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."
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
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)
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
Judging purely from anecdotal evidence (ie, just my eyes).... if you are sensitive to screen refresh rates on a CRT, avoid DLPs like the plague.
:-)
I've always been sensitive to monitor refresh rates.... I see flicker all the time. A regular 60hz refresh bothers me a lot. Gives me a headache. 75hz is the absolute minimum acceptable refresh on a CRT, and 85hz is fine, even under fluorescents. At home, I liked to shoot for 120Hz, because that matched well with nearly everything... it gave me the smoothest possible motion. I imagine that might not work under fluorescents, but I never had a work CRT that could go that fast. (I'm all LCD these days.) (Strangely, I have never been sensitive to the 30hz video refresh rate, and I have no idea why.)
DLP makes me want to claw out my eyes and run shrieking from the room. I can point out exactly which sets are DLP from a hundred feet away. If you are at all sensitive to CRT refresh, you MUST go see DLPs in person, and you absolutely must make sure you have an ironclad return policy. The saturation and color on DLPs is a little better than LCDs, and they tend to be cheaper, but a display that gives you motion sickness is no good, no matter how cheap it is.
If, for some reason, you can't demo a set, then LCD is the safe choice... it will always work, and all your guests will be able to use it comfortably. Plasma is also a good choice, as long as you realize that it does wear out eventually. And, of course, there's always CRT-based units. They don't get as large as the other technologies, but they have amazing image quality and are very cheap, because they're the redheaded stepchild.... people think CRT is automatically inferior, just because it's old tech.
The major downside, at least to the Sony CRTs, is that they are incredibly heavy. You'll need help installing even a small screen. But the colors are rich and vibrant, the blacks are dead black, and the resolution is far better than the CRTs of old.
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).
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.