$a1866201@visi.com...

> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.
>
> HLR - 2005 models.
>
> Scott



I was told by what I thought was a knowledgeable salesman that the HD3 chip
set employed MORE mirrors than that of the 2+ and that the picture may not
have the contrast of the 5085's but was better overall.
Shite.....all this info,
Overload, smoke from ears, face turning red, clowns chasing me.....must
sleep now!
And, when I awake, may one of you(s) please tell me which has the better
picture in simple terms for my dolt mind.
And
Great NG BTW.
Thanks
Take Care
Tec
February 2, 2005 11:16:32 PM

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

In article <4200d298$0$21656$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
says...
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
> > the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
>
> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.

The HD2 & HD2+ chips do have more mirrors, but do not have higher
resolution. The reason HD3 chips are so much more affordable than
HD2/HD2+ was because they found a way of getting the same resolution
with half the mirrors by moving the mirrors faster.

I don't know, but I'd bet the new high resolution Samsungs (1080p) are
Gen3 mirror designs, but doubling the mirrors back up again for
increased resolution.

> HLR - 2005 models.
>

Looks like they skipped Q too :) 

Can't say as i blame them... hlq sounds like a hiccup.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 11:16:33 PM

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

42 wrote:
> In article <4200d298$0$21656$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
> says...
>
>>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>>>And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
>>>the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
>>
>> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
>> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
>> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
>>(xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
>>based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.
>
>
> The HD2 & HD2+ chips do have more mirrors, but do not have higher
> resolution. The reason HD3 chips are so much more affordable than
> HD2/HD2+ was because they found a way of getting the same resolution
> with half the mirrors by moving the mirrors faster.
>
> I don't know, but I'd bet the new high resolution Samsungs (1080p) are
> Gen3 mirror designs, but doubling the mirrors back up again for
> increased resolution.
>
>
>> HLR - 2005 models.
>>
>
>
> Looks like they skipped Q too :) 
>
> Can't say as i blame them... hlq sounds like a hiccup.

It's not unusual for model designations to avoid letters that can be
confused with numerals. I, l, O, Q and Z could be confused with 1, 0 and 2.

Matthew
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 2, 2005 11:25:04 PM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
>> > the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
>>
>> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
>> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
>> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
>> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
>> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.
>
> The HD2 & HD2+ chips do have more mirrors, but do not have higher
> resolution. The reason HD3 chips are so much more affordable than
> HD2/HD2+ was because they found a way of getting the same resolution
> with half the mirrors by moving the mirrors faster.

You are correct, I said "resolution" when I should have said
"contrast". My error. Some people like the "smoother picture" the
wobbled mirrors (in the HD3) give, others prefer the "sharper picture
the HD2+ gives.

> I don't know, but I'd bet the new high resolution Samsungs (1080p) are
> Gen3 mirror designs, but doubling the mirrors back up again for
> increased resolution.

Hard to tell, so far.

Scott

>> HLR - 2005 models.
>>
>
> Looks like they skipped Q too :) 
>
> Can't say as i blame them... hlq sounds like a hiccup.
February 3, 2005 3:01:20 AM

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

In article <42013720$0$21603$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >> > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences between
> >> > the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
> >>
> >> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
> >> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
> >> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> >> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> >> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.
> >
> > The HD2 & HD2+ chips do have more mirrors, but do not have higher
> > resolution. The reason HD3 chips are so much more affordable than
> > HD2/HD2+ was because they found a way of getting the same resolution
> > with half the mirrors by moving the mirrors faster.
>
> You are correct, I said "resolution" when I should have said
> "contrast". My error. Some people like the "smoother picture" the
> wobbled mirrors (in the HD3) give, others prefer the "sharper picture
> the HD2+ gives.
>
> > I don't know, but I'd bet the new high resolution Samsungs (1080p) are
> > Gen3 mirror designs, but doubling the mirrors back up again for
> > increased resolution.
>
> Hard to tell, so far.

Looks like i was right about how they went about 1080p

/quoting on:

HD2 - TI's older DLP measures 0.8" diagonally and is a rectangular grid
720p DLP.

