As I have expressed many times in my various articles, I am not a fan of rear projection HDTV, least of all being the single panel DLP variety. Oh, yes, one can get from such DLP applications a bright, high-contrast image with definition a little bit better that SDTV, but certainly not HDTV. That added with the spinning color wheel with its whirling noise, motion artifacts, and poor (very poor) color tracking makes a mockery out of the perceived "definition" of HDTV.

But, now, there is new light shining...

Read the Full Article

Ed,

My experience with single chip DLP RPTV displays has been quite different from the assertions and perceptions in your openning paragraph. Most especially, the HLP and HLS series of Samsung HD DLPs can be calibrated to nearly perfect colorimetry. Certain DLP displays have included the adjustment parameters necessary to align their color primaries and secondaries to match both the 601 and 709 specifications. This is extremely rare in consumer televisions. What consumer displays have you seen with equal or better color accuracy? What exactly are you comparing DLP RPTVs to?

Your description of "...definition a little bit better that (sic) SDTV, but certainly not HDTV," completely baffles me. This is far from my experiences in viewing, installing, and calibrating DLP RPTVs in the last several years.

Perhaps you haven't been exposed to well-designed DLP RPTVs. There are definitely models with unobjectionable color wheel bearings. Most consumers don't have a problem with color separation motion artifacts, as can be determined by the enormous popularity of this format. I don't see the 'rainbow artifactiing' on single chip DLPs, but some people are sensitive to this phenomenon.

I have yet to encounter a perfect HDTV design. Each display type has unique imaging strengths and weaknesses. Frequently, it's the specific application and viewing environment that determine which display type is best suited for the user. I simply cannot aggree with your generalized analysis of RPTV DLP HDTV performance.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

AlanBrown wrote:I have yet to encounter a perfect HDTV design. Each display type has unique imaging strengths and weaknesses. Frequently, it's the specific application and viewing environment that determine which display type is best suited for the user. I simply cannot aggree with your generalized analysis of RPTV DLP HDTV performance.

[Based on the above and] at the risk of putting you on the spot, so to speak, Ed, which HDTV design, in your estimation, comes as near to perfection as can be feasibiy expected with the HDTV technology as it stands today ? Given that the application and viewing environment are as near to the optimum without breaking the bank, so please don't do an end run around the question via the " it all depends " route.

Edited by HD Library

Today, for RPTV, it is LCoS technology. For flat panel, it is LCD. Tomorrow, both will be better with LED lighting. Ed

Thank you, Ed, for your straightforward response. I happen to concur with your choices and prognosis.

People reading this thread should be aware that the statements made here are simply the opinions of individuals and not necessarily shared by others who do not necessarily have the same experiences voiced by the original poster(s). A lot of times some of these opinions (while the perfect right of the speaker) are so far off the mark from others' observations that they lead to rather heated discussions. In many cases, what one person considers extremely important is considered to be splitting hairs by another person. Everyone has their own perception of what makes for a good picture.


I find it a bit confrontational when words such as "poor" and "mockery" are tossed about by someone trying to make an otherwise learned post. In my own experience I find it hard to describe DLP (even single chip DLP) in these terms or to state that HDTV on such devices is "certainly not HDTV." Maybe by that person's standards, but I would find it hard to believe that this is a major opinion by any reasonable standard.

I found that my Runco CL-710 single chip DLP FP produced an excellent HDTV picture in my estimation and my current HP MD5880n DLP RPM is still providing me with an amazing set of 1080p images. I've recently upgraded my Runco to a JVC DLA-RS1 so I guess that some might think I've left the dark side.

In any event, I'm a big fan of DLP and would have probably stayed with a DLP FP if the three chip models weren't priced in the stratosphere. As it is, the RS-1 is, to me, hard to beat not only at its price, but at any price and I'm extremely happy with my current choices.

Robert,

It is interesting you mentioned the key word “view” because that is the reason I did not comment about this “view” article earlier, with which I disagree as well as you and Alan, and some others that were puzzled with this “view” and contacted me privately.

I sat on this situation for a week.

As a courtesy, I had no other choice, I had to avoid challenging a colleague’s article, but that puts me in a straight jacket because of my role as Senior Technical Director and my silence could have been misinterpreted as agreeing with the “view”.

