60" Mitsubishi DLP - 3d glasses ready

[Amaury]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3749849&CatId=1830

Must be amazing experience playing Left 4 Dead in 3D on this set using Nvidia's 3d shutter glasses. Damn good price of big screen hdtv quality set.

[DarthBeavis]

I just traded my LCD for that TV. waiting on my free 3d glasses from Nvidia.

[betterdan]

Yep like I've said before DLP TVs can be had for a damn good price and for a much larger screen than LCD or Plasma. People get tricked into thinking a skinnier screen is somehow better and they end up paying much more for it. That 60 inch Mitsubishi has a depth of 14.4 inches which is still pretty skinny I think. Hell it's even skinnier than my Mitsubishi 52 inch DLP which has a depth of 17.1 inches.
I wouldn't mind having that tv at all.

[Medion]

People get tricked into thinking a skinnier screen is somehow better and they end up paying much more for it.

The fact that LCD's are "better" has nothing to do with how skinny they are, although there are many who prefer a wall-mountable set. LCD's offer better clarity and color vibrancy, as well as better viewing angles. At the same size, an LCD offers better visual quality than a DLP. The DLP's advantage is in it's price versus size. Neither LCD nor plasma can match DLP in those regards.

To it's credit, aside from replacing the bulb, a DLP will last "forever" whereas an LCD will begin to fade, and not evenly either. An LCD tends to have it's greens fade first, giving everything a reddish or blueish tint, but this takes years to occur. If you're looking to keep a set for decades, and don't mind replacing bulbs, the DLP is the more reliable choice. If you plan to replace your set every 8-10 years (or less, as those around here seem to do), an LCD is no worse than a DLP.

Regardless, any set you buy today will be nothing more than a stopgap until OLED takes off. By 2015, OLED should be as affordable as LCD is today. By 2020, OLED should be the default technology.

[betterdan]

I disagree with LCDs having better clarity and color vibrancy. Some models may have better quality than others but overall I do not think LCDs are better in that regard. Viewing angles are better yes, if that is a deal breaker for you. Otherwise I think people are being duped into the skinnier is better attitude but then again it's their money to waste.

[Medion]

I disagree with LCDs having better clarity and color vibrancy. Some models may have better quality than others but overall I do not think LCDs are better in that regard.

At a distance, LCDs have better clarity and are sharper. Up close enough to see the individual pixels, they have that screen door effect. Still, you have to be close enough to not see the entire screen.

Viewing angles are better yes, if that is a deal breaker for you.

If you have a living room setup where you can only see it from straight on, and don't invite many friends over, you're fine. As for me, and most people, viewing angles matter.

Otherwise I think people are being duped into the skinnier is better attitude but then again it's their money to waste.

Like I said, it has little to do with the depth of the set. It's all about quality, and LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size. Of course, for the same price range, many will take a 60" DLP over a 37-40" LCD :)

[betterdan]

At a distance, LCDs have better clarity and are sharper. Up close enough to see the individual pixels, they have that screen door effect. Still, you have to be close enough to not see the entire screen.
I disagree. I see no evidence of this.


If you have a living room setup where you can only see it from straight on, and don't invite many friends over, you're fine. As for me, and most people, viewing angles matter.

I disagree with this also. You do not have to look straight on only to watch a DLP set. In fact one of our couches is off to the side and the tv looks fine. I think some people blow this fact out of proportion. You definately do not need to sit straight in front of the set for it to look good. Like I said LCDs have a better viewing angle and that may matter to some. Where you got the idea that it matters to most I have no idea.

Like I said, it has little to do with the depth of the set. It's all about quality, and LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size. Of course, for the same price range, many will take a 60" DLP over a 37-40" LCD :)

Again I disagree, please show me proof of all LCDs having better picture quality than a same size DLP.

[Imbroglio]

i agree with betterdan. no evidence lcds are sharper or have more clarity. I'll take a properly calibrated dlp over a lcd any day. same size and all.

you like to make blanket statements, so i'll make a blanket statement. many people that I know that have lcd hdtvs still have the tv in torch mode because they don't know the difference. i'll never forget the one guy's i adjusted just by eye and he goes, "holy crap, it looks like real life". <--- this is why people buy lcds, because they're told to. because they are "thin".

input lag, unrealistic blacks, screens that require 120hz because of response time. how is this a superior television again?

[Tiranasta]

The fact that LCD's are "better" has nothing to do with how skinny they are, although there are many who prefer a wall-mountable set. LCD's offer better clarity and color vibrancy, as well as better viewing angles. At the same size, an LCD offers better visual quality than a DLP. The DLP's advantage is in it's price versus size. Neither LCD nor plasma can match DLP in those regards.

