Guest Anonymous Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 i think that he meant its half life was about 15,00 hours which is relativly acurate as consumer reports would say.... they rate about 17000 hours of life on the average plasma which include the 2 000 dollar akia plasma and the 10 000 dollar hitachi... maybe you should do some basic math first. 100 000 hours? do you realize that half life is based on exponential decay, meaning that after it reaches its half life it will decay exponentially faster after that? does that make sense? this means that if its half life is even 25 000 hours like you say then it wouldn't even make it to 84000 hours of viewing time (that is a realistic viewing time)... here is the math behind this .5=e^(x*(25000)) ln(.5)/25000 = x =-2.77 *10^-5 which is the rate of decay .1 (this will be 1/10 of the original brightness i would consider this to be to a point where the tv is no longer usable) .1=e^(t-2.77*10^-5) ln(.1)/-2.77*10^-5 = t (the time in hours = 83048 hours... anyways, thats the math, but don't let my numbers fool you or anything Lastly, I think donnie made his coice anyways good luck with the mitsu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvbull200 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Wow, a LOT of misconceptions. First off, CRT projection TV's have the WORST viewing angle of all big screen TV's (read 37" and up). A 37" high-definition LCD flat-panel LCD is as much or more than a 37-42" high-definition plasma TV, so it would never be a "lower-priced" alternative. Plasmas have the best viewing angle and I don't know how you could argue against them having the best overall picture. Phenomenal color saturation, great contrast ratio, plus the previously mentioned viewing angle. DLP and LCD projection TV's, in my opinion, are the best bang for your buck, large pictures, great color/contrast (with a good set), and good viewing angles. Now, those that have DLP or LCD projo's, you are kidding yourself when you say there is no effect from your viewing angle. They have good viewing angles, tremendously better than CRT projo's, but they are not nearly as good as plasma or flat-panel LCD's. Again, great TV's, but with cost aside, not as good as a plasma. Furthermore, the overall life of a plasma or its exact number of running hours is somewhat irrelevant. A good plasma TV will last about as long as a direct-view CRT TV. Say 10-12 years, obviously dependent on other factors: amount of daily viewing, power fluctuations, etc. It is fact that we (as in the American public) replace our TV's every 8 years. Factor in bulb replacement on a DLP and you are out another $600-800, and assuming the TV will be replaced in 8 years, the fact that you could run your DLP for 15 years or beyond with bulb replacement is a moot point. The bottom line, a plasma will last longer than the point in which "we" would replace it anyways. Now, there is always the argument, "If I paid $7,000 for a plasma, I should be able to keep it for a lot longer than that (or any other TV)." or a something similar. No offense, but that argument is made by people who's financial situation makes an HD plasma TV a relatively much larger investment than was the case with the TV it would be replacing. I'm not in anyway making that statement as a stuck-up wealthy person, the truth is I am still on a 27" analog round-screen CRT and am looking to purchase a DLP TV. Another common argument against plasmas is the issue of burn-in. Newer plasmas have all but eliminated this concern. It is true that the technology allows the possibility of burn-in. Plasma technology relies (although not completely) on phosphors to glow to a certain degree to create the bright picture you see. Burn-in occurs when a static image stays on the screen causing some phosphors to "burn-out" at a much quicker pace than others. The phosphors that then glow dimmer will leave behind a visible trace of that static image. New plasmas (again talking about reputable manufacturers) have integrated ways of all but eliminating this effect. Many have shifting pixels or screen "wipes" that keep the overall use of these phosphors random, thus eliminating burn-in. First off, the first 100 hours are the most critical for avoiding burn-in. In addition, it takes careless operation of the TV to create this burn in. Very, very extended displaying of the same video game that has a static image on nearly every screen shot would be an example, and even then with the previously mentioned technologies it is unlikely. Bottom-line: You would be wise to purchase the TV that gives you the most satisfaction. That will most likely be an ideal combination of price, features, space requirements, and of course picture quality. There isn't really anything to be scared of technology wise and you have your own eyes, brain, and perception of what looks good. Choose that way. For what it is worth, I have worked for a very reputable electronics retailer for almost 2 years now, all within the home theater department. While I don't concern myself much with the advanced technological aspects of these TV's, I have done much research, "myth-busting", attended numerous trainings, and dealt very closely with various manufacturers, reps, and the like, and I am very confident that I am aware of the realistic expectations of these technologies. Any questions or if you disagree with a point I have made, I would love to hear it, and I would be happy to respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 edited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 OK, I'll go at this