Even as a view, uninformed people could have taken the statements as a reason not to buy DLP because it was not considered HDTV quality, so expressing strong views with such freedom could have unintended effects to readers that stop the research on this “view” article, and buy something else.

In my “view” LCD panel is not yet ready for the top panel position, I would have chosen plasma until LCD fixes several weaknesses such as motion blur, color consistency, black levels, etc.

LCD is going in that direction with 120Hz and 4ms (and lower) response times, better blacks, etc. but for quality viewing on a light-controlled environment, TODAY, I rather put a 1080p plasma on top, and in many cases even a quality 1366x768 plasma on top of a blurry 1080p LCD panel.

Just look at a close up of the skin on a face displayed on an LCD panel, any LCD, and the texture shows no porous, no pimples, no natural skin detail. Look at greenery depth pass the close-up point on an image and after a few feet behind the close-up the depth on the greenery, the leaves, trees, etc loose definition on an LCD panel, a mass of green stuff.

Looking at plasma implementations from Pioneer Elite and Panasonic there is no way ANY LCD panel could provide a better picture than that, regardless of size.

Now, if the panel is needed for a very lighted room on a beach place, and would not be viewed at extreme angles, or a size below 42” is needed, etc. we get into the domain of LCD, but the statements were not qualified that way.

Regarding DLP, I believe that saying that, and I quote:

“definition a little bit better that SDTV, but certainly not HDTV. That added with the spinning color wheel with its whirling noise, motion artifacts, and poor (very poor) color tracking makes a mockery out of the perceived "definition" of HDTV.”

I believe the way it was expressed is excessive negativism. We have to admit that some people could be more sensitive to a bit noisier color wheel and the rainbow effect, but DLP is no way a “very poor” implementation of HD. What it puzzles me more is that Ed himself praised DLP on an earlier article two years ago which perhaps he might have forgotten:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2005/06/the_best_hdtv_d.php

And I quote ”DLP projection produces an amazingly excellent HDTV picture with virtually no switching artifacts. The image can be very bright (probably the brightest of the group), with good dynamic range (with a little white compression) and excellent black level management.”

So how a casual reader could interpret such inconsistency? What about if a reader does not have the chance to read anything else about DLP than just the view degrading DLP? Or perhaps the reader does not have the chance to read the other article from the same author giving praise to DLP?

Out of respect to any view I was doing an effort to try to find a logical explanation, perhaps one could be that LCoS has been very successfully implemented by Sony and JVC since the first article, another could be that the author might have had a bad experience with a particular DLP set after his first article, I frankly do not know.

One might also notice that on that first article Ed gave first price to LCD RPTV; he referred to it as the best-looking TV when stepping into a store.

Here is a quote from the same article:

“LCD Projection (the winner)
In my view LCD projection simply produces the best large screen image on the market. It is probably slightly more expensive and slightly dimmer than DLP, but not enough to matter. The chances are very good that when you gaze on the array of HDTV sets on the retailers' showroom floor, your eyes will immediately gravitate to an LCD projection display. “

Interestingly enough, from day one until even now, I consider LCD RPTV the worst and weakest image of all, regardless of price, regardless of size, regardless of viewing environment. In fact, if price were a constraint I would have chosen CRT RPTV any day over LCD RPTV, even today if they were offered.

So, since this a VIEW thread, here is my VIEW, I love democracy.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

Rodolfo,

Thank you for your response. Your opinion and mine are on the same page here. It's just that you stated it far more eloquently and with considerably more substance than I did. Your analysis, as usual, makes for quite a compelling "view."

I have absolutely no problem with people expressing their opinions on any matter in a public forum. That is, of course, their right and not something that I would argue against. My only concern is for the casual reader who might be looking for helpful information and take such a written position (especially one that mocks other alternatives) as technogical gospel rather than as opinion. The tendency for some to engage in "confrontational dialogue" is an unfortunate reality of our Internet environment and one of the reasons that I, as you, avoid certain sites where a combination of dubious information and an aggressive delivery make it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Opinions are great to have and to share as long as everyone understands what they are and where they come from.

Take care.