HD2+ - A higher contrast version of the HD2. The higher contrast was
made possible through process improvements allowing for closer
positioning of the individual mirrors, smaller mirrors and darker
coatings to help absorb unwanted light inside the DLP.

HD3 - A 0.55" diagonal die not on a rectangular grid using half the
mirrors of the HD2/HD2+ but still a 720p solution. Using mirrors that
can move and stabilize at twice the speed of the HD2+ solution, TI was
able to use each mirror for two pixels in the HD3 chip by shifting each
individual mirror very slightly and very quickly to paint two pixels
(think of it as a serial DDR approach to DLPs). The benefit of using
half the mirrors is that it drives down the size of the DLP (0.55" vs.
0.8") and thus reduces the price of the TVs. The DLP also somewhat
overlaps the two pixels it paints using a single mirror to get rid of
pixelization, to provide for a smoother, more film-like image (which
some may or may not prefer). TI calls this 2 pixels per mirror
technology their Smooth Picture Technology, so whenever you see that
phrase used it means that the TI DLP is only using half the necessary
mirrors and using each mirror to drive 2 pixels.

xHD3 - A larger chip with a 0.85" die, the xHD3 is basically a HD3 that
does 1080p. It also features Smooth Picture Technology.
February 3, 2005 3:01:21 AM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6b09aec35b4fc9989a07@shawnews...
> In article <42013720$0$21603$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
> says...
> > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > >> > And other than the inputs, BTW, what are the major differences
between
> > >> > the HLN, HLM, and HLP series?
> > >>
> > >> HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
> > >> HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
> > >> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3
chip
> > >> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> > >> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based
solutions.
> > >
> > > The HD2 & HD2+ chips do have more mirrors, but do not have higher
> > > resolution. The reason HD3 chips are so much more affordable than
> > > HD2/HD2+ was because they found a way of getting the same resolution
> > > with half the mirrors by moving the mirrors faster.
> >
> > You are correct, I said "resolution" when I should have said
> > "contrast". My error. Some people like the "smoother picture" the
> > wobbled mirrors (in the HD3) give, others prefer the "sharper picture
> > the HD2+ gives.
> >
> > > I don't know, but I'd bet the new high resolution Samsungs (1080p) are
> > > Gen3 mirror designs, but doubling the mirrors back up again for
> > > increased resolution.
> >
> > Hard to tell, so far.
>
> Looks like i was right about how they went about 1080p
>
> /quoting on:
>
> HD2 - TI's older DLP measures 0.8" diagonally and is a rectangular grid
> 720p DLP.
>
> HD2+ - A higher contrast version of the HD2. The higher contrast was
> made possible through process improvements allowing for closer
> positioning of the individual mirrors, smaller mirrors and darker
> coatings to help absorb unwanted light inside the DLP.
>
> HD3 - A 0.55" diagonal die not on a rectangular grid using half the
> mirrors of the HD2/HD2+ but still a 720p solution. Using mirrors that
> can move and stabilize at twice the speed of the HD2+ solution, TI was
> able to use each mirror for two pixels in the HD3 chip by shifting each
> individual mirror very slightly and very quickly to paint two pixels
> (think of it as a serial DDR approach to DLPs). The benefit of using
> half the mirrors is that it drives down the size of the DLP (0.55" vs.
> 0.8") and thus reduces the price of the TVs. The DLP also somewhat
> overlaps the two pixels it paints using a single mirror to get rid of
> pixelization, to provide for a smoother, more film-like image (which
> some may or may not prefer). TI calls this 2 pixels per mirror
> technology their Smooth Picture Technology, so whenever you see that
> phrase used it means that the TI DLP is only using half the necessary
> mirrors and using each mirror to drive 2 pixels.
>
> xHD3 - A larger chip with a 0.85" die, the xHD3 is basically a HD3 that
> does 1080p. It also features Smooth Picture Technology.



