Slashdot Mirror
Large Format TV Options?
pipingguy asks: "I'm planning to purchase a large screen TV and I'm leaning toward DLP at this time. After doing research on-line, I'm more confused than before. One thing I don't like about DLP is the relatively limited vertical angle for best picture viewing. LCDs don't seem to be as bad in this regard, but my understanding is that LCD is more expensive per inch. What is the current state-of-the-art for DLP? I'd rather buy a smaller TV with a better picture than one with a larger picture that is less appealing to the eye. And what about the thousands of tiny mirrors in DLP units? If these are mechanically moving parts, isn't that a likely source of failure (so says a Sony rep who wanted to sell me a LCD projection TV). Thanks for any advice/experience you can provide."
Well, when I started comparing DLP and Plasma side-by-side (I was looking at 50" models, BTW), I looked at the detail of both, and even though Plasma theoretically had fewer pixels, the amount of detail was much superior. What I noticed was that DLP pixels are very "fuzzy" (presumably from the projection aspect of DLP), whereas the Plasma was razor sharp from the direct-light aspect.
When you also factor in that Plasma is far brighter with a much better viewing angle, I decided to spend the extra money for the Plasma screen. Of course, only you can decide if the additional quality is worth the extra money, but it worked out that way for me.
I didn't really look that closely at LCD. The Plasma seemed superior enough that if I was going to go for a "sub resolution", then I'd go Plasma.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The the mirrors in a DMD (Digital Micromirror Device- used by DLP's) are under little stress and rarely fail. Most have undergone extensive testing and failure has never been a significant problem. Go to several stores, look at the available models- read the reviews for each unit and manufacturer and buy whichever one looks best to you.
-sirket
I bought a Samsung DLP unit, but had to return it due to strobing rainbow effect. It was a really great image, though that was in part because Samsung was doing a very high level of algorithmic sharpening, which can cause halos around some images. But I really couldn't move my eyes across it without seeing the trailing rainbows.
I didn't see this effect in the store at all, but at home the awareness of it really did build up. If you are interested in DLP, you might look at the new units that use high speed LED arrays instead of a high intensity white light bulb to handle the color.. these new ones still flash the colors in sequence, but the sequencing is much faster, and it really and truly is supposed to be below the perceptual threshold for everybody.
I wound up getting a Sony SXRD LCoS set swapped out for the Samsung DLP.. the SXRD was more expensive, but the resolution was higher (true 1920x1280p), with more digital connectors, and better firmware. The SXRD sets are similar to DLP in that they are digital microdisplay projectors, but they use three LCoS color panels instead of a color wheel spinning in front of a micromirror array.
If you want a good place to read heated and informed opinions about the various choices on offer, check out http://www.avsforum.com/.
Good luck!
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
it all depends on what you want
if you are only going to be using this TV as a TV, picture quality is best by far on a plasma. if you might use it with a home theatre PC I would go with an LCD tv. if you want a tv that is going to last a long time i would still go with CRT, or perhaps DLP. if you want a huge screen and dont mind spending hundreds a year on a replacement bulb, go with a projector. if you are going to be watching in the dark and close to the screen all the time an LCD is best on the eyes. if you are going to be watching a TV station with the logo in the corner of the screen all the time or with a bar at the bottom like a newsfeed, then you dont want a plasma screen because of image burn in. if you want something you can carry and move around all by yourself then you want either a projector or an LCD.