To it's credit, aside from replacing the bulb, a DLP will last "forever" whereas an LCD will begin to fade, and not evenly either. An LCD tends to have it's greens fade first, giving everything a reddish or blueish tint, but this takes years to occur. If you're looking to keep a set for decades, and don't mind replacing bulbs, the DLP is the more reliable choice. If you plan to replace your set every 8-10 years (or less, as those around here seem to do), an LCD is no worse than a DLP.

Regardless, any set you buy today will be nothing more than a stopgap until OLED takes off. By 2015, OLED should be as affordable as LCD is today. By 2020, OLED should be the default technology.

Laser-TV > OLED.

[betterdan]

Yea I would love to see one of those laser tvs in real life.

[Medion]

I disagree. I see no evidence of this.

A fixed pixel display will seem more clear at a distance, while a projection screen will have a very subtle blur to it. Up close, a fixed pixel display will have a screen door type effect, while the projection screen will not. A projection screen's "pixels" run together, while a fixed pixel display's pixels have a slight gap between them. At a distance of one foot, my 22" LCD doesn't have the screen door effect, but my 46" does. At a distance of 6-8 feet, my 46" is very sharp.

I disagree with this also. You do not have to look straight on only to watch a DLP set. In fact one of our couches is off to the side and the tv looks fine. I think some people blow this fact out of proportion. You definately do not need to sit straight in front of the set for it to look good. Like I said LCDs have a better viewing angle and that may matter to some. Where you got the idea that it matters to most I have no idea.

Firstly, a DLP looks best from straight on. As you offset your position, the quality degrades. At an angle of only 45 degrees right, the new Samsung models begin to get darker. I don't recommend a DLP if your living room has seating arrangements on the side.

Also, I never stated that viewing angles were the issue that mattered most. I said that viewing angles were one area where LCDs beat out DLP. You are merely taking my words out of context to try to support your opinion.

Again I disagree, please show me proof of all LCDs having better picture quality than a same size DLP.

I don't need to. Why? Because I an many others (www.avsforum.com) feel that LCD's offer better overall visual quality, although DLP does have it's own advantages. You feel that DLP offers better visual quality. Is there a point in proving the other wrong? If you feel that your television is best for your needs, what's the point of arguing?

i agree with betterdan. no evidence lcds are sharper or have more clarity. I'll take a properly calibrated dlp over a lcd any day. same size and all.

Like Dan, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're not seeing proof, then you're likely filtering the results. It's common perception that, in terms of visual quality, it goes Plasma>LCD>DLP. But, there are issues that make each one more desirable in certain conditions. My preference has always been LCD for my need. Apparently, DLP is your preference for your needs.

you like to make blanket statements, so i'll make a blanket statement. many people that I know that have lcd hdtvs still have the tv in torch mode because they don't know the difference. i'll never forget the one guy's i adjusted just by eye and he goes, "holy crap, it looks like real life". <--- this is why people buy lcds, because they're told to. because they are "thin".

Firstly, the thin argument went out the window in my first post. Modern DLPs are barely thicker than traditional plasma/LCDs right now, and LCD ultra thin models are nearly pointless. Sure, an LCD/Plasma can be wall-mounted, but I didn't argue that because it doesn't interest me. You and Dan keep defaulting to the same argument, which is an argument I never made.

input lag, unrealistic blacks, screens that require 120hz because of response time. how is this a superior television again?

Firstly, I stated that each type of display has strengths and weaknesses. As for input lag, that's irrelevant for anything but gaming. Using VGA/DVI or game mode gets rid of the input lag for gaming, so again, irrelevant. As for black levels, that's the glaring weaknesses of LCDs. And the 120hz has absolutely nothing to do with response time. It's a jutter removal tool (as well as 24p support for Blu Ray) that both Plasma and DLP offer as well. You seriously need to educate yourself before you make arguments such as these.

[betterdan]

You said to most people, viewing angles matter. Like I said before I have no idea where you came up with that info. I didn't take your words out of context, that is exactly what you said.

I figured you would have no proof that LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size. That is your opinion yet you are stating your opinion like it's a fact that all LCDs are better looking than DLPs which is of course false.
Of course you're 22 inch LCD would look great, it's hiding any artifacting or anomalies in that small screen size. Hell even SD on Directv would probably almost look HD on that little of a screen. Compare a good DLP set against a good LCD set of the same size like you said before and then give me proof that it the LCD will always provide a better picture.
We sit about 10 feet away from our 52 inch Mitsubishi DLP and there is no slight blur as you say, it is very sharp.

I am also a member over at AVS Forum also if that even matters.

Last thing if you don't see that people are being led to LCD because of the "cool" thinness factor then I don't know what to tell you. Most people have no idea what to look for in a tv but they just know that a thin tv is "cool"

[Imbroglio]

And the 120hz has absolutely nothing to do with response time. It's a jutter removal tool (as well as 24p support for Blu Ray) that both Plasma and DLP offer as well. You seriously need to educate yourself before you make arguments such as these.