Wow,
Thanks for the info. I think I understand it now.
Take Care
Tec.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 3, 2005 3:01:21 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c6b09aec35b4fc9989a07@shawnews>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> HD2 - TI's older DLP measures 0.8" diagonally and is a rectangular grid
> 720p DLP.
>
> HD2+ - A higher contrast version of the HD2. The higher contrast was
> made possible through process improvements allowing for closer
> positioning of the individual mirrors, smaller mirrors and darker
> coatings to help absorb unwanted light inside the DLP.
>
> HD3 - A 0.55" diagonal die not on a rectangular grid using half the
> mirrors of the HD2/HD2+ but still a 720p solution.

Now I'm confused. I downloaded the product sheets for the 5674 and the
5685 from Samsung's web site. The sheets say that both of them use .8"
DLP technology.

Further, the data sheet for the 5674 says it uses Samsung HD2 Plus
technology, plus it also refers to TI's HD2 optical technology, vut
doesn't say anything about HD3.

The data sheet for the 5685 doesn't say anything about HD2 or HD3, but
it does say that it uses Texas Instrument's 3rd generation DMD chip.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 3, 2005 3:09:52 AM

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

In article <SfidnZoTCLvBwpzfRVn-sg@rogers.com>,
tecumsehcanada@rogers.com says...
>
> <NsdoO (at) S.visiP.AcomM> wrote in message
> news:4200d298$0$21656$a1866201@visi.com...
>
> > HLM - 2002 model, TI HD-2 chip.
> > HLN - 2003 model, TI HD-2 chip, improved light engine.
> > HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> > (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> > based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based solutions.
> >
> > HLR - 2005 models.
> >
> > Scott
>
>
>
> I was told by what I thought was a knowledgeable salesman that the HD3 chip
> set employed MORE mirrors than that of the 2+ and that the picture may not
> have the contrast of the 5085's but was better overall.
> Shite.....all this info,
> Overload, smoke from ears, face turning red, clowns chasing me.....must
> sleep now!
> And, when I awake, may one of you(s) please tell me which has the better
> picture in simple terms for my dolt mind.

In a word: -both-

They are different. HD3 is smoother, HD2 is sharper, HD2+ is HD2 with
higher contrast.

Is sharper better? Hard to say...you don't want it blurry, but if you
get too sharp they call it pixelated.

I suppose xHD3 is HD3 with higher resolution, and they probably did the
same refinements they did with HD2+ to get the better contrast. So I
guess that would be the best... but its the newest and most expensive.

HD3 vs HD2+ is really mostly about consumer preference & to a lesser
extent budget.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 3, 2005 3:14:35 PM

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

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.1c6b09aec35b4fc9989a07@shawnews>,
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> HD2 - TI's older DLP measures 0.8" diagonally and is a rectangular grid
>> 720p DLP.
>>
>> HD2+ - A higher contrast version of the HD2. The higher contrast was
>> made possible through process improvements allowing for closer
>> positioning of the individual mirrors, smaller mirrors and darker
>> coatings to help absorb unwanted light inside the DLP.
>>
>> HD3 - A 0.55" diagonal die not on a rectangular grid using half the
>> mirrors of the HD2/HD2+ but still a 720p solution.
>
> Now I'm confused. I downloaded the product sheets for the 5674 and the
> 5685 from Samsung's web site. The sheets say that both of them use .8"
> DLP technology.
>
> Further, the data sheet for the 5674 says it uses Samsung HD2 Plus
> technology, plus it also refers to TI's HD2 optical technology, vut
> doesn't say anything about HD3.
>
> The data sheet for the 5685 doesn't say anything about HD2 or HD3, but
> it does say that it uses Texas Instrument's 3rd generation DMD chip.

Both of those units use the HD2+ chip, they have different light
engines because of their different form factor (the 5674's is in the back
of the case, while the 5685's is in the pillar). So neither one SHOULD
mention the HD3, because they don't use it. "Generations" is an unclear
term, in this case, because the HD3 (came out sooner) and the HD2+ (more
closely related to the 2nd generation HD2) could each be said to be a 3rd
generation chip, with the other being the 4th generation chip.
Essentially, development branched after the HD2 - one branch became the
HD2+, the other branch became the HD3.

Scott
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 4, 2005 4:00:08 AM

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

In article <420215ab$0$20020$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
wrote:

> Both of those units use the HD2+ chip, they have different light
> engines because of their different form factor (the 5674's is in the
> back of the case, while the 5685's is in the pillar). So neither one
> SHOULD mention the HD3, because they don't use it.