I've owned a DLP projector for 4 years now, and I've recommended Samsung and Mitsubishi DLP rear-projection televisions when asked. Some of my motivations: Plasma is subject to burn-in -- LG incorporates a 'dot-crawl' feature in their plasma displays that moves the image over one pixel, then up, then left, etc, to help mitigate this. If your panel suffers burn-in, you're out the cost of replacing the major component in your television/monitor. With DLP/LCD, you're only ongoing cost is replacement lamps, and they last quite a while. /. also reported that Samsung is close to releasing a DLP display driven by an LED light source. When choosing between LCD and DLP, one thing I might recommend reading about is how well the LCD panel retains its color purity over time. Granted, I saw this on the TI DLP site, but they demonstrated degradation in color purity over time of the LCD panel vs. DLP. There's more information at http://dlp.com/dlp_technology/dlp_technology_white _papers.asp (FWIW, I am an interested consumer. I do not work for TI, nor for any manufacturer of consumer/professional electronic equipment)
I looked around for weeks comparing sets, watching every make and model and reading everything I could get my hands on. In the end, I decided on the Sony Wega KF-E50A10, which is a 50" LCD rear projection TV. No matter what technology you choose - LCD (some manufacturers call it LCOS), plasma, DLP or CRT -- there are tradeoffs and advantages for each. In the case of the Sony, LCD technology has the potential to produce a pixelated, screen door effect and lower overall brightness and contrast. With a three LCD arrangement the Sony Wega is able to virtually eliminate the screen door effect and is able to overcome the contrast issue with a high brightness lamp, the only flaw to the set in my opinion as it will require replacement every so often. What sold me on the Sony was the quality of not only the HDTV picture, which I think is superb, but the quality of standard definition on cable or satellite. Hands down the Sony produced a far better picture than just about any set I looked at, except a very expensive Panasonic model I don't recall at the moment. Most salesmen are glad to blab about the quality of the HDTV picture, but rarely bring up SD picture quality and given the amount of HD content out there I estimated that I'd spend about half my time watching SD material. The dirty secret of most HDTVs is that SD looks like absolute shit on most of them, but the Sony uses an averaging algorithm that does an extremely good job of making SD broadcasts watchable.
I skipped plasma due to the cost and the fact that I felt the picture had the most pronounced screen door effect of any HDTV technology. I liked DLP, but since most HDTVs use a single chip DLP solution there can be a noticable shimmering rainbow effect on the edges of objects during movement as a color wheel must be used to display the full range of colors. I noticed it on several models and decided to skip DLP for the time being and noted that DLP sets will also require costly replacement of their high brightness lamps, just like LCD. Three chip DLP sets, one DLP chip for each of the primary colors, red, gree and blue, would eliminate the rainbow edge effect, but don't expect anything like that for less than $30,000. At some point three chip DLP will be standard, but it will be a while. I really liked the CRT rear projection sets I looked at and they were several hundred dollars less than LCD, plasma or DLP, but everyone I talked to that had one found that picture convergence was a problem (more so than SD rear projection TVs) and that static picture burn-in could be an issue (although I am told that doesn't happen anymore). Also, CRT rear projection TVs are heavier and bulkier than LCD or DLP.
I don't know about the overall reliability of DLP, but I do have a DLP projector that is a few years old and haven't noticed any loss of picture quality or missing pixels. If the quality of the SD picture wasn't as good as it was on the Sony, I would have bought a DLP TV, but nothing I saw with the DLP technology matched the quality of the SD picture from Sony. I don't think that's a limitation of the DLP technology itself so much as Sony finding the best method to display an SD quality picture on a HDTV.
I decided to get a Samsung HLN617W (61.7") DLP back in 2003. While most of my friends had recommended against DLP, I was so impressed by the quality of the image and the workmanship of the unit that I went for it. I am currently using it to type this text.
My friends that went with plasmas are now on their second TVs and a couple have had heat issues with their newer units ($5k Pioneer & Toshiba units, vintage 2005, no less). Anyone that recommends plasma needs to get one and use it as a computer monitor for a few months. What you end up with is an image that is no longer as bright, and lovely screen burn in which isn't covered by the manufacturer's warranty (Remember that you're bombarding phosphorus on a plexi/glass plane).
As for LCD, I have heard a number of complaints about the viewing angle in mixed lighting. Colors morph as you rotate about the unit in a sunlit room. DLP too has issues with this sort of motion, but they are limited to the luminosity and not the hue of the picture (This is much less annoying and needs some getting used to).
LCD also has issues with bad pixels - It is bound to happen on any size screen based on the number of transistors that are backing the viewing pane (Usually 3 per pixel). The latency of LCD technology also causes a "ghosting" effect to manifest itself with fast-paced action shots. Manufacturers have put out displays that are much faster in the past couple of years but they are still a ways from making the overall problem disappear.
If I were chosing a TV today, I would go with DLP again.
I am looking forward to OLEDs being used in big screens: They're thin, much brighter, lighter, more flexible and less intrusive...
The AVS Forum is a great place to ask questions like this.
Then again, my TV probably doesn't count as "large". If you want a 50" behemoth, LCD is still prohibitively expensive.
I initially liked the idea of DLP, but it has some problems:
- On many sets, latency is an issue. This was a killer for me, as I had to be able to play video games on the set.
