DLP Projectors
Robin Bonathan
Health Nut
Robin Bonathan wrote in message <7g7veu$63m$1...@gxsn.com>...
Jon Thompson FBKS
Jon Thompson FBKS
Health Nut wrote:
Maybe the next generation of DLP will be acceptable for Video,but not yet. We still have one or two years at least until DLPmight have high resolution, high quality video that approachesCTR. Just not high resolution enough nor a quality video formatyet... I'd get a used CRT before a new DLP anyday...Robin Bonathan wrote in message <7g7veu$63m$1...@gxsn.com>...Hi Has anyone got any comments on dlp projectors ? what's the quality of the display like etc. pitfalls etc. also has anyone use the Polaroid dlp220, is this any good? thanks Robin...
Robert Dewar
"Health Nut" <healt...@erols.com> wrote:
> Maybe the next generation of DLP will be acceptable for
> Video, but not yet. We still have one or two years at
> least until DLP might have high resolution, high quality
> video that approaches CTR. Just not high resolution
> enough nor a quality video format
> yet...
I think that for most people the 800 x 600 resolution
of a DLP projector (corresponding in terms of what you
can actually show sharply on the screen to a 7" CRT
projector) is adequate for most people (after all virtually
no one has source material with greater resolution yet).
As for quality video, it very much depends on what is
important to you. What a DLP projector can do is give
significantly more brightness, valuable if you want a
really large screen, or want to watch with ambient light.
Going up a step to a D-ILA, the resolution 1368 x 1024
with very sharply resolved discrete pixels greatly exceeds
anything that any CRT I have ever seen is capable of. Here
is a test for your CRT. Give it a 1280 x 1024 computer
generated image. Use 6 x 10 fonts, and see if they project
razor sharp and easily readable on the screen. That
standard is easily met by the D-ILA.
As for brightness, there is simply no comparison, the D-ILA
is far brighter. In fact I believe Joe Kane recommends a
minimum screen size of 12 foot wide for a D-ILA on the
grounds that it is too bright for a smaller screen (that
of course is assuming viewing in a completely darkened
room). Again, you have to decide whether brightness is
important. In our house we often watch TV on a 10 foot
diagonal screen in the middle of the day, or with lights
on in the room. Our old CRT projector was completely
useless under those conditions, the D-ILA is just fine.
So in short it depends what you are looking for, the choice
between CRT and DLP or ILA or LCD will depend on how much
you want to spend, and what requirements you have. Simple
blanket statements that one is better than the other period
are more like uninformative rhetoric than useful opinions.
The best thing is if you can actually try out both
possibilities in your environment, and choose for yourself
what you would prefer. I know I would never go back to
a CRT in my environment, even if I had the money to buy
right at the top end.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frank Stearms
because the bulb shuts down after 1000 hours and becomes useless. The
replacement cost is about $900. I have an LCD projector which is just as
bright (NEC MT1035) and the bulb last about 2000 hours and cost less then
half as much. Once the D-ILA bulb cost /lifetime becomes more acceptable
I'll consider it again.
Robert Dewar
fste...@accesscomm.net wrote:
> I evaluated the D-ILA and was really impressed. I decided
> not to buy it
> because the bulb shuts down after 1000 hours and becomes
> useless. The
> replacement cost is about $900. I have an LCD projector
> which is just as
> bright (NEC MT1035) and the bulb last about 2000 hours
> and cost less then
> half as much. Once the D-ILA bulb cost /lifetime becomes
> more acceptable
> I'll consider it again.
I am surprised that people worry so much about the cost
of the bulb. If you spend $35K on a home theater system
(a reasonable guess if you are talking the D-ILA, then
you have an amortized cost of something like $10K/year
over five years, considering interest etc.
Even if you stretch to 10 years, you are talking probably
$6K/year.
Assuming you want 3 hours/day, the bulb lasts a year, so
that adds $900 to the yearly cost, that's not so much, but
for some reason people seem to count the two kinds of money
differently :-) :-)
re...@xmission.com
> Has anyone got any comments on dlp projectors ?
> what's the quality of the display like etc.
> pitfalls etc.
> also has anyone use the Polaroid dlp220, is this any good?
>
DLP units are able to achieve higher contrast capabilities than LCD, and
approach that of CRT. However, their black level still leaves something to
be desired. Another advantage is that there is no visible boundary between
screen pixel elements. One downside is that many first generation DLP
projectors display movement artifacts and color artifacts as a limit of their
technology.
They are extremely bright and should typically be shown on a fairly big
screen. With a DLP, I would not consider a high gain screen to avoid hot
spotting and eye strain.
I have heard (only heard) the Polaroid LCD projectors are produced by 3M? And
don't include very good video handling.
Also on the low price range are the InFocus, Kodak, and Davis DLP's, I have
seen some of all and can say they are feature stripped and have pretty poor
video capabilities. (I.E. poor scan conversion software).
Take a look at the NEC LT81 projector; it's got a UHP bulb, doesn't use the
"colorwheel" DLP technology, has an excellent scan converter, and can take
component inputs via an adapter. It can be had at numerous places via mail-
order for less than $4K. It's predecessor, the LT80, is about $500 less and
looks superb as well.
- Rex
Jon Thompson FBKS
Health Nut wrote:
Yes but these are not HOME products (yet) give me a break.Jon Thompson FBKS wrote in message <3727AF24...@theworx.powernet.co.uk>...DPL is one the projection system being used for the Star wars part 1 Digital screenings in the US starting 18th june 1999. The JVC light Valve system is the other system under test. Both are using a resolution of 1280 by 1024 progressive! Sourced from sold state RAM rack. The system is good but not as good as film yet! Needs to be at least 1600 by 1280 or higher to start compete! This is not far off! CRT is good but does not have the high level of light output needed to get a clean bright picture. Also Crt suffers from phosphor drop out, in peak whites! One thing LCD sucks! In direct test it looked so bad!Jon Thompson FBKS
Health Nut wrote:
Maybe the next generation of DLP will be acceptable for Video,but not yet. We still have one or two years at least until DLPmight have high resolution, high quality video that approachesCTR. Just not high resolution enough nor a quality video formatyet... I'd get a used CRT before a new DLP anyday...
Robin Bonathan wrote in message <7g7veu$63m$1...@gxsn.com>...Hi Has anyone got any comments on dlp projectors ? what's the quality of the display like etc. pitfalls etc. also has anyone use the Polaroid dlp220, is this any good? thanks Robin...
Health Nut
Jon Thompson FBKS wrote in message <372E049A...@theworx.powernet.co.uk>...