DLP Tvs advice

[bomber]

you spent $2500 for a 42, a 65" projection cost my family $1600.

Rear projections are crap compared to plasma's and dont try to tell me otherwise, I have both. BIG difference, I wouldn't buy a rear projection again

 

[bomber]

Guy at the store told me that it was light bouncing off of micro mirrors some kind of way. When i went and got mine i was looking at all the different ones and the only ones that looked better to me were the plasmas. The LCD ones that they had actually didn't look as hot. Plus from what i have heard plasmas and LCDs develop dead pixels over time. I'd much rather drop a bill and a half on a bulb then have a TV with dead pixels. For quality and price DLP is the way to go.

Yeah, Digital light processing using millions of tiny mirrors.

The dead pixel thing your talking about is called burn in. Which is a complete myth with plasma's imo, and in general for the most part. I've only seen a bit of burn in on my rear projection.

 

[cavincali]

Rear projections are crap compared to plasma's and dont try to tell me otherwise, I have both. BIG difference, I wouldn't buy a rear projection again

With the 1080? Cant comment, but they arent crap.

If you want to spend nearly twice as much for a smaller tv than go for it.

 

[RuanuLaw]

With the 1080? Cant comment, but they arent crap.

If you want to spend nearly twice as much for a smaller tv than go for it.

Its not the size of the TV that matters. You don't want to go TOO BIG because the more room there is between pixels, the worse the quality.

And since there is the same # of pixels in ur 65" DLP as there is in my 42" Plasma, the picture is better in my Plasma because there is less gap, better quality, and more color. Thus, when you watch a TV signal, it looks worse on your TV.

People don't realise that more size, the worse the quality.

You either get a 42"(Perfect size) for up close, or a Projector for a theater when seating far away so you dont see the "screen door-effect"

 

[CornerThree]

The only projections to me that have a suburb picture are the Sony SXRD series. They are kind of expensive though. Those 65" guys look awful with SD programming on them, and right now 80-90% of programming is SD. Basically a 37-42 inch TV is about the optimum size for a normal room. Some of the larger TV's can upconvert the picture a bit, but it still looks lousy on 65".

 

[CornerThree]

This 34" Sony tube probably has the best picture of anything available IMO, but it's relatively small, and weighs over 200 pounds. SD programming and HD both look great on it, since it's a tube TV. But it's about 2.5 feet deep.

 

[cavincali]

Its not the size of the TV that matters. You don't want to go TOO BIG because the more room there is between pixels, the worse the quality.

And since there is the same # of pixels in ur 65" DLP as there is in my 42" Plasma, the picture is better in my Plasma because there is less gap, better quality, and more color. Thus, when you watch a TV signal, it looks worse on your TV.

People don't realise that more size, the worse the quality.

You either get a 42"(Perfect size) for up close, or a Projector for a theater when seating far away so you dont see the "screen door-effect"

Do you even know how plasmas work? Its not about the pixels, theyre charged electrons. If you had a 65" plasma you would have a hell of a lot more charged electrons. I had a 45" projection before this one and it wasnt nearly as good as this one.

 

[CornerThree]

Do you even know how plasmas work? Its not about the pixels, theyre charged electrons. If you had a 65" plasma you would have a hell of a lot more charged electrons. I had a 45" projection before this one and it wasnt nearly as good as this one.

Do you know what resolution is? A charged electron is not a pixel. We have the 58/50/42 panasonic plasmas sitting side by side where I work, and the quality and SIZE of the pixels of the 58 are noticeably larger at a short viewing distance. Now if you back off 10-15 feet, the picture looks fine. But most people only view at like 8 feet, meaning they will see a lot of pixelation on SD programming.

 

[James]

im happy with the 52" Sharp Aquos.

 

[Mandingo]

RHF you seem to know a bit about TVs. Im looking to get a new DVD player the one i got is a low end model i got just to fill a gap. Any suggestions on what i should get? Not looking to spend a ton but i want a nice one.

 

[James]

RHF you seem to know a bit about TVs. Im looking to get a new DVD player the one i got is a low end model i got just to fill a gap. Any suggestions on what i should get? Not looking to spend a ton but i want a nice one.

Dingo, i got a Sony one that does the HDMI thing, its pretty nice.

 

[Mandingo]

What model?

 

[cavincali]

Do you know what resolution is? A charged electron is not a pixel. We have the 58/50/42 panasonic plasmas sitting side by side where I work, and the quality and SIZE of the pixels of the 58 are noticeably larger at a short viewing distance. Now if you back off 10-15 feet, the picture looks fine. But most people only view at like 8 feet, meaning they will see a lot of pixelation on SD programming.

I know guy. You get more pixels from more electrons, its the quality. Goodness, I guess I have to type everything out when I talk to some of you people.

 

[James]

What model?

Sony DVP-NS75H

 

[bomber]

The only projections to me that have a suburb picture are the Sony SXRD series. They are kind of expensive though. Those 65" guys look awful with SD programming on them, and right now 80-90% of programming is SD. Basically a 37-42 inch TV is about the optimum size for a normal room. Some of the larger TV's can upconvert the picture a bit, but it still looks lousy on 65".

exactly.

Man I'm in love with that Sony 50" SXRD