LCD or DLP

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as
time passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP
after a few years and have a display that is as good as the day you
bought it. Advantage DLP.
Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
will always drive you nuts.
I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least
on paper.

In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
> I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
> LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
>
>

 

[Rick]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael Lankton wrote:
> LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as
> time passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP
> after a few years and have a display that is as good as the day you
> bought it. Advantage DLP.
> Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
> will always drive you nuts.
> I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
> me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
> advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
> image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least
> on paper.
>
> In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
>
>>I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
>>LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
>>
>>

Actually, changing the lamp is as easy and inexpensive in an LCD
television as DLP. This is very important but is a wash when comparing
LCD and DLP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Rick" <Rick@rick.net> wrote in message
news:u4qdnTaRU4qVClncRVn-qA@midco.net...
> Michael Lankton wrote:
>> LCD performance degrades as time passes. DLP performance degrades as time
>> passes. The difference is that you can replace the lamp in a DLP after a
>> few years and have a display that is as good as the day you bought it.
>> Advantage DLP.
>> Dark detail perfomance is superior on DLP. Advantage DLP.
>> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
>> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
>> will always drive you nuts.
>> I do not see rainbows and am extremely happy with my 52" Toshiba DLP. To
>> me DLP is the closest to plasma-like image reproduction, and offers the
>> advantage of giving me a set that shouldn't ever wear out or have the
>> image/color reproduction degrade like the other technologies, at least on
>> paper.
>>
>> In <1103393413.860240.146840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Rob wrote:
>>
>>>I want to get a 50" TV and wonder what direction I should lean between
>>>LCD or DLP. I want the TV to last 7 years minimum.
>>>
>>>
>
> Actually, changing the lamp is as easy and inexpensive in an LCD
> television as DLP. This is very important but is a wash when comparing LCD
> and DLP.

True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to have a
degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there to
degrade other than the bulb?

When I went to buy my set I had my mind made up on getting a DLP because I
thought they had the better picture, but then I started reading about
reliability issues with the color wheels, rainbows, etc. In the end I
bought a Hitachi 60V715 LCD mainly because I thought it was the best T.V.
for the money. I think both technology's are still evolving so you just
have to get the set that looks good to you and that you can get the best
deal on. I also bought the 4 year extended warranty and I never buy
extended warranty's, but felt it necessary considering the how new these
technologies are. BTW, I also got mine 36 months interest free, helped make
my decision.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to have
a
> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there to
> degrade other than the bulb?

While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip vs
the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.

The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these problems
have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be more
sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more abuse
of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.

Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be more
reliable.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
>> have
> a
>> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
>> to
>> degrade other than the bulb?
>
> While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
> system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
> vs
> the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
> passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
>
> The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
> degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
> people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
> problems
> have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
> instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
> you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
> images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
> from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
> sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
> more
> sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
> panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
> applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
> significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
> abuse
> of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
>
> Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
> next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
> more
> reliable.
>
> Leonard

Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
DLP's are going to be much more reliable?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NJ2xd.56635$yf.31807@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
> news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
> >
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
> >> have
> > a
> >> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
> >> to
> >> degrade other than the bulb?
> >
> > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The
DLP
> > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP
chip
> > vs
> > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the
light
> > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
> >
> > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
> > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors,
many
> > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
> > problems
> > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
> > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video
projectors
> > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
> > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat
damage
> > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go
bad
> > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
> > more
> > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on
the
> > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
> > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
> > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
> > abuse
> > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
> >
> > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
the
> > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
> > more
> > reliable.
> >
> > Leonard
>
> Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
> DLP's are going to be much more reliable?

LCD is a well established technology that predates DLP by many years, DLP is
new and only one company, TI, builds the chips. Every major manufacturer
with any research capacity is working on technologies to replace LCD, and
the reflective technologies seem to be the future. I did not say that LCD
was much inferior to DLP, but there are advantages to the latter. LCD is
not a bad buying decision if you like the way it looks or see rainbowing in
the DLP. The fact is, however, that the problems with rainbowing are
minimal and much less than early designs, and LCD is rapidly becoming an
also-ran in performance at most price points.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
have
> a
> > degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
to
> > degrade other than the bulb?
>
> While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
> system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
vs
> the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
> passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
>
> The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
> degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
> people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
problems
> have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
> instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
> you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
> images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
> from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
> sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
more
> sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
> panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
> applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
> significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
abuse
> of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
>
> Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
> next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
more
> reliable.

Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no brainer
that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

>
> Leonard
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for a
42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
lost out to today's RCA color system. Clearly, the future must lie with
totally solid-state sets, not with spinning mechanical gizmos.

The real issue should be choosing either an affordable RP technology or an
expensive true solid-state one such as direct view LCD and plasma.

