# lcd or dlp



## smith13 (Apr 29, 2004)

I am heading to ABC Warehouse today to buy a new tv and need helpo deciding on which one. The 2 tv's that I am looking at are the Toshiba 72MX195 and the Samsung HL-S7178W. Now these are both dlp's and I think that this is the way to go. But I need to make sure that dlp is the way to go over lcd and if I do stay with dlp which tv should I get?


----------



## DTSDude (May 24, 2006)

I think it's going to come down to a matter of opinion as to which to go with. Unless you're getting the new generation DLP, the LCD will be brighter. However, unless the LCD turns out to be an XBR it's going to pixelate during sports and action sequences.

I personally have always prefered DLP and with the new generation (Samsung HL-S5687W) they're as bright and clear as LCD without any pixelation. 

If left with the two choices you picked, I'd go with the Samsung.


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

LCD will burn in or retain an image where DLP won't. If you watch your 4:3 stretched or zoomed, it should be a problem, if you watch quite a bit of 4:3 with sidebars, you could constantly fight image retention, where you will have ghosts of the black sidebars on the left and right when watching widescreen material.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

DTSDude said:


> ...unless the LCD turns out to be an XBR it's going to pixelate during sports and action sequences...


That statement seems pretty irresponsible, seeing as how there could not possibly be one grain of truth to it. Pixellation is due to buffer underflow in the MPEG decoder, period. That can be due to any of many reasons upstream, and some pixellation may be due to earlier generation decoding rather than local decoding, but it is still the one and only reason for pixellation to manifest. And virtually all of the time, buffer underflow is due to issues with the signal being decoded rather than the local decoder itself.

Since scanning the raster within the display itself happens well after decoding, it can not contribute to what is exclusively an MPEG decoding issue. Display technologies, all of them, are signal agnostic--they couldn't care less if there is buffer underflow or not, they just paint the raster with whatever is decoded, and can't contribute to this type of artifacting.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tnedator said:


> LCD will burn in or retain an image where DLP won't...


Ditto here. Burn-in is exclusively related to premature aging of phosphors, typically due to constant electron bombardment, which will be uneven over time if still images are displayed. Only plasma and CRT displays contain phosphors, and are the only technologies that suffer burn-in, for the obvious reason. Neither DLP or LCD or LCOS can suffer burn-in, because there are no phosphors used in them. Case closed, again.

I am beginning to lose faith in this forum regarding display info. I suggest AVS for a bit more accurate info.


----------



## gilberto (Feb 22, 2005)

I have a plasma and an lcd and I like both. But what you should gain from this thread (and others) is the basic idea that there is simply no right answer. You will just get people contradicting each other and saying that each other is wrong. Go with what looks good to you and what fits in your setup in terms of size. Think about it, if one of these technologies were really inferior to the others, it wouldn't be around.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

When in doubt, trust your eyes. But do a lot of research -- avsforum is a great place.

And TyroneShoes is on the button with respect to his comments, FYI.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

gilberto said:


> ...what you should gain from this thread (and others) is the basic idea that there is simply no right answer. You will just get people contradicting each other and saying that each other is wrong...
> 
> ...Think about it, if one of these technologies were really inferior to the others, it wouldn't be around.


Your last statement says volumes. I could not agree more.

Quite a bit of what we see on forums is only opinion, but sometimes we get to actually discuss REAL FACTS, and facts are not based at all in opinion. Something is either the truth, or it is not. And, careful readers can probably discern the difference between conflicting answers in posts when one is just a completely unsupported statement, while the next actually goes out of the way to carefully explain why the answer is the answer it is. IOW, typically, the wrong answer has no supporting facts or explanation, while the right answer quite often does, and both of those things happen for the obvious reasons.


----------



## gregftlaud (Jun 16, 2004)

i have an lcd and watch alot of sports and never see any pixelation

2nd...you do not get burn-in on lcd tv's


----------



## hijammer (Aug 27, 2003)

DLP do have some issues with games with tight timming involved


----------



## srt (Jan 27, 2006)

we chose a lcd due to a window to outdoors being located behind our viewing location. No reflection of window on the lcd (bravia, and it kicks some serious picture quality). I do not know if dlp is likewise, but worth checking out.


----------



## Runch Machine (Feb 7, 2002)

Check out the new Sony SXRD 1080p sets. Sound and Vision ranked them as having the best picture quality to date. However, they found them to be just slighly better than DLP. Like others have said, buy what looks best to you.


----------



## smith13 (Apr 29, 2004)

I do want the new 70" sxrd but at a msrp of 6999 I think I will go with the samsung dlp 71".


----------



## bluedakar (May 1, 2006)

I have had a 60" LCD RP Sony XBR for a few years now and am still very happy with it. At the time I purchased it the DLP's were causing some people to see rainbows in the display but I beleive the newer generation of DLP's have eliminated that. I agree you should buy what looks best to you. Ditto to what TyroneShoes said. LCD's have no burn in.


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

Trying to make this decision myself. Only thing I can say about the new Samsung DLP coming out in August is it does not use a bulb and the wheel associated with an older DLP.
It uses the LCD lights to give it a 20000 hour life cycle.
I have always been a big fan of Sony, but I am thinking maybe taking a chance on this Samsung.
Wish you luck.


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

If you have access to Consumer Reports, there was a very interesting section this month on HDTV's. Before buying you might want to take a look and see what they have to say.


----------



## JStanton_boston (Mar 18, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Ditto here. Burn-in is exclusively related to premature aging of phosphors, typically due to constant electron bombardment, which will be uneven over time if still images are displayed. Only plasma and CRT displays contain phosphors, and are the only technologies that suffer burn-in, for the obvious reason. Neither DLP or LCD or LCOS can suffer burn-in, because there are no phosphors used in them. Case closed, again.
> 
> I am beginning to lose faith in this forum regarding display info. I suggest AVS for a bit more accurate info.


While you are correct about burn in, the LCD image quality still degrades with time.