blow-by-blow... ---------------- On 3/21/2005 2:47:47 AM bvbull200 wrote: Wow, a LOT of misconceptions. First off, CRT projection TV's have the WORST viewing angle of all big screen TV's (read 37" and up). ---------------- Correct, but CRT forward projection (what I was referring to) has just as good a viewing angle as plasma, with much larger screen sizes and far superior picture quality, since it does not depend on a fixed number of light emitters, but rather three large (7-9") tubes to project the image. ---------------- A 37" high-definition LCD flat-panel LCD is as much or more than a 37-42" high-definition plasma TV, so it would never be a "lower-priced" alternative. Plasmas have the best viewing angle and I don't know how you could argue against them having the best overall picture. ---------------- You've obviously never seen a 9" CRT forward projector in action on a 100" screen. Detail, saturation, smooth motion (no motion artifacts, as plasmas are so notorious for) razor-sharp images. If you're willing to spend $35,000 on a 61" plasma, then you shouldn't have a problem spending that same $35,000 on something that will give you a much larger, and far superior, picture... ---------------- Phenomenal color saturation, great contrast ratio, plus the previously mentioned viewing angle. ---------------- No argument - except if you actually employ the outlandish contrast ratios (5000:1) you'll shorten the life of the phosphors dramatically. The whole "any light situation" argument is a farce as well. There's a reason why the hifi shops still keep their plasmas in relatively dark lighting situations - glare on that glass front is a nightmare problem, just as bad as a flat-screen CRT. ---------------- DLP and LCD projection TV's, in my opinion, are the best bang for your buck, large pictures, great color/contrast (with a good set), and good viewing angles. Now, those that have DLP or LCD projo's, you are kidding yourself when you say there is no effect from your viewing angle. They have good viewing angles, tremendously better than CRT projo's, but they are not nearly as good as plasma or flat-panel LCD's. Again, great TV's, but with cost aside, not as good as a plasma. ---------------- And again, I submit that, as much homework as you've done, none of it was into forward projection. Bang for the buck, a DLP forward projector plus screen gives you more picture for less money than a DLP rear-projector, plus it matches plasma for footprint. A fixed screen is actually shallower (around 2" deep) than a plasma display, and it can be flush-mounted on the wall, where a plasma must be mounted to a frame, increasing its total footprint to upwards of 10" ----------------- Furthermore, the overall life of a plasma or its exact number of running hours is somewhat irrelevant. A good plasma TV will last about as long as a direct-view CRT TV. Say 10-12 years, obviously dependent on other factors: amount of daily viewing, power fluctuations, etc. ------------------ Nonsense. Plasmas begin losing detail and brightness within the first 4,000 hours of use. Do they still work? Sure. They're still deteriorating rather rapidly. At least a CRT direct-view doesn't lose brightness until near the end of its lifespan. Projectors don't lose brightness at all, their bulbs just crap out and need replacing periodically. ------------------ It is fact that we (as in the American public) replace our TV's every 8 years. Factor in bulb replacement on a DLP and you are out another $600-800, and assuming the TV will be replaced in 8 years, the fact that you could run your DLP for 15 years or beyond with bulb replacement is a moot point. The bottom line, a plasma will last longer than the point in which "we" would replace it anyways. ------------------- See above. Whether it still works 8 years from now is not my issue - it's the fact that it won't work nearly as well 2-3 years from now as it did when it came out of the box... ------------------- Another common argument against plasmas is the issue of burn-in. Newer plasmas have all but eliminated this concern. It is true that the technology allows the possibility of burn-in. Plasma technology relies (although not completely) on phosphors to glow to a certain degree to create the bright picture you see. Burn-in occurs when a static image stays on the screen causing some phosphors to "burn-out" at a much quicker pace than others. The phosphors that then glow dimmer will leave behind a visible trace of that static image. New plasmas (again talking about reputable manufacturers) have integrated ways of all but eliminating this effect. Many have shifting pixels or screen "wipes" that keep the overall use of these phosphors random, thus eliminating burn-in. First off, the first 100 hours are the most critical for avoiding burn-in. In addition, it takes careless operation of the TV to create this burn in. Very, very extended displaying of the same video game that has a static image on nearly every screen shot would be an example, and even then with the previously mentioned technologies it is unlikely. --------------------- Burn-in will always be an issue to some degree on nearly every TV - with the possible exception of DLP - but your point is pretty much on - any TV subjected to a large amount of static image displays will unevenly age, but the whole burn-in issue is a very overrated one, IMO... --------------------- Bottom-line: You would be wise to purchase the TV that gives you the most satisfaction. That will most likely be an ideal combination of price, features, space requirements, and of course picture quality. There