The amount I was willing to spend right now to indulge my HD craving was
enough for my Sony RPLCD, and for what it's worth the picture is perfectly
beautiful 99 per cent of the time, aside from the odd movie scene shot in
near darkness without much contrast. I can forgive that missing 1 per cent
since it's saving me big bucks over the cost of a comparable plasma, and
those same bucks will probably pay for a better set later on.

In a nutshell, enjoy something affordable now while technology marches on
and prices inch downward. Every time I watch a good DVD movie I'm
persuaded once again that my RPLCD gives good value.

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
> When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
> technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for a
> 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
> throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
> lost out to today's RCA color system.
>
The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
unwatchable.

The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD (especially
the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"larrylook" <LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:CbOdnRsjkMudiVjcRVn-vg@comcast.com...

> Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no
brainer
> that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

Care to guess which they had more of to sell or which they were getting
bigger commissions or spiffs on?

Not a single manufacturer that I deal with expects LCD to be more reliable.
It is important to understand that the rest of the sets are very similar and
you are more likely to have lamp ballast, power supply, fan, digital, or
tuner problems with either than have either a DLP chip or LCD panel problem,
in the long run.

Leonard

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I hear peeple say about the motion smear on the LCD and the Rainbow effect
on the DLP's but I have never personally witnessed either. I watched the
Falcons beat the Panthers last night after watchin the KY-Louisville
basketball game yesterday afternoon, and not a smear out there.

Go figure.

Jim (Sony 42" LCD)

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:cq3d97$12qn$2@news.iquest.net...
> In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
> Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
>> When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
>> technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went for
>> a
>> 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
>> throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
>> lost out to today's RCA color system.
>>
> The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
> almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
> unwatchable.
>
> The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
> reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD (especially
> the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.
>
> John

 

[Strychnine]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sorry for the top post...
Same here, I watched the game on my Sony 42' LCD RPTV and I didn't see any
smear or anything. I guess it all boils down to what you can get at the
time. I did a lot of research and I went with the LCD RP. I'm happy with
it and the Antenna HD reception is excellent! I'm not a salesman or
anything, I just want the best value for my dollar.
Strychnine

"Jim" <jwhite18816NOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Y5fxd.4312$RH4.2331@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I hear peeple say about the motion smear on the LCD and the Rainbow effect
>on the DLP's but I have never personally witnessed either. I watched the
>Falcons beat the Panthers last night after watchin the KY-Louisville
>basketball game yesterday afternoon, and not a smear out there.
>
> Go figure.
>
> Jim (Sony 42" LCD)
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:cq3d97$12qn$2@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <Xns95C4EAEA993Bgillen@216.194.192.13>,
>> Charles Gillen <see-my-sig@below.com> writes:
>>> When the issue is choosing either LCD or DLP, both rear projection
>>> technologies at about the same price-point for quality brands, I went
>>> for a
>>> 42" RPLCD Sony. For one simple reason: DLP's spinning color wheel is a
>>> throwback to the CBS color TV system way back in the 1950s or 60s which
>>> lost out to today's RCA color system.
>>>
>> The horrible motion smear from the Sony LCD is much more distracting than
>> almost any other semi-high-end display technology. I find it to be
>> unwatchable.
>>
>> The 'implementation technology' is much less important (other than
>> reliability) than visual quality. This is where the laggy LCD
>> (especially
>> the Sony that I have seen) falls far short.
>>
>> John
>
>

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:39:35 -0500, "larrylook"
<LarryLOOK@noemail.com> wrote:

>Funny, the salesman in 2 different stores today told me it was a no brainer
>that dlp is less reliable and lcd-rp more durable. Go figure.

What they tell you in stores have more to do with what they want to
sell than what you want to buy.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Five]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <NJ2xd.56635$yf.31807@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
jdotson@stx.rr.com says...
>
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
> news:zr1xd.7426$jn.4425@lakeread06...
> >
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> True, I don't know why you keep seeing people say the LCD is going to
> >> have
> > a
> >> degraded picture, but not the DLP. I just don't get it. What is there
> >> to
> >> degrade other than the bulb?
> >
> > While I think that the reliability of LCD sets will be very good, The DLP
> > system is simpler and should have a longer life, in terms of the DLP chip
> > vs
> > the LCD panels. LCD is a transmissive technology, meaning that the light
> > passes through the panel, while the DLP is reflective.
> >
> > The reason that you are seeing people say that LCD is going to have a
> > degraded pix is because over many years of application in projectors, many
> > people have seen problems with LCD panels degrading. Many of these
> > problems
> > have to do with the application and the quality of the design. For
> > instance, when you go into bars and restaurants that have video projectors
> > you will often see hazy images or splotches of color or faded yellowing
> > images. Some are just very dirty, some have bad panels due to heat damage
> > from not being cleaned. Some just have bad panels because they do go bad
> > sometimes. The most common failures are blue panels, which seem to be
> > more
> > sensitive to the UV from the lamps. Also, dirt and oil collecting on the
> > panels = heat, heat increases the likelihood of failures. In home
> > applications many of these problems will be far less apparent and less
> > significant. Overall, however, the DLP system can tolerate much more
> > abuse
> > of this nature and the chip itself is quite durable.
> >
> > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over the
> > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should be
> > more
> > reliable.
> >
> > Leonard
>
> Then why in the world would so many company's build LCD's if they know the
> DLP's are going to be much more reliable?
>


Because they have to pay TI royalties, and to purchase
the chip. LCD's can be built "in house" at half the
cost, so net profit for the manufacture is higher.