DLP v. LCD endurance test


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Which issue was that in? I'm looking online and I don't see anything in the August 2006 issue...


----------



## monkeyboy1010 (Nov 17, 2000)

I had a Sony SXRD 60" and the size was too big for our viewing area, we had the set for 8 months so I had a chance to get to know it. Very nice TV, overscan was pretty heavy, takes some major tweaks to get the screen calibrated.

Now I have a 47" Westinghouse 1080p LCD and couldn't be happier. Crystal clear picture, very easy to calibrate, true 1080p input, 1:1 mapping. Check the link in my sig for more info on the Westy 47".


----------



## bryanb (Oct 26, 2001)

hijammer said:


> DLP do have some issues with games with tight timming involved


AFAIK that was only an issue with the previous generation of Samsung DLPs. The current generation doesn't have this problem.


----------



## bryanb (Oct 26, 2001)

monkeyboy1010 said:


> I had a Sony SXRD 60" and the size was too big for our viewing area, we had the set for 8 months so I had a chance to get to know it. Very nice TV, overscan was pretty heavy, takes some major tweaks to get the screen calibrated.
> 
> Now I have a 47" Westinghouse 1080p LCD and couldn't be happier. Crystal clear picture, very easy to calibrate, true 1080p input, 1:1 mapping. Check the link in my sig for more info on the Westy 47".


SXRD is LCoS, not DLP.


----------



## bryanb (Oct 26, 2001)

smith13 said:


> I am heading to ABC Warehouse today to buy a new tv and need helpo deciding on which one. The 2 tv's that I am looking at are the Toshiba 72MX195 and the Samsung HL-S7178W. Now these are both dlp's and I think that this is the way to go. But I need to make sure that dlp is the way to go over lcd and if I do stay with dlp which tv should I get?


For LCD, are you considering flat panel or rear projection?


----------



## hijammer (Aug 27, 2003)

bryanb said:


> AFAIK that was only an issue with the previous generation of Samsung DLPs. The current generation doesn't have this problem.


In general it is still an issue, Samsung has just added options to their current models


----------



## wdave (Jul 16, 2000)

Neither, go LCoS.


----------



## monkeyboy1010 (Nov 17, 2000)

bryanb said:


> SXRD is LCoS, not DLP.


Yes... I stand corrected. Skip DLP and go LCoS if you don't go LCD.


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

cheer said:


> Which issue was that in? I'm looking online and I don't see anything in the August 2006 issue...


I just checked what I received yesterday and the title is BEST OF CONSUMER REPORTS Volume 4, Issue 1


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

DLP Cons - Wobulation (half 1080p twice as often), color wheel (newer LED model won't have this), single chip for three colors, some people see rainbows (color wheel related)

LCD Cons - Screen Door Effect visible (pixels spacing visible)

LCoS Cons - Almost nothing (Sony SXRD, JVC DILA)

Troll AVS for reliability data, as all have manufacturing defects, especially when initially released.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

I was looking at one of the reasonably priced Sony 3LCD TVs earlier this week and was very impressed with their brightness and sharpness, as well as viewing angles. It seemed better than most other DLPs and LCD RPs that I had looked at, but maybe not *all* since side-by-side comparisons are impossible between different store models.

The one I liked was a 60" for about $2,600 at Circuit City, with a mail order price of about $1,850. Sony KDF-E60A20.



> 3LCD technology is a video projection system that uses three LCD panels to produce an image. There are three key advantages of 3LCD televisions when compared to single LCD panel or DLP projection televisions: A Brighter Picture even in well-lit rooms; Natural Colors are displayed with intense vibrancy; High Detail for spectacular HD performance.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

AbMagFab said:


> DLP Cons - Wobulation (half 1080p twice as often), color wheel (newer LED model won't have this), single chip for three colors, some people see rainbows (color wheel related)
> 
> LCD Cons - Screen Door Effect visible (pixels spacing visible)
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, that just made me laugh. I'm sure you didn't mean it.


----------



## A J Ricaud (Jun 25, 2002)

Mitsubishi has some nice true 1080p DLP offerings:

http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4551327#detailed


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

A J Ricaud said:


> Mitsubishi has some nice true 1080p DLP offerings:
> 
> http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4551327#detailed


I get a 500 Gig HD with that link. 

I think you cut and pasted your HD thread link after looking at the TV.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Oh, BOT, the question of DLP or LCD is a good one but only when comparing specific models at a point in time. Both of these have already undergone significant evolution in their technology, enhancing and correcting certain problems and shortcomings. Trying to generalize which technology is better across-the-board is a little too misleading. There is just too broad of a range in implementation between manufacturers and model series to do this.


----------



## A J Ricaud (Jun 25, 2002)

retrodog said:


> I get a 500 Gig HD with that link.
> 
> I think you cut and pasted your HD thread link after looking at the TV.


You are right. Sorry about that. Here's the (hopefully) correct link:

http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/televisions/details.asp?id=219


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

I see it only took about 25 posts before someone asked the question of whether or not the OP was referring to an LCD panel or RPTV, but that apparently didn't slow down the number of opinions that were presented even though the OP wasn't clear in his request for info.  Generally, LCDs can't produce good black levels when compared to either DLP or LCoS. I've got a Hitachi 60" LCD RPTV and, although I really like the picture, it still doesn't do blacks well and it adds a geenish tint to the picture (this is not necessarily a problem with all LCDs but rather a quirk related to this set). I'll never buy another LCD-based HDTV as a result of the black level issue. All other LCD RPTVs are pretty much in the same boat. All of the home theater hardware reviewers will say that good black levels are a must for realistic reproduction of a broadcast image, and after owning an HDTV I'd have to agree with that assessment.