isn't really anything to be scared of technology wise and you have your own eyes, brain, and perception of what looks good. Choose that way. ---------------------- There's a reason why the plasma display technology really isn't being developed anymore, other than engineering larger size screens. Newer, more cost-effective alternatives are being developed frantically by a number of major companies, with picture quality that easily surpasses that of plasma. Wait till Sony's synthetic-array LCD systems and Toshiba's flex-array LCD gets out of prototype and into production. You'll see picture quality and size on flat panels like you've never seen before, and the prices will be dirt cheap compared to plasma... ----------------------- For what it is worth, I have worked for a very reputable electronics retailer for almost 2 years now, all within the home theater department. While I don't concern myself much with the advanced technological aspects of these TV's, I have done much research, "myth-busting", attended numerous trainings, and dealt very closely with various manufacturers, reps, and the like, and I am very confident that I am aware of the realistic expectations of these technologies. Any questions or if you disagree with a point I have made, I would love to hear it, and I would be happy to respond. ---------------- I worked for a major retailer for two years, and then went into business for myself selling, installing, and troubleshooting home theater systems. I did the research as well, and continue to do so. I've watched several plasma televisions deteriorate over the course of 3-4000 hours of constant usage during their lives as floor models. For the money, I'd rather just replace a bulb periodically and get great PQ all the time. I suggest strongly that you do some homework in forward projection. It will change your views pretty dramatically about image quality and cost-effectiveness. Cheers! Griff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvbull200 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 All points VERY well taken. You are right, I have not much considered front projection technology, however, it didn't really seem to apply to the argument anyways. The original question was "DLP or Plasma?" which would (at least with my assumption) not include 100" front projector's. Besides, a $35,000 front projector set-up is a far cry from a $4,500 DLP, or even a $15,000 plasma. In addition, there are greater demands on wiring, placement, and room set-up (probably wouldn't want to be just 9 ft. away from a 100" picture). I have witnessed a few front projectors of many different technologies, and you are correct, they have awesome pictures. Very dependent on the projector quality, screen quality, and lighting environment, but really the best for a true in home movie theater experience. I have yet to see a TV that wasn't affected by the lighting environment, perhaps DLP does the best (again, eliminating front projectors from the argument). I do agree that plasmas do have a drop off in performance, but I feel that it is still a little overstated. As far as DLP front projectors go, a good DLP projector costs a little more than a good DLP rear-projo. Add in the cost of a good screen, the extra wiring cost, the issue of running good clean power to a ceiling mounted projector and it adds up. Get a projector that has DVI and it gets even greater, plus a receiver with component video up-conversion would be important for not having to run extra wiring to the projector and you again increase the price. Besides that, front and rear-projection DLP's are not really interchangable, there is not a lot of people that would be choosing between a 100" front projector and a 50" DLP rear-projo. As far as future technology is concerned, it will always be bigger and better. A TV now will not be as good as a TV 2 years from now, which won't be as good as a TV 2 years from then, so I don't like that argument. If you always waited for the next best thing, you'd be waiting forever. However, there is some great stuff coming out, particularly the Toshiba-Canon combined effort on SED TV's, but how much will those cost when first released? And money no object, you still have to wait until the end of this year or possibly into 2006. Like I said, I respect the argument of front projection technologies, but I don't see them applying to the DLP/Plasma debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 This is a good little discussion. You make some good points as well, although they are points that, as an installer, I can resolve very easily (you can too, it's just a matter of being aware of the technology and solutions available) ---------------- You are right, I have not much considered front projection technology, however, it didn't really seem to apply to the argument anyways. The original question was "DLP or Plasma?" which would (at least with my assumption) not include 100" front projector's. ---------------- I injected front projo into the equation because, frankly, DLP technology is being employed (rather successfully, I might add) in moderate-cost front projection as well as rear. ----------------- Besides, a $35,000 front projector set-up is a far cry from a $4,500 DLP, or even a $15,000 plasma. ----------------- Obviously you're not aware of the spectacular costs of bigger-than-50" plasma - LG just dropped their price list for specialty dealers (like myself) of their new 2005 lineup. Their flagship model is a 71" plasma - special order only - at the tidy price of $75,000. Yes, the price of plasma is starting to fall, but