--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <eIydnSrN0vxMJFjcRVn-hg@centurytel.net>,
"Strychnine" <BeERm3@b33R.IcYEKoLD.N3t> writes:
>
> Sorry for the top post...
> Same here, I watched the game on my Sony 42' LCD RPTV and I didn't see any
> smear or anything.
>
Perhaps the most significant artifact is that you'll find that the
Sony Wega can cause small detail to nearly disappear when it moves through
the field f the screen. I haven't seen that effect in any other place
except when applying frame averaging on video. I definitely haven't seen
it intrinsically on DLP or CRT. I was quite surprised...

On the positive side, the Sony does have an apparently 'sharp' picture.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...

>
> Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
the
> next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should
be more
> reliable.
>
> Leonard

Note that this is not a consensus opinion but just your preference.
DLPs are *not* objectively better looking. Take a look at the latest
issue of the perfect vision where they compare a Sony WEGA IV LCD to
the Toshiba DLP. Side by side the pictures were very similar.
However, after you read the review, you sense that the LCD was the
preferred TV (though they didn't declare a winner in this 'shoot-out').

I can't watch DLPs. They give me a headache and the 'shimmering' on
bright broadcast elements is very distracting. As is motion artifacts
that I often notice. Of all high def TVs to chose from, DLPs would
actually be my last choice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"burwil" <burwil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103556243.512875.78820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:t_0xd.55865$yf.49413@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> >
> > Both are quite good, but expect to see fewer and fewer LCD RPTVs over
> the
> > next several years. Mostly, the DLP systems look better, and should
> be more
> > reliable.
> >
> > Leonard
>
> Note that this is not a consensus opinion but just your preference.
> DLPs are *not* objectively better looking. Take a look at the latest
> issue of the perfect vision where they compare a Sony WEGA IV LCD to
> the Toshiba DLP. Side by side the pictures were very similar.
> However, after you read the review, you sense that the LCD was the
> preferred TV (though they didn't declare a winner in this 'shoot-out').
>
> I can't watch DLPs. They give me a headache and the 'shimmering' on
> bright broadcast elements is very distracting. As is motion artifacts
> that I often notice. Of all high def TVs to chose from, DLPs would
> actually be my last choice.

I said mostly. Not always. Actually, my preference is still a good CRT
based set, front or rear projected, depending on the application. You will
find people who prefer any of the technologies, and no one is telling you
what to watch. There is much closer to a consensus that DLP looks better in
general than LCD than vice versa, however. If you look at the trends in
manufacturing among the major players, it is definitely away from LCD for
front and rear projection applications. Even Sharp considers DLP and
similar technologies to be the future for these applications, and they have
been doing LCD for longer than most.

Display induced motion artifacts are worse on LCD than any other technology.
Just about the only display induced artifact related to motion in a DLP is
rainbowing, and the newer sets have minimized that to the point that
virtually no one notices it anymore. The better LCDs are also very good, but
clearly inferior to DLP in this respect. Of course, you may be particularly
sensitive to DLPs imperfections. Some people are bothered more by certain
issues. If you don't like it don't buy it. PDP low level grunge drives me
nuts.

The Sony is a fine set. We sell a few of them, but people mostly prefer the
Mitsubishi and Optoma DLPs in head to head comparisons.

Leonard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
> will always drive you nuts.

I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see a
screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes are
different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a store and
stare at each set before you buy.

Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty won't
kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.

For the record, I love my DLP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:15:22 GMT, "FlyingElvis"
<flyingelvis@totallymod.com> wrote:

>"Michael Lankton" <mlankton@spymac.com> wrote in message
>news:20041218124735726-0600@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> Some people see rainbows on DLP. Advantage LCD. This is the deal breaker.
>> If you see rainbows run away from DLP as fast as you can because they
>> will always drive you nuts.
>
>I have a 61" DLP and I only saw a rainbow effect once. However, I see a
>screen-door effect when I look at an LCD RPTV. Each person's eyes are
>different. I think the best thing to do is spend some time in a store and
>stare at each set before you buy.
>
>Another negative about LCD based sets is dead pixels. The warranty won't
>kick in until a certain percentage of pixels are dead.
>
>For the record, I love my DLP.
>
Just out of curiosity, is your 61" DLP the new 6.85" deep RCA Scenium
HD61THW263? I haven't been able to see it yet, but I've read the two
reviews of it, the CNET negative review and the Sound and Vision very
positive review at
http/www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=1&article_id=717&page_number=3&preview=
and I'm real curious.