I like DLPs and have never experienced the rainbow patterns myself, although many people are susceptible to them so audition them before settling on a final choice. I don't know of any three-chip DLP RPTVs but that would have to be my choice if I were going with a DLP set. The thought of having a mechanical color wheel inside my TV just doesn't sit well with me for some reason. The new Sony SXRD sets are about the best I've seen so far. The JVC DILA sets have been reported to be problematic but check the AVS Forums for more info in this regard. Keep in mind that any of the fixed pixel RPTVs or front projectors use a bulb that can be quite expensive to replace, and you WILL be replacing it eventually.

The main problem with going to forums for info is that everyone has their own opinions that are not necessarily based on any expertise on the subject but more from an emotional standpoint (i.e., I own it so it must be the best). You'll also find a lot of negative reports since many people tend to post gripes rather than praises for a product. Consumer Reports is OK if you're looking for a home appliance but if you really want a good HDTV and need expert opinions to point you in the right direction, stick with some of the high-end trade magazines like The Perfect Vision to give you the real skinny.

One type of set you might want to consider is a front projection set. It takes up far less space than any floor standing model and you can get a much larger image than most enclosed sets. There are some outstanding values available in DLP projectors, especially if you don't mind going with a 720p set vs. a 1080p model. 1080p sounds like it would be a better set (and it is) but right now there isn't anything being broadcast in 1080p, only 720p or 1080i. If you plan on going with one of the HD DVD formats then you should consider the 1080p models. A front projector will truly give you the full home theater experience vs. staring at a box. The projection screen will take up no more floor space than the average sized RPTV and most of them will retract to the ceiling.


----------



## bryanb (Oct 26, 2001)

hijammer said:


> In general it is still an issue, Samsung has just added options to their current models


I have the HL-S4266W and haven't noticed any lag even when not using Game Mode. I don't have too many 480i games to test with though. Do you have a specific example?

b


----------



## RonH54 (Jul 3, 2004)

Hersheytx said:


> Trying to make this decision myself. Only thing I can say about the new Samsung DLP coming out in August is it does not use a bulb and the wheel associated with an older DLP.
> It uses the LCD lights to give it a 20000 hour life cycle.
> I have always been a big fan of Sony, but I am thinking maybe taking a chance on this Samsung.
> Wish you luck.


If you can wait this is a great point. The new Samsung 56in LED shows some great promise.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

captain_video said:


> I see it only took about 25 posts before someone asked the question of whether or not the OP was referring to an LCD panel or RPTV, but that apparently didn't slow down the number of opinions that were presented even though the OP wasn't clear in his request for info.


IT'S A RAID EVERYONE, THE THREAD POLICE ARE HERE. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!



I think it was reasonably obvious what he was talking about with the models he had listed. Logic would dictate that he was considering something LCD based that was closest in look/feel/price. Maybe that was an assumption, but I think a reasonable one by most. And he didn't seem to displeased with the responses. Who exactly are you to judge participants in a thread that is going along adequately?  Hey look, I can make the little rolling eyes guy too  Hey, I did it again. 



> Generally, LCDs can't produce good black levels when compared to either DLP or LCoS. I've got a Hitachi 60" LCD RPTV and, although I really like the picture, it still doesn't do blacks well and it adds a geenish tint to the picture (this is not necessarily a problem with all LCDs but rather a quirk related to this set). *I'll never buy another LCD-based HDTV as a result of the black level issue*. All other LCD RPTVs are pretty much in the same boat. All of the home theater hardware reviewers will say that good black levels are a must for realistic reproduction of a broadcast image, and after owning an HDTV I'd have to agree with that assessment.


 Is that really true, you'll *never* buy another LCD based TV? No matter what they do to make them better? No way, no how? Don't you think that comes across a little self-righteous and closed minded? Aren't you aware of the automatic response of people to ignore anything that follows the words like <never, always, forever, all>? You gotta cut that s#it out if you want people to pay any attention to you.



> I like DLPs and have never experienced the rainbow patterns myself, although many people are susceptible to them so audition them before settling on a final choice. I don't know of any three-chip DLP RPTVs but that would have to be my choice if I were going with a DLP set. The thought of having a mechanical color wheel inside my TV just doesn't sit well with me for some reason. The new Sony SXRD sets are about the best I've seen so far. The JVC DILA sets have been reported to be problematic but check the AVS Forums for more info in this regard. Keep in mind that any of the fixed pixel RPTVs or front projectors *use a bulb that can be quite expensive to replace, and you WILL be replacing it eventually*.


He (or she) will be replacing the whole TV *eventually*... most likely. I've got a five year old projection TV and I've never had to replace a bulb on it. And I watch it a lot. I think we only hear from the people who had to replace them and they complain real loud. There's a lot of people who've never had to replace them and they just stay quiet and keep watching their TVs.



> The main problem with going to forums for info is that everyone has their own opinions that are not necessarily based on any expertise on the subject but more from an emotional standpoint (i.e., I own it so it must be the best). *You'll also find a lot of negative reports since many people tend to post gripes rather than praises for a product*.


 Oh yeah, you mean like the bulb replacement thing?



> Consumer Reports is OK if you're looking for a home appliance but if you really want a good HDTV and need expert opinions to point you in the right direction, stick with some of the high-end trade magazines like The Perfect Vision to give you the real skinny.


 Yeah, and he (or she) will end up spending 25-50% more (or even more) to overcome characteristics that may have never been noticed.



> One type of set you might want to consider is a front projection set. It takes up far less space than any floor standing model and you can get a much larger image than most enclosed sets. There are some outstanding values available in DLP projectors, especially if you don't mind going with a 720p set vs. a 1080p model. 1080p sounds like it would be a better set (and it is) but right now there isn't anything being broadcast in 1080p, only 720p or 1080i. If you plan on going with one of the HD DVD formats then you should consider the 1080p models. A front projector will truly give you the full home theater experience vs. staring at a box. The projection screen will take up no more floor space than the average sized RPTV and most of them will retract to the ceiling.


I've looked at those but they seem very light sensitive. Almost like you need a special room for them and viewing them always has to be a planned event. But under near ideal conditions, they are truly beautiful... if the bulb doesn't burn out. I hear it's kind of expensive.