Education? 120hz wasn't even an issue until lcds became "mainstream". Maybe you'd understand better if I referred to it as "motion blur"? DLPs have ~10 microsecond response time as opposed to typically 2-8 millisecond response time of LCDs. That's 2000 - 8000 times slower than dlps. A "jutter removal" is 2 to 3 pulldown. 120hz is a necessary evil for lcds that has turned into a marketing gimmick for other types of sets. I agree that while 120hz may be "better" for 24p according to enthusiasts since it is pure (meaning dupping 1 frame 5 times), on my lcos, i see no difference between 120hz and 60hz when my tv is fed a true 1080p/24p signal. The only arguement you have against dlps at that point is once again veiwing angles, where you made the blanket statement that "it matters to most people". How close are you sitting that you need viewing angles of > 130 degrees?

[Medion]

You said to most people, viewing angles matter. Like I said before I have no idea where you came up with that info. I didn't take your words out of context, that is exactly what you said.

Right. I didn't, however, say that it mattered MOST. That's where you put words into my mouth. I simply stated that viewing angles was one area where LCDs had an advantage over DLP.

I figured you would have no proof that LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size. That is your opinion yet you are stating your opinion like it's a fact that all LCDs are better looking than DLPs which is of course false.
Of course you're 22 inch LCD would look great, it's hiding any artifacting or anomalies in that small screen size. Hell even SD on Directv would probably almost look HD on that little of a screen. Compare a good DLP set against a good LCD set of the same size like you said before and then give me proof that it the LCD will always provide a better picture.

Huh? you completely took that out of context. Please, re-read what I said on that subject. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself. No point in me retyping what I already typed.

Last thing if you don't see that people are being led to LCD because of the "cool" thinness factor then I don't know what to tell you. Most people have no idea what to look for in a tv but they just know that a thin tv is "cool"

I couldn't care less the reasons why others buy a tv. You misrepresented DLP as the be-all end-all. I simply clarified that each type (Plasma, LCD, DLP) has strengths and weaknesses over the other, and that certain things should be taken into account when buying them. Due to the fact that you came out wrong in that argument, you keep defaulting to the same tactic, putting words into my mouth.

Notice my use of quotes? I respond to what YOU said. You reform what I said and respond to that. It's kinda messed up.

Imbroglio - Way off, I won't even bother responding to that. Have a nice day.

[betterdan]

Right. I didn't, however, say that it mattered MOST. That's where you put words into my mouth. I simply stated that viewing angles was one area where LCDs had an advantage over DLP.

:lol: Are you off your meds? You are putting words into my mouth, I never said that you said it mattered most. Show me where I said that, you'll probably find it right next to the place where it says LCDs are sharper than DLPs. (you'll never find either because neither statements exist except in your mind). What you in fact said was as for you and most people viewing angles matter. Did you not say that? What I have repeatedly said is, I have no idea where you came up with that info.

Huh? you completely took that out of context. Please, re-read what I said on that subject. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself. No point in me retyping what I already typed.
Here is what you said on the subject...
It's all about quality, and LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size.

I merely said you were wrong and to show me proof of your claim that LCD provides a better picture at the same screen size. You didn't and can't support that claim with facts but instead start talking about your little 22 inch LCD which is ignorant to compare to a large DLP. Then you start talking about your 46 inch LCD which you say is sharp and I bet it is but what does that have to do with being better in picture quality than any DLP of the same size? I'll answer it for you before you go off thinking someone is taking your words out of context :lol: The answer is : nothing.


I couldn't care less the reasons why others buy a tv. You misrepresented DLP as the be-all end-all. I simply clarified that each type (Plasma, LCD, DLP) has strengths and weaknesses over the other, and that certain things should be taken into account when buying them. Due to the fact that you came out wrong in that argument, you keep defaulting to the same tactic, putting words into my mouth.
I never said DLP was the be all end all. Of course it isn't. Again show me where I said that (you can't except in that nutty mind of yours. Damn you better get back on those meds) I was merely trying to have you prove your blanket statements that LCD has better picture quality and is sharper than DLPs. If you had said some LCDs are better in those areas than DLP that may be so but to just put a blanket statement out there like that is pretty ridiculous.
Not once did I say DLP was better than LCD. I happen to like DLP and you like LCD which is fine but please don't try to put out any bogus info to people. Lots of people are already having a hard time figuring out the newer tvs without someone coming along and regurgitating crap like your blanket statements.

Notice my use of quotes? I respond to what YOU said. You reform what I said and respond to that. It's kinda messed up.

Yes I noticed your use of quotes. Very good medion, I will pick up a box of cookies for you tomorrow on the way home for your good work. I think I'll pick up a box for me and Imbroglio too since we also used quotes. GO US! (nana2)

As for reforming what you said... what? Again show me.

[betterdan]

Medion you may want to read this about 120hz and then apologize to Imbroglio for your ignorance on the matter. It is not a judder removal tool.Like Imbroglio stated, it was meant to control motion blur on LCDs.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html