- The bulbs need replacing, and they're a few hundred bucks each, so the ongoing cost is higher than LCD.
- The sets make noise. I'm really picky about noise, I don't want anything with a fan in the living room.
- The micromirrors don't generally fail, but the high speed rotating bits do.
- The rainbow striping can be a bit distracting.
- Visibility in daylight is problematic.
The downsides of LCDs:
- Contrast ratio not as good as DLP, but getting close.
- Price is high if you want to go over 40".
I don't see response time as an issue on the latest generation of LCDs. Certainly I've had no problem playing ultra-fast racing games. Picture is vibrant, strong saturated colors, and the brightness means there's no problem with daytime viewing. I haven't noticed viewing angle being an issue either, certainly no more so than it is with DLP.
The downsides of plasma:
- Short lifetime.
- Gridlike mask over the picture.
- Can't use it for video games.
- Not a good idea to use it for extensive viewing of letterboxed material.
- Heat, energy consumption.
Downsides of CRT:
- Weighs a ton.
- Energy consumption, heat.
- Takes up lots of space.
- Full of nasty chemicals, you'll pay someone to take it away at the end of its lifetime.
If you need a big screen and can't afford LCD at that size, projection LCD might be an option.
Interestingly, each technology seems to have one company that has a clear lead. Sharp are the technology leaders for LCD. Samsung are the leaders for DLP. Panasonic are the best for plasma. Sony are the best for CRT. I haven't seen enough LCoS sets to conclude who's the leader there...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You should consider conventional tube TVs. Consumer Reports found that the Sony KV-34HS420 ($1200) had HDTV picture quality that could only be matched by $3000+ Plasmas, and $5000+ LCDs/DLPs. This is a very recent development; last year the only wide screen HDTV conventionals were mediocre.
The downside is that they're smaller (34-inches), very heavy (200+ pounds), and voluminous.
None of the alternatives can beat conventionals in that metric.
Daniel
It probably has something to do with the nature of rear projection, but it's definitely there. My DLP TV is great as horizontal viewing angle goes, but the vertical viewing angle could be a bit better. I only notice it when I stand up though, and since I don't watch TV standing up, I don't mind so much.
What? No. Plasma displays use phosphors to generate color, just like a CRT. Also, just like a CRT, those phosphors decay over time. They're prone to burn-in, just like a CRT. Think of a plasma display like a mix between CRT and LCD. You have a grid of individual subpixels just like an LCD, but those sub pixels are are made up of light-emitting phosphors just like a CRT. How those phosphors are energized is different (that's where the plasma comes in to play), but the ultimate effect is the same -- the set is generating color through the use of a consumable substance, and over time that substance will be consumed. ("consumable" isn't the right word, but it gets the idea across.)
If plasma displays use the same technology as CRTs, why do they have a much shorter half-life? I don't know, but I would suspect the main culprit is user error. You'll get very long life with no risk of burn-in if you properly calibrate a CRT (get it out of the factory-default torch-mode contrast, if nothing else), and I suspect you'd get the same from a plasma. However, proper calibration tends to mute brightness and colors (actually bringing them down to correct, realistic levels), and that's the last thing a new plasma owner wants if he was sold on the "vibrant" and "rich" color of the display (never mind that it's all way overblown and needs to be adjusted down to look good, never mind for the health of the display).
Just one small correction - LCOS is not LCD, it is a different technology. Liquid Crystal on Silicon. JVC and Sony are probably the two biggest providers of LCOS sets and projectors (Sony calls thiers SXRD).
I did the same this past January and arrived at the same conclusion and bought the same TV. I paid $2200.
If you can afford it, the Sony LCos is even better, but at $3300 in 50", I could not justify it.
I decided to get a large screen TV this past Christmas. Here is how I went about it.
First, I learned about the technologies. That part was easy, and obviously you don't need me to repeat all the material that's out there. I boiled it down to either LCD rear projection, DLP, or plasma. I wasn't interested in CRT rear projection due to the price, weight, and need for professional alignment / calibration, LCD because of the size limitations, or CRT because of the size limitations and weight / size.