Ok, ok, I was just having fun with you. Don't hit me. Well don't hit me very hard anyway.


----------



## Chandler Mike (Mar 29, 2002)

tnedator said:


> LCD will burn in or retain an image where DLP won't. If you watch your 4:3 stretched or zoomed, it should be a problem, if you watch quite a bit of 4:3 with sidebars, you could constantly fight image retention, where you will have ghosts of the black sidebars on the left and right when watching widescreen material.


That's not true, LCD doesn't burn in images...not from what I learned during research...


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

JStanton_boston said:


> While you are correct about burn in, the LCD image quality still degrades with time.
> 
> DLP v. LCD endurance test


Everything degrades over time.

And by "degrade", we are speaking of an uneven (per panel) lessening of color saturation, primarily, as well as some uneven (per panel) minimal brightness issues, all of which can be either roughly compensated for by tweaking the user controls, or probably completely compensated for by a full calibration. I would heartily recommend that for LCDs over 5 years old, but of course most of them are only 2-3 years old or less, at the moment. Unless you have the brightness and picture controls maxed, contrast ratio can be compensated for as well. You will have a little less overhead as the set ages, but contrast ratio can typically be compensated for. No other significant aspect of picture or image "quality", such as resolution, etc., degrades in LCDs any more than in might in any other format. And I would rather have a set that looks great for the first 2700 hours and can be readjusted to only nearly great for the rest of its life than a set that produces rainbows for its entire lifetime.

My 6 year-old Eclipse isn't quite the car the new 2007 Eclipse is, either, or quite the car it was in 2001. I think that's expected.

Also, I find it hard to completely bend over for a "white paper" commissioned by Texas Instruments, who has a vested interest in DLP. Those graphs use scaling that makes at first glance a little seem like a lot and at other times a lot seem like a little whenever one or the other serves their purpose (which is to mislead).

They also claim that the refresh rate is 4 times faster, at 1 ms. Of course what they don't tell you is that the fastest any TV raster ever refreshes is over 4 times slower than the slowest modern DLP or LCD panel available could ever refresh, so faster is absolutely not better, and not even a factor that should be considered.

But as far as recommendations, you just can't beat the 1080p LCOS, especially the Sony SXRDs. They are really something special.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> I think it was reasonably obvious what he was talking about with the models he had listed.


Then you must be psychic since he listed two DLP models and never indicated what type of LCD he was interested in.



> Is that really true, you'll never buy another LCD based TV? No matter what they do to make them better? No way, no how?


I indicated I would never buy one as a result of the black level issue. If they ever get the technology to the point where it can compete with the best sets available then it would be silly not to consider one. The technology has already improved slightly since I bought my set but not enough to make me want to get another one.



> He (or she) will be replacing the whole TV eventually... most likely. I've got a five year old projection TV and I've never had to replace a bulb on it.


And if you read any of the posts at the AVS Forums you'd realize that you are the exception to the rule. Projection bulbs have a limited lifespan and will eventually have to be replaced at least once during the life of the set, depending on how long you own it, of course. Five years is pushing the envelope, depending on how many hours the set has actually been in use. I've heard of several cases where the bulb had to be replaced within the first year of ownership, although I'm sure that's not a normal situation for most projection set owners.



> Oh yeah, you mean like the bulb replacement thing?


That wasn't meant to be a negative point but rather a caveat that should be taken into consideration when making an informed purchase. Some people would rather not have to deal with a bulb replacement. Since CRTs are quickly becoming a faint memory, fixed pixel displays are becoming the norm for RPTVs and projectors. I saw an article in a recent issue of The Perfect Vision about the latest Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas and there is a report of a new technology using super bright LEDs instead of bulbs for the light source that shows a lot of promise and should extend the life of the set consdierably without having to change a bulb.



> Yeah, and he (or she) will end up spending 25-50% more (or even more) to overcome characteristics that may have never been noticed.


Ignorance is bliss, they say. They also could end up spending big bucks on a turkey even though Consumer Reports considered it a best buy. Just because you get a good price on something doesn't mean you're always getting a bargain. Consumer Reports may be a fine source for everyday household items but I'd prefer to take the advice of someone that deals with home theater hardware exclusively than an organization that deals with toasters and TVs with the same mindset. I like to do a lot of research so I can make an informed decision before I make a large purchase. Once I've decided on a particular item then I'll start shopping for the best deal. Consumer Reports bases their findings on the retail price of any item they test and not what you can find it for on sale.



> I've looked at those but they seem very light sensitive. Almost like you need a special room for them and viewing them always has to be a planned event. But under near ideal conditions, they are truly beautiful... if the bulb doesn't burn out. I hear it's kind of expensive.


You can certainly spend a lot of money on a front projection set (over $10,000 and up for the high end stuff) but there are a lot of front projectors hitting the market that are getting more reasonably priced and well within the range of anyone considering an HD RPTV. They are generally meant to be viewed in a darkened room (hence the term "home theater"). Have you ever stepped into a movie theater and watched a movie with all of the lights on (besides the opening short subjects)? As for being a planned event, using a projector is no more involved than switching on any other HDTV set.



> LCD will burn in or retain an image where DLP won't.


No fixed pixel display will suffer from image burn-in. This was only a problem with CRTs because the phosphors on the surface of the picture tube would remain illuminated for extended periods and burn the image into the screen. Fixed pixel displays do not illuminate anything but rather allow light to pass through them, much light a slide or movie projector but instead of using film it uses a display chip. I believe I may have heard that this could be an issue with some plasmas but I can't be sure.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

retrodog said:


> ...they seem very light sensitive. Almost like you need a special room for them and viewing them always has to be a planned event. But under near ideal conditions, they are truly beautiful... if the bulb doesn't burn out. I hear it's kind of expensive...


My LCD bulb was under $200 (and under warranty). The front projectors we use where I work have had bulbs replaced also, at $900 a pop (and no warranty).


