View Single Post
Old 01-28-09, 09:13 AM   #10
Medion's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barksdale AFB, La
Posts: 1,238
Default Re: 60" Mitsubishi DLP - 3d glasses ready

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 ( 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.
Medion is offline   Reply With Quote