Second, I went to stores and evaluated different TVs which use different technologies. You can read AVSforum and all of the various professional magazines about this stuff, and they will measure black levels and white levels and everything else, but really those evaluations are nearly uselless. Those sorts of technical reviews myopically focus on individual aspects of the picture and their ratings rarely consider the overall image quality. The quality of a TV picture is really subjective, so it should be evaluated that way in terms of your buying decision. It's not always easy to do this in stores, but I decided that if I was going to buy a $1500 - $3000 tv set, the retailer was either going to help me do that, or not get my business. So I brought DVDs with me of a couple of movies that I am well familiar with and which had characteristics that would help me decide. These included:
Spider Man -- Action movie with very vivid colors and tons of sweeping action, to verify color and motion reproduction.
Sin City -- Probably the most black ever in any movie, good for, obviously, measuring black levels.
The Fellowship of the Rings -- an excellent, very sharp DVD transfer, just for image quality and again because I've seen it so many times.
(Yes, I realize that DVDs will display at 480p on these sets, and HD is 720p or 1080i, but the majority of programming I'll watch on this TV will be DVDs, and DVDs are the only media I can really control. Besides, the store always has Discovery-HD or that awful Charlotte Church video fed across all their HD sets, so it's easy to compare among the HD feeds.)
Then I went to the stores. I looked at rear-projection LCD and DLP first, since they had some compelling advangages -- similarly priced and lightweight. As it turns out, neither of these was that great. Both of those suffer from poor black levels (black looks gray) and restricted viewing angles (if you're not pretty close to perpendicular to the screen it will look dim). In addition, DLP sets have a sort of shimmering optical effect that I noticed and just didn't like. The best of the rear-projection sets was the Sony KDFE42A10 LCD RP -- it definitely had the blackest blacks and the best color reproduction -- but even so, I wasn't completetely satisfied watching movies like Sin City on it, and I still hated the picture degradation when sitting more than 45 degrees off center from it. Still, it was just about good enough. But I needed to look at plasmas.
So I went and looked at plasmas, and it was just absolutely night and day. I had spent a good deal of time looking at the rear projection sets, and each usually was better than the others in one aspect. But the plasma sets were almost all universally better than the RP sets. Colors were more vivid, blacks were blacker, the picture was smoother despite the physically lower resolution [1], and there were absolutely no shimmering effects. They weren't all free of artifacts, to be sure: some of them seemed to have slower response times, and got jaggies or pixelation in fast-moving scenes in Spider Man or when the Discovery-HD feed showed waterfalls for example. The best of the pack overall turned out to be the Panasonic TH-42PX50U. It was about $8000 higher than the Sony RP-LCD, but its picture quality just couldn't be denied, and that's what I wound up purchasing.
And about plasma... I read all about burn-in and screen lifetime, and decided neither was a big issue. I was careful to keep
I'd also suggest looking at a DLP projector.
I purchased an Optoma 739 for $1000 a year ago April and I consider it the best electronics purchase I have ever made. It has been on 24 hours a day since as I work from home and I use it as my computer monitor and television (using a HDTV cable box as the tuner).
This model is bright enough to use in a room with two lit floorlamps, is extremely quiet, bulb life is very long (it hasn't burnt out yet!), and the bulbs are relatively cheap.
People come over to watch movies or play games and drool and I paid far less than any comparable plasma or flat screen TV.
There are three major concerns regarding a projector. One is the "rainbow effect" from single chip DLP models, next is the cost of high resolution models, and third is bulb cost.
Regarding the rainbow effect, this is caused by a cost saving method the manufacturers employ. A DLP projector works by shining light onto many little mirrors that represent pixels. These mirrors are on a semiconductor chip and don't have moving motors or mechanisms. To get full colour you need red, green, and blue lights combined at various strengths. To acheieve this you can either employ three sets of mirrors each with their own coloured light (like the old projection TVs with the three big bulbs) or a cheaper way is to use one chip and rapidly alternate the light colour with a colourwheel. The old single chip DLP models had a three or 4 segment colour wheel that spun rather slowly and if you have sensitive eyes you can actually see the flicker (or it can subconsciously effect you). Personally, I notice when monitors are set to below 75Hz and it drives me crazy, but since this projector has an 8 segment colour wheel I cannot notice the rainbow. Even if trying by moving my head back and forth rapidly I can barely see the colour separation. LCD projectors do not have this problem, but from what I've seen and read, by increasing the speed and number of wheel segments DLP projectors have essentially eliminated this.