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

captain_video said:


> Then you must be psychic since he listed two DLP models and never indicated what type of LCD he was interested in.


 You don't need to be psychic to automatically assume/derive that the closest and most probably LCD reference would have been a RP LCD. And following posts seem to confirm it. I think you were just being a bit intentionally (and eroneously) condecending with the point you were trying to make. They say hindsight is 20-20, but by the time you posted it was indeed hindsight. Maybe you're just frontsighted. Better get those eyes checked.



> I indicated I would never buy one as a result of the black level issue. If they ever get the technology to the point where it can compete with the best sets available then it would be silly not to consider one. The technology has already improved slightly since I bought my set but not enough to make me want to get another one.


 I think you need to study the English language and defintions of words a little better because you didn't say what I think you wanted to say. But then you finally explained it so I guess you would indeed consider buying an LCD TV when they correct this problem adequately enough for you, i.e. to within your personaly subjective level. Yes, I understand. Thank you.



> And if you read any of the posts at the AVS Forums you'd realize that you are the exception to the rule. Projection bulbs have a limited lifespan and will eventually have to be replaced at least once during the life of the set, depending on how long you own it, of course. Five years is pushing the envelope, depending on how many hours the set has actually been in use. I've heard of several cases where the bulb had to be replaced within the first year of ownership, although I'm sure that's not a normal situation for most projection set owners.


Again, of course it will *eventually* wear out. And again, you always hear from those who have had bad luck or some problem the most. If you spend enough time on AVS Forum you will also think that anything that doesn't cost the most is pretty much a POS. You might as well study wine and be able to tell everyone why their favorite one is too dry, or sweet, or empty, or whatever. I think maybe you've spent a little too much time over there in the AVS forum. If you spend more time over in this forum, you'll find much fewer snobs and people who are critical of the shape of every little pixel, and a little more realistic about how much they'll be watching test patern videos and when they'll just be sitting back and enjoying a movie or whatever.



> That wasn't meant to be a negative point but rather a caveat that should be taken into consideration when making an informed purchase. Some people would rather not have to deal with a bulb replacement. Since CRTs are quickly becoming a faint memory, fixed pixel displays are becoming the norm for RPTVs and projectors. I saw an article in a recent issue of The Perfect Vision about the latest Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas and there is a report of a new technology using super bright LEDs instead of bulbs for the light source that shows a lot of promise and should extend the life of the set consdierably without having to change a bulb.


This is intersting stuff. It will be interesting to see what comes about. I remember seeing some interesting stories on Organic LED displays, with many advantages in terms of size capability and power consumption. Not sure what happened to them though. Are they around. Do I have something with them and just didn't notice? Dunno. Or are they something that got overtaken by some other technology? I just don't know. But the point I'm trying to make is nothing is a sure thing till it takes over the market with a decent share (market share).



> *Ignorance is bliss, they say*. They also could end up spending big bucks on a turkey even though Consumer Reports considered it a best buy. Just because you get a good price on something doesn't mean you're always getting a bargain. Consumer Reports may be a fine source for everyday household items but I'd prefer to take the advice of someone that deals with home theater hardware exclusively than an organization that deals with toasters and TVs with the same mindset. I like to do a lot of research so I can make an informed decision before I make a large purchase. Once I've decided on a particular item then I'll start shopping for the best deal. Consumer Reports bases their findings on the retail price of any item they test and not what you can find it for on sale.


You know, you could have gone all year without using that overabused debate line. The term ignorance is an interesting one, in that it doesn't really mean "stupid" but it comes across that way. And it's never a compliment. But I digress. There is indeed a distinct difference between ignorance and apathy, to some extent. Again, I contend that like some wine snob, you are pointing out some small little idiosyncrasies and making them sound like substantial weaknesses and justification for completely avoiding a certain technology. That's a personal judjement call and based on a very subjective call. Now granted you clearly made the statement that you personally felt that way, but you are certainly propogating the tendency of what you even criticized with your "opinions" remarks. You've just crossed the line in your own way, trying to use your opinion of where to draw the line on a list of subjects, be it blackness issues or bulb replacements... and all the time basing this on posts that you read on a forum and and what your eyes prefer but not, from what I can tell, from hard data on life cycles of bulbs or radience tests taken from specified viewing distances with light spectrum analyzers(whatever that is, I just made it up but it sounds pretty good, huh). Maybe you're the guy who is always there, just over the shoulder of someone, to point out some little detail that would otherwise go unnoticed, and then explain why that fuzzyness at the outer limit of the screen made that specific TV and total POS. Dunno. And don't get me wrong, I would never defend that nearly worthless (and totally biased) rag known as Consumer Reports. I never (there I go again using that word "never") have and never will. Hey, that was at least three nevers. Is anybody still paying attention? 



> You can certainly spend a lot of money on a front projection set (over $10,000 and up for the high end stuff) but there are a lot of front projectors hitting the market that are getting more reasonably priced and well within the range of anyone considering an HD RPTV. They are generally meant to be viewed in a darkened room (hence the term "home theater"). Have you ever stepped into a movie theater and watched a movie with all of the lights on (besides the opening short subjects)? As for being a planned event, using a projector is no more involved than switching on any other HDTV set.


 Now you see, up till this point I was just sort of having fun and mostly joking with all the gobbleygook (albeit poignant). But this is a little silly. I realize that they are getting affordable (as compared to these other TVs we're talking about) but having a dark room and re-creating a theater-like environment certainly *is* a special effort. And it is truly *not* like having the TV in your living room and just turning it on while doing dinner and/or hanging out, then turning the lights down a bit for a special viewing of a DVD or something on HD. I've got a corvette, and it's *not* my daily driver. I don't drive it though mud, snow, rain, or many of the other things that it isn't really made for. I've got a WRX for that. My point? A front projector is still a very special tool for a limited use. It *ain't* (totally incorrect use of the contraction of "am not") for the living room and general daily use. So it's *not* what most people would consider a multipurpose video source, like my WRX is for driving.