there's a floor on those numbers, and it's based on the manufacturing - 9 out of every 10 plasmas produced at the factory fail QC and must be scrapped. Those kinds of numbers, and that kind of expense brings top-shelf CRT projection right back into the equation to me. ------------------ In addition, there are greater demands on wiring, placement, and room set-up (probably wouldn't want to be just 9 ft. away from a 100" picture). I have witnessed a few front projectors of many different technologies, and you are correct, they have awesome pictures. Very dependent on the projector quality, screen quality, and lighting environment, but really the best for a true in home movie theater experience. ------------------- Certainly, you have to decide what the best size picture is for your room. If you're 10 feet away, it's senseless to throw 35 grand into a projector that's just too big for the room. That's why they make 7" CRT projos. Screen size is totally determined by the user - you install the screen that's right for your room - anything from 50" diagonal all the way up to 120" and beyond. Personally, even if I only had 13 feet to work with, I'd gladly fill up a wall with my movie theater. Of course, I'm the one who always sat in the front row at the movie theaters... Oh, and I rest on my earlier point about lighting conditions. Every TV has to combat ambient lighting in the room. There's just no avoiding it. Certain technologies can better deal with it than others - DLP and LCD are actually the best, because they don't need the glass front, so there's no glare problems. --------------------- I do agree that plasmas do have a drop off in performance, but I feel that it is still a little overstated. --------------------- I've seen it with my own eyes. It's not as overstated as you think. --------------------- As far as DLP front projectors go, a good DLP projector costs a little more than a good DLP rear-projo. Add in the cost of a good screen, the extra wiring cost, the issue of running good clean power to a ceiling mounted projector and it adds up. Get a projector that has DVI and it gets even greater, plus a receiver with component video up-conversion would be important for not having to run extra wiring to the projector and you again increase the price. --------------------- Panasonic 60" DLP RPTV: $3700 (online) Optoma (solid brand, not well known) 2000 lumen DLP forward projector: $2100 (online) Mount for above: $250 ProScreen 88.25" fixed-frame 16x9 screen: $600 (online) Viewsonic Nextvision 6 scaler/video router $200 (online) 20 foot 15-pin RGB cable: around $150 RF repeater system: around $200 Total: roughly $3500 Mount your projector in the back of the room, set up your equipment rack back there as well, use an RF repeater mounted behind or directly under your screen to handle the remote chores for all your equipment. Route all your video to the Nextvision 6, using a single 15-pin RGB cable to transmit directly to the projector (you can do this with other displays as well, something I highly recommend, because the outboard scalers do a much better job than the ones built into the TV's) and all your audio to your receiver. The speaker wire lengths don't change, because instead of running in-wall wire to the rears, now you're running it to the fronts and center instead. There are all kinds of cool ways around installation problems. Most a/v companies that sell cool toys to make installation easier were typically started by ex-installers. ----------------------- Besides that, front and rear-projection DLP's are not really interchangable, there is not a lot of people that would be choosing between a 100" front projector and a 50" DLP rear-projo. As far as future technology is concerned, it will always be bigger and better. A TV now will not be as good as a TV 2 years from now, which won't be as good as a TV 2 years from then, so I don't like that argument. ----------------------- As far as the interchangeability, this guy was concerned with bang-for-the-buck. I merely submitted (and then demonstrated in my last response) that forward projection definitely gives better value for the screen size than rear. As to the "next best thing" issue, if I'm buying a flat-panel TV that I intend to keep for 8 years (your number, not mine) then I'll happily wait 6 more months for Sony and Toshiba's new FP technologies rather than buy a plasma now. ----------------------- If you always waited for the next best thing, you'd be waiting forever. However, there is some great stuff coming out, particularly the Toshiba-Canon combined effort on SED TV's, but how much will those cost when first released? And money no object, you still have to wait until the end of this year or possibly into 2006. Like I said, I respect the argument of front projection technologies, but I don't see them applying to the DLP/Plasma debate. ------------------------ We can agree to disagree on that point. I'm a staunch believer in the superiority for the money of front projection over rear, and definitely in front projection over plasma. I sell all these technologies, but when my client doesn't know what they want, I always push them towards front projection. Most people don't consider front projection when they're shopping televisions, and the biggest reason is only the specialty shops are willing to go through the extra trouble to set up a front projector in their showrooms. If you don't get to see it, you tend to avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 griff, there are a few issues i see in your answer here. first and foremost, you can get a samsung 50" DLP RPTV for about $2400 online right now. the 46" is hovering around $2100.. these are full 720p units.. whereas your optoma is not a full-HD projector. for a full HD 720p front projector, your going to have to go LCD to get the price down to around $2000. on the other hand, the samsung unit is a full 720p setup.. right now, if i were looking to go for HDTV, i wouldnt accept anything less than a full 1280x720 native resolution source.. 