The second drawback is resolution. Native XGA (1024x768) resolution projectors are relatively inexpensive now and are usually compatible with HDTV singnals. For a TV this is more than adequate. For a computer this can be a problem. Getting a projector with higher resolution becomes much more expensive. The projectors have the ability to fake higher resolution by "smushing" some pixels together, which I have found tolerable at 1280x1024 but the image is definately not as sharp. Maybe prices on higher res models have come down in a year, but I take the tradeoff of "low" resolution for the image size and small footprint.
Finally if you do decide to buy a projector consider bulb life and cost. I'm not joking that my proejctor has been on for a year straight and am still on the same bulb. This bulb is rated at 5000 hours in "eco" mode. Also, if it DOES need to be replaced this bulb costs around $200. I previously owned an EIKI projector which went through bulbs every 3 months, were extremely hard to find, and ran $500 each. I had a hard time convincing myself to buy another projector, but I'm glad I made the decision.
I don't mention brightness being a major consideration because most projectors now are somewhere near or over 2000 lumens which is fine for a lamp lit room (not sunlit though). Only the very small projectors for road warriors get expensive for high lumens. But do make sure the brightness is adequate for your environment and do not trust any ratings but your own eyes.
One last comment about projectors. Consider the footprint. I live in a relatively small 1 bedroom apartment in NYC. I have my projetor upside down on the top of a bookshelf and a pulldown screen on the opposite wall. With my environment, space is precious, and this takes essentially none, where a tube TV would consume a whole corner of the room and a large rear projection TV would not fit and to buy a flat panel of the same size would leave me poor.
True 1080p resolution TVs don't have 1080p inputs yet. A couple of HP displays do but they aren't displaying the full resolution properly.
Save your pennies until this fall if this feature is of value to you.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
If you're getting blocking artifacts during periods of high motion, then it probably has 0 to do with your TV. It's more is likely to be a video compression problem. It takes more bits to represent a rapidly changing scene, and if there aren't enough bits, you get blocks. Are you watching digital cable, satellite, or cheap DVD? Some channels, especially less popular ones, tend to be sent overcompressed.
I'm guessing that a lot of people who get a plasma TV tend to upgrade to digital cable or satellite at the same time and find that HDTV compression isn't a mature technology yet.
I have researched this question out of my own interest in the past couple of years, and let me divide your question into two parts:
1. Should I buy a DLP, LCD, or DILA? These competing display technologies all have their strengths and weaknesses. In an effort to be objective, the *general* consensus for DLP units are that they offer higher contrast and a sharper image, but at the cost of the "rainbow effect". LCD units offer more vivid, saturated color, but at the expense of higher black levels. DILA units, called SXRD when under the Sony brand, tend to share the strengths and weaknesses of LCD's. Now for my subjective opinion, I prefer an LCD because I am quite happy with the rich image, and the rainbows of DLP color wheels render them unwatchable for me. Even on DLP's with a high-speed color wheel, although the alternating red, green, and blue components of the image are not consciously visible, I found that I get a headache after watching it for 90 minutes or so. So I strongly prefer LCD's to DLP's, although this is a question on the order of Ford vs. Chevy, domestic vs. imported, Windows vs. Mac, Ginger vs. Mary Ann...
2. Should I get a flat-screen, rear projection, or front projection unit? This is another important question that you didn't explicitly consider in your post, but it's essential when you want a large-format screen. A flat-screen, which may include LCD's and plasmas, may offer the most vibrant and saturated image, but at a higher cost per inch of screen real estate than other options. Rear projection TV's pass light through an LCD, DLP, or DILA filter to form an image on the back side of a (usually) black screen. Front projection TV's can create an image of arbitrary size, depending on the projection distance, with a tradeoff between image size and quality. The Achilles heel of front projectors is ambient light - the image gets washed out when it must compete with other light sources. Projection units tend to give you more image for your money than flat screens.
After extensive research, I selected a Sanyo PLV-Z4 for my TV. It is an LCD front projector with good contrast with future-compatible features (particularly HDMI with HDCP) and an attractive price. I painted a neutral grey screen using Screen Goo. I found that the image is sparkling when the room is completely light controlled, with deep blacks and rich color. I use a screen diagonal of 84", even though the unit could be enlarged to 100" or so, because I prefer image quality over size. My living room is flooded with ambient light, so I convinced myself that I should be doing other things during daylight hours, like working or being active outside. Ambient light problem solved. 8)
What works for me may not necessarily be the best thing for you, but I've been quite happy with it. Good luck.