> No fixed pixel display will suffer from image burn-in. This was only a problem with CRTs because the phosphors on the surface of the picture tube would remain illuminated for extended periods and burn the image into the screen. Fixed pixel displays do not illuminate anything but rather allow light to pass through them, much light a slide or movie projector but instead of using film it uses a display chip. I believe I may have heard that this could be an issue with some plasmas *but I can't be sure*.


I really like that last part. In my eyes... you just redeemed yourself.


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> Ditto here. Burn-in is exclusively related to premature aging of phosphors, typically due to constant electron bombardment, which will be uneven over time if still images are displayed. Only plasma and CRT displays contain phosphors, and are the only technologies that suffer burn-in, for the obvious reason. Neither DLP or LCD or LCOS can suffer burn-in, because there are no phosphors used in them. Case closed, again.
> 
> I am beginning to lose faith in this forum regarding display info. I suggest AVS for a bit more accurate info.


Notice I qualified burn-in with image retention. I use both, because most people are more familiar with the term 'burn in' then 'image retention'. The real sad fact is when people like you say that LCD, Plasma and Lcos are 'burn in' free, when they can suffere permanent, or practically permanent, image retention, which for all practical purposes is 'burn in'.

Anyone that doubts it, do a google using these search terms: LCD Image Retention


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

When I read statements like those in this thread, which are absolute in their presentation, yet completely wrong, it pisses me off and makes me want to not even bother replying. However, being a person that was burned by innacurate statements like the one TyroneShoes made in this thread, it isn't fair for the unsuspecting people that read these 'experts' who state that burn-in/image retention isn't a problem in LCD's.

Rather than post my whole story and supporting info here, I simply going to post links to posts I have made on AVS regarding the subject. If you don't want to get burned (pun intended) take the time to read them, and the links contained in a couple of them).

The one point I will make is this. Image retention/persistance is not permanent, but it depends how much 4:3 you watch versus widescreen. If you watch 80-90% 4:3 then your panels will never have a chance to lose their retention, so when you put in a letterboxed widescreen movie or watch HDTV you will see dark ghosts of the sidebars on the left and right side of your TV.

Listen to people like Shoes at your own risk:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7759403&&#post7759403

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7278157&&#post7278157

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7727902&&#post7727902

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7728574&&#post7728574 (several posts on this page)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7752007&&#post7752007

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7631585&&#post7631585

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6991713&&#post6991713

Google Searches: You will have to weed your way through these sites, but will find lots of info on image retention and persistance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lcd+"image+retention"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...result&cd=1&q=lcd+"image+persistence"&spell=1


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

tnedator said:


> When I read statements like those in this thread, which are absolute in their presentation, yet completely wrong, it pisses me off and makes me want to not even bother replying. However, being a person that was burned by innacurate statements like the one TyroneShoes made in this thread, it isn't fair for the unsuspecting people that read these 'experts' who state that burn-in/image retention isn't a problem in LCD's.
> 
> Rather than post my whole story and supporting info here, I simply going to post links to posts I have made on AVS regarding the subject. If you don't want to get burned (pun intended) take the time to read them, and the links contained in a couple of them).
> 
> ...


Yeah, and I know a lot of people who stretch the 4:3 material just so they will never get the image retention (burn-in) that they say their system can't get. They do it cause they "don't like the black bars on the side".


----------



## srt (Jan 27, 2006)

Won't it be nice when football season starts and we begin watching what is on tv, not what is going on with the screen?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> I think maybe you've spent a little too much time over there in the AVS forum. If you spend more time over in this forum, you'll find much fewer snobs and people who are critical of the shape of every little pixel, and a little more realistic about how much they'll be watching test patern videos and when they'll just be sitting back and enjoying a movie or whatever.


Actually, I spend very little time over at the AVSForums. I visit there once in a while to see what the latest topics are but it's mostly redundant threads about the same topics over and over again, sort of like what you find here. I would never recommend that anyone take what they read in a forum as gospel simply because there are a lot of posters that don't know what they're talking about and are just putting their 2 cents in based on supposition and not facts. I wouldn't expect anyone to take anything I say as the absolute truth because there are always opposing opinions to any notion. Just take it for what it's worth. If you don't agree with my opinion then so be it. I'm sure I won't lose any sleep over it. 

On the topic of front projectors, they're definitely not for everyone but they can be used just like any other HDTV even for the most casual viewing as long as you're willing to set them up in the proper environment. I have my home theater setup in my basement and the few small windows that allow light into the room are blocked off so the room is in total darkness. I've got a 6500K light right behind the set that is supposed to optimize the proper lighting level but I don't find that it really does anything for me. Proper viewing of any TV should be done with the lights dimmed. I don't prefer total darkness but rather subdued lighting so I can at least see where I'm going so I don't trip and break my neck while going to the fridge for another cold one. Trying to watch a TV in a fully lit room sort of defeats the purpose of why you bought an HDTV in the first place.

Case in point: My brother-in-law bought a beautiful new 50" Sony SXRD HDTV. He sits in his family room with a light turned up full that is directly in front of the TV. The glare off the screen is intensely annoying to me but apparently he is totally oblivious to it. The contrast, brightness, and color are all cranked up so the set looks more like something from the Las Vegas strip rather than a high definition display. I bought him a copy of Digital Video Essentials to calibrate the set but he apparently likes it the way it is. I figure if it makes him happy then who am I to say anything different? I can only point out what will help improve the quality of the image, not to mention the life of the display. What he does with the info is entirely up to him. The same goes for what I post here.