I thought that someone here wrote that the 74 series used the HD3.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 4, 2005 12:27:31 PM

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

In article <michelle-4A854D.01000804022005@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <420215ab$0$20020$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
> wrote:
>
> > Both of those units use the HD2+ chip, they have different light
> > engines because of their different form factor (the 5674's is in the
> > back of the case, while the 5685's is in the pillar). So neither one
> > SHOULD mention the HD3, because they don't use it.
>
> I thought that someone here wrote that the 74 series used the HD3.

Nope. We all agree the 74 is HD2+. :) 
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 4, 2005 4:19:28 PM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > Both of those units use the HD2+ chip, they have different light
>> > engines because of their different form factor (the 5674's is in the
>> > back of the case, while the 5685's is in the pillar). So neither one
>> > SHOULD mention the HD3, because they don't use it.
>>
>> I thought that someone here wrote that the 74 series used the HD3.
>
> Nope. We all agree the 74 is HD2+. :) 

Agreed, the xx74s use the same HD2+ as the xx85s.

Scott
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
February 4, 2005 9:25:24 PM

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

In article <42037660$0$20024$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
wrote:

> > Nope. We all agree the 74 is HD2+. :) 
>
> Agreed, the xx74s use the same HD2+ as the xx85s.

OK, here is where I got confused (coupled with not remembering
correctly):

> This isn't really correct at all. 63 and 74 are more like two
> branches off the same trunk. The 63 sports a gen3 chip, a radical
> update from gen2; including as a principle advancement over gen2 that
> its much cheaper to make; the 74 sports a gen2+ chip which is gen2
> with some refinements.
>
> That said the 63 is not merely a cheaper gen2, there have been
> several technical advancements, but yes, generally the 74 is
> considered to deliver a slightly better picture (it has better
> contrast).
>
> In any case the successor to these models will derive from the gen3
> chip; while the 74 is at a 'dead end' technologically. That's why I
> don't think the 74 is really a 'successor' to the 63. The 63 and 74
> are really just both successors of a common ancestor.
>
> The 85 is a gen4 set, and really a successor to the 63's gen3,
> afaik.

That, and this:

> HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based
> solutions.

I understand it now--well, I think I understand it now.

And thanks to all who have chimed in for the help, the info, and the
lack of flames.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 4, 2005 11:39:53 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-B18DC5.18252404022005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <42037660$0$20024$a1866201@visi.com>, NsdoO(at)S.visiP.AcomM
> wrote:
>
> > > Nope. We all agree the 74 is HD2+. :) 
> >
> > Agreed, the xx74s use the same HD2+ as the xx85s.
>
> OK, here is where I got confused (coupled with not remembering
> correctly):
>
> > This isn't really correct at all. 63 and 74 are more like two
> > branches off the same trunk. The 63 sports a gen3 chip, a radical
> > update from gen2; including as a principle advancement over gen2 that
> > its much cheaper to make; the 74 sports a gen2+ chip which is gen2
> > with some refinements.
> >
> > That said the 63 is not merely a cheaper gen2, there have been
> > several technical advancements, but yes, generally the 74 is
> > considered to deliver a slightly better picture (it has better
> > contrast).
> >
> > In any case the successor to these models will derive from the gen3
> > chip; while the 74 is at a 'dead end' technologically. That's why I
> > don't think the 74 is really a 'successor' to the 63. The 63 and 74
> > are really just both successors of a common ancestor.
> >
> > The 85 is a gen4 set, and really a successor to the 63's gen3,
> > afaik.
>
> That, and this:
>
> > HLP - 2004 models, TI HD-2+ chip (xx74 & xx85 series) or HD-3 chip
> > (xx63 series). Note that the HD-2+ chip has more mirrors and engines
> > based on it have higher resolution than the HD-3 chip-based
> > solutions.
>
> I understand it now--well, I think I understand it now.
>


Me too!
That post really cleared it up and now I can really impress future salesp
people, and correct them!
Take care
TEC
!