1/4HD front projectors are great for standard-def TV or DVD viewing. but its not quite the same as 720p in its full glory. the ambient light issue is also something to consider. if you plan to watch TV or movies in a darkened room all the time, then thats great. but if there is ANY light shining directly on the screen, its going to wash out the picture in a big way. the latest generation of RPTVs handle direct-light extremely well. dont forget that most RPTVs are rated for 4000-6000 hour lamp life, where front projectors are usually 2000-3000 hours. basically i cannot reccomend a front projector for someone who wants to watch TV during daylight hours, unless they can deal with watching in a darkened room all day. as for your comments on plasma, i completely agree. plasma is a joke. its for people who have a hard-on for a cool looking TV that fits flush on the wall. I install custom multimedia and A/V systems for museums across the country. i cant tell you how many times a museum will specifically request plasmas as the display in our multimedia installs. after warning them of what will happen when a plasma runs the same video over and over 8 hours a day, they go ahead and buy the plasmas anyway. usually about a month or two later we will get a call saying that the plasma is washed out or they can see letters burned into the screen. in fact, the first 100 hours of the plasmas life is usually the most suceptable to this kind of burn in. we will run a movie or a plain white screen through the plasmas for a week or so straight in order to minimise this effect. essentially we are evenly burning-in the screen(and killing contrast ratio and black levels) as a pre-emptive strike. if i won a plasma in a lottery, i would sell it, and buy a DLP setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 ---------------- On 3/23/2005 1:43:26 AM NatGun wrote: griff, there are a few issues i see in your answer here. first and foremost, you can get a samsung 50" DLP RPTV for about $2400 online right now. the 46" is hovering around $2100.. these are full 720p units.. whereas your optoma is not a full-HD projector. for a full HD 720p front projector, your going to have to go LCD to get the price down to around $2000. on the other hand, the samsung unit is a full 720p setup.. right now, if i were looking to go for HDTV, i wouldnt accept anything less than a full 1280x720 native resolution source.. 1/4HD front projectors are great for standard-def TV or DVD viewing. but its not quite the same as 720p in its full glory. ---------------- Nat - first off, I picked the 60" because that's the largest DLP RPTV you can get without paying an exorbitant premium. Secondly, that Optoma is a full HD capable (720p/1080i) projector. I know, I carry them. Its native resolution is only 1024x768, but when you're dealing with TV signals, as long as you have at least 720 native rez scan lines, the vertical resolution is functionally irrelevant. BTW - I don't know where you got that 1/4HD idea from, but we're not talking about an 800x600 DLP like that junky little Sharp DT-200. ---------------- the ambient light issue is also something to consider. if you plan to watch TV or movies in a darkened room all the time, then thats great. but if there is ANY light shining directly on the screen, its going to wash out the picture in a big way. the latest generation of RPTVs handle direct-light extremely well. ---------------- Sorry, but you put direct light on an RPTV and you'll have glare. There's no avoiding it. Furthermore, the better your screen is, and the higher lumen output your projector is, the less of an issue ambient light becomes. ---------------- dont forget that most RPTVs are rated for 4000-6000 hour lamp life, where front projectors are usually 2000-3000 hours. ---------------- Yes, unfortunately, forward projector companies have been using smaller, less durable bulbs because of public pressure to produce a smaller package that's easier to self-mount. You all got what you wanted there, and now you don't like it. ---------------- basically i cannot reccomend a front projector for someone who wants to watch TV during daylight hours, unless they can deal with watching in a darkened room all day. ---------------- A front projo is certainly not going to replace the television in the front room. That's not what they're for, they're for home theater applications, which, after all, is what this forum is (purportedly?) about. as for your comments on plasma, i completely agree. plasma is a joke. its for people who have a hard-on for a cool looking TV that fits flush on the wall. I install custom multimedia and A/V systems for museums across the country. i cant tell you how many times a museum will specifically request plasmas as the display in our multimedia installs. after warning them of what will happen when a plasma runs the same video over and over 8 hours a day, they go ahead and buy the plasmas anyway. usually about a month or two later we will get a call saying that the plasma is washed out or they can see letters burned into the screen. in fact, the first 100 hours of the plasmas life is usually the most suceptable to this kind of burn in. we will run a movie or a plain white screen through the plasmas for a week or so straight in order to minimise this effect. essentially we are evenly burning-in the screen(and killing contrast ratio and black levels) as a pre-emptive strike. if i won a plasma in a lottery, i would sell it, and buy a DLP setup. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblue Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I was a big fan of DLP, untill I got one home and was able to see the rainbow effects when moving my eyes accross the screen. Don't get me wrong, they have a GREAT pic, and are very reliable, but I suggest to anyone that is considering one to watch an entire movie (one with darker scenes) in a dark room and make sure you can't see them. The one I bought was one of the newer (and highly rated) panasonic models with the HD2+ chip and 8 segment color wheel. VERY nice pic, very solid. But not for me. Just an observation. Also, I play a lot of Halo2, and the rainbows were REALLY bugging me when trying to aim! hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 griff, 1024x768 does not equal 1280x720 by any stretch of the imagination, and yes it does make a difference. an outboard scaler may help, but a 1024x768 projector displaying a 16:9 720p signal scales the signal down to 1024x576. this is nowhere near the 720 scan lines needed, and is not even close to a full HD signal. when were talking about comparatively priced projectors and RPTVs, once again, screen cost is an added burden. yes you can get screens that handle direct light better than others, but nowhere near the latest generation RPTVs, and a good front-projection screen costs a fortune. basically, on a budget, some of the latest RPTVs offer a great all-in one package, especially with direct/ambient light issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teagster Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 HI Just wondering what Samsung DLP model number you have? I took your advice and visited Costco where I picked up the Samsung HL-N6065W DLP TV. It was at a great price but I actually thought I was buying the HL-P6063W model you can find in the main line stores (Best Buy/Good Guys etc). It turns out that when you check reviews for the one I purchased it says the reliability is terrible for this unit, (although these were mainly 2003/2004 comlaints). Please let me know if you have had any problems with yours and if you are aware of the main differences between the HL-P and HL-N models. Thanks. BY the way it seems that even if you use the DVI input and a HD-931 DVD player although up-converted to 1080 the TV down converts to play at 720. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcoker Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 ---------------- On 3/25/2005 11:59:42 AM teagster wrote: Thanks. BY the way it seems that even if you use the DVI input and a HD-931 DVD player although up-converted to 1080 the TV down converts to play at 720. ---------------- I don't think there is any difference between 1080i and 720p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caz1604 Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 ---------------- On 3/25/2005 1:06:59 PM gcoker wrote: ---------------- On 3/25/2005 11:59:42 AM teagster wrote: Thanks. BY the way it seems that even if you use the DVI input and a HD-931 DVD player although up-converted to 1080 the TV down converts to play at 720. ---------------- I don't think there is any difference between 1080i and 720p. ---------------- There is difference between the two formats. I honestly can only tell the difference when I watch football. I prefer the CBS HD (1080i) broadcast over the ABC or Fox HD(720p) broadcast when I watch football. IMO, it's apples to oranges though, everyone pretty much has their own opinion. Kind of like TV formats, LCD, Plasma, DLP, they all have pros and cons. I'm sure someone else will chime in though and explain in detail why one is better than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomer9911 Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 1 word PLASMA end... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted March 26, 2005 Share Posted March 26, 2005 ---------------- On 3/24/2005 2:00:20 AM NatGun wrote: griff, 1024x768 does not equal 1280x720 by any stretch of the imagination, and yes it does make a difference. an outboard scaler may help, but a 1024x768 projector displaying a 16:9 720p signal scales the signal down to 1024x576. this is nowhere near the 720 scan lines needed, and is not even close to a full HD signal. when were talking about comparatively priced projectors and RPTVs, once again, screen cost is an added burden. yes you can get screens that handle direct light better than others, but nowhere near the latest generation RPTVs, and a good front-projection screen costs a fortune. basically, on a budget, some of the latest RPTVs offer a great all-in one package, especially with direct/ambient light issues. ---------------- Actually, Nat, you're missing my point. There are plenty of plasma, LCD, DLP, and other televisions on the market whose "native" resolution is less than 1280x720 - because their "native" display setup doesn't employ the entire screen. The only real purpose for the "native" resolution number is so you'll know what you can do with it when you plug your computer into it and use it as a monitor. Are you aware that a 50" Pioneer plasma has a "native" resolution of 1024x1024? So does the Phillips, the Sony, and a number of others.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.