My niece's husband has a front projector set up in his basement rec room. I believe it's a Panasonic model that he paid about $1500 for. They've got two small boys and having a retractable projection screen and a projector that's out of reach is a major plus for them. There's no special setup in the room other than a dimmer switch on the wall. The room can easily be used to entertain guests without being taken over by a large piece of furniture like an RPTV. I am seriously considering a front projector for my next venture into HDTV for that very reason.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> *Actually, I spend very little time over at the AVSForums.* I visit there once in a while to see what the latest topics are but it's mostly redundant threads about the same topics over and over again, sort of like what you find here. I would never recommend that anyone take what they read in a forum as gospel simply because there are a lot of posters that don't know what they're talking about and are just putting their 2 cents in based on supposition and not facts. I wouldn't expect anyone to take anything I say as the absolute truth because there are always opposing opinions to any notion. Just take it for what it's worth. If you don't agree with my opinion then so be it. I'm sure I won't lose any sleep over it.


I wasn't talking to you. 



> On the topic of front projectors, they're definitely not for everyone but they can be used just like any other HDTV even for the most casual viewing *as long as you're willing to set them up in the proper environment*. I have my home theater setup in my basement and the few small windows that allow light into the room are blocked off so the room is in total darkness. I've got a 6500K light right behind the set that is supposed to optimize the proper lighting level but I don't find that it really does anything for me. Proper viewing of any TV should be done with the lights dimmed. I don't prefer total darkness but rather subdued lighting so I can at least see where I'm going so I don't trip and break my neck while going to the fridge for another cold one. Trying to watch a TV in a fully lit room sort of defeats the purpose of why you bought an HDTV in the first place.


And that's the key. Now I would indeed absolutely love to have a theater room with a projector, but you do indeed need a special environment for it, or at least the ability to control the lighting for it. My big screen TV is in the living room. I'm single. My TV is on all the time that I'm home. It's on while I'm eating dinner, on the computer, putting around the house (not golf), and just generally goofing off. The only time it's off is when I'm sleeping. But when I do indeed get ready to watch a movie or something special, I turn down the lighting and get into it. A front projector doesn't really offer this versatility. It does indeed go out on the end of the viewing spectrum toward theater quality, like the corvette does toward racing, but it falls short in the other areas. I'm just saying that it's not a good all purpose single source TV... in most cases. Now someone might pipe in here and tell me that they live in a cave and it would be perfect for them, dunno. So be it.



> Case in point: My brother-in-law bought a beautiful new 50" Sony SXRD HDTV. He sits in his family room with a light turned up full that is directly in front of the TV. The glare off the screen is intensely annoying to me but apparently he is totally oblivious to it. The contrast, brightness, and color are all cranked up so the set looks more like something from the Las Vegas strip rather than a high definition display. I bought him a copy of Digital Video Essentials to calibrate the set but he apparently likes it the way it is. I figure if it makes him happy then who am I to say anything different? I can only point out what will help improve the quality of the image, not to mention the life of the display. What he does with the info is entirely up to him. The same goes for what I post here.
> 
> My niece's husband has a front projector set up in his basement rec room. I believe it's a Panasonic model that he paid about $1500 for. They've got two small boys and having a retractable projection screen and a projector that's out of reach is a major plus for them. There's no special setup in the room other than a dimmer switch on the wall. The room can easily be used to entertain guests without being taken over by a large piece of furniture like an RPTV. I am seriously considering a front projector for my next venture into HDTV for that very reason.


These are a couplle of good examples of where people have gotten their TV and enjoy it in their own way. Other people on here would tell you that "ignorance is bliss." I'm not gonna though. I prefer to just think that they like what they like. 

It's all good.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

my 57 hitachi crt stretches quite nicely. If you have lots of SD , you may want to consider crt  I just hope people that still watch a lot of SD take that into account when choosing a technology.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

CRTs are great for small sets but they're all but extinct when it comes to any type of projection set.



> I wasn't talking to you.


Huh? Did you say something?


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

If you plan to watch mostly SD, don't bother getting an HD set.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

I'd agree with that in principle but SD on most big screen HDTVs definitely looks better than SD on a big screen SD set. It's still no match for HDTV but it is a slight improvement, although you'd have to decide if the investment is worth it if you plan on watching nothing but SDTV.


----------



## MisterEd (Jun 6, 2001)

Why do I see the ghost of the Windows XP taskbar permamently glued to the bottom of my 21" Dell LCD monitor (that has never used a screensaver in 3+yrs)? I'm not trying to be a thread crapper just trying to understand why. 


TyroneShoes said:


> Only plasma and CRT displays contain phosphors, and are the only technologies that suffer burn-in, for the obvious reason. Neither DLP or LCD or LCOS can suffer burn-in, because there are no phosphors used in them. Case closed, again


----------



## tnedator (Dec 4, 2003)

MisterEd said:


> Why do I see the ghost of the Windows XP taskbar permamently glued to the bottom of my 21" Dell LCD monitor (that has never used a screensaver in 3+yrs)? I'm not trying to be a thread crapper just trying to understand why.


Because LCD's don't burn in of course.

That is essentially permanent image retention. You can either fix, or minimize it by putting on a pure white wallpaper, loosing desktop icons and having your task bar auto hide, or a pure white screen saver. If you display the pure white image long enough, it is supposed to get rid of retention. Not sure how effective it is on a deeply 'retained'/burned image.

This is the same retention that you will get if you watch a lot of 4:3 material with sidebars vs. stretched. It will never have a chance to loose its retention, so when you do watch widescreen DVD's, you will see ghosts of the sidebars on light scenes.

People like Shoes that made definitive, yet incorrect, statements on AVS led me to but a Panasonic AE900U front projector, and in one weekend I had enough sidebar burn in for it to be way to annoying to watch movies. Fortunately, I was able to return it, and waited a few months until the Infocus IN76 DLP projector was released.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

AbMagFab said:


> If you plan to watch mostly SD, don't bother getting an HD set.


This line kind of made me laugh because conversely, if he plans to watch *any* HD at all, he'll absolutely *have* to get an HD set. Right? Or am I missing something??? 



captain_video said:


> I'd agree with that in principle but SD on most big screen HDTVs definitely looks better than SD on a big screen SD set. It's still no match for HDTV but it is a slight improvement, although you'd have to decide if the investment is worth it if you plan on watching nothing but SDTV.


Very well put and I whole-heartedly agree with thin man here. I have had an HD set for 5.5 years now (granted it's a 4:3 ration set). Using the progressive scan feature makes SD stuff look way better (standard engineering quantitative term) than it does on a standard analog set of the same size. In fact, I've spent a vast majority of my time watching SD material on this set and been very pleased with the look, while a female friend of mine has watched her 42" Sony RP SD set and those horizontal scan line gaps drove me crazy.

Or maybe I got some of my terminology mixed up here. Hmmm... Oh well, I guess I said what I meant to say... I think.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Had a chance to get a free non-HD 60" CRT RPTV Mits today. Took one look at the picture and nearly barfed. The picture is significantly better on my (admittedly smaller) HD plasma.

The best display device for SD analog TV, IMO, is a CRT tube set. I love my plasma, but SD stuff looked better on my old 36" flat tube non-HD CRT for sure.

But the bottom line (as always)...trust your eyes. Go look at the sets. Make them let you adjust the settings -- SD stuff looked bloody awful on my plasma until I took it out of torch mode, turned off noise reduction, etc. And see if they can hook a non-HD feed up for you (Circuit City and Best Buy couldn't do that for me, but Tweeter did...)


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

that sucks..CC turned to whatever channel i wanted when i went there last year....they had the local comcast hooked up


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Well Fry's has got a 62" Mitsubishi LCD on sale for $1,500.

http://www.marketplacelocal.com/por...&itempage=35&sitempage=31&previousPage=browse

It is probably the 62526 but doesn't say. They were selling them for $1,900 just last week so maybe they're trying to clear them out.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

retrodog said:


> Well Fry's has got a 62" Mitsubishi LCD on sale for $1,500.
> 
> http://www.marketplacelocal.com/por...&itempage=35&sitempage=31&previousPage=browse
> 
> It is probably the 62526 but doesn't say. They were selling them for $1,900 just last week so maybe they're trying to clear them out.


Maybe a false alarm. The sales rep at my local Fry's denied the listed price. Haven't been able to check a hard copy from today's paper yet.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

tnedator said:


> When I read statements like those in this thread, which are absolute in their presentation, yet completely wrong, it pisses me off and makes me want to not even bother replying. However, being a person that was burned by innacurate statements like the one TyroneShoes made in this thread, it isn't fair for the unsuspecting people that read these 'experts' who state that burn-in/image retention isn't a problem in LCD's.
> 
> Rather than post my whole story and supporting info here, I simply going to post links to posts I have made on AVS regarding the subject. If you don't want to get burned (pun intended) take the time to read them, and the links contained in a couple of them).
> 
> ...


Nigapleeze. How ironic that you can't even spell the word "inaccurate". It's also not really surprising that you have completely confused temporary image retention with burn-in.

I was prepared to be completely chastised by all of the voluminous links you posted. No one is right 100% of the time, after all. But, unfortunately for you, I'm apparently still batting 1000. As it turns out, all of the links other than the Google searches turned out to be nothing more than posts from you and only you, each saying essentially the same thing over and over, which was that you bought a LCD projector and it had an image retention problem. So, bottom line, we have nothing but anecdotal evidence so far that you have seen one image retention problem, a grand total of once.

That's entirely possible. But, for a properly-operating LCD display, it just doesn't happen. You stating that it does, nine separate times on the internet, does not change that. And actual burn-in itself, a phenomenon of electron bombardment prematurely aging phosphors unevenly, is then obviously not even physically possible on non-phosphor displays.

I also have seen the TIR problem, directly on my Sony LCD display. But I didn't see the problem AT ALL for the first 10 months of my ownership of it, had it repaired under warranty, and have not seen the problem since. While it was NOT properly operating, all it would take would be 20 seconds of Tivo's "Now Playing" screen, and then for some time I could still read the NP list after going to other video. But it was not operating as normal, and needed servicing. Now, it works perfectly once again, and does not have one trace of image retention.

It seems pretty likely that your's was also not operating properly, out of the box, and also needed servicing. Otherwise, if they all did that, everyone would return them, no one would buy them, and they would have disappeared from the marketplace long ago. Instead, you jump to a false conclusion about LCDs in general, look for weak validation from others also whining about it in the forums (which you apparently failed to even find), and then attempt to discredit everyone else with a bunch of lame name-calling. Well done. How proud all of your friends and family must be to have to regularly endure this pattern of behavior from you.

I try to shut my set off when not in use, but I have a bad habit of hitting pause to "rest my eyes for just a minute" and waking up 6 hours later to see that I've been on the same "white font on black background" image all night long (Tivo really needs a screen saver. But then maybe for LCD owners it really doesn't). Whenever this happens, there is NO image retention AT ALL, now that it is working properly. So that's MY anecdotal information.

But my posts weren't based on anecdotal information, as were yours, they were based on reality, instead, which is backed up by pretty much every _reputable _ scientific report there is on the subject. And while you originally posted (incorrectly) about burn-in, everything you posted here confusingly points to image retention instead.

Which brings us to the "Googles". First of all, if I swallowed everything whole I ever read on Google, I would not be able to think for myself or post at all. But as it turns out, I have a pretty good bullsh!t meter, and I can usually tell when authoritative-appearing reports are spinning things strategically to suit their corporate masters. And even with that phenomenon fully in play, about the strongest condemnation of LCDs regarding image retention in all of what was posted boils down to this direct quote, not taken out of context, BTW, which is: "It is very unlikely for a consumer to have this happen."

So grow up, take responsibility for your own bad experiences, and get the chip off your shoulder. I stand by my earlier statements completely, I accept the support of Cheer and others who agree, and I will let my long reputation on this very forum stand for itself in weathering any lame attacks on my credibility from you and your ilk.


----------

