Hey Austin Texas Buddies? Can anyone help me out?

Mike, for your Mitsu RPTV red push issue, do a forum search in the display area - this forum, AVScience and Hometheaterspot forums - tons of info available.
Speakers: First, I'd build a shelf with a vertical brace or two on the back, extending downward to rest on the back of the TV (maybe rubber tips on the bottom of the braces), so you can place your center channel on top of the RPTV. You won't be happy with the center channel speaker to the side of the TV. White van speakers???? Are you one of those guys? "Studio Monitors"...mmm-mmm...where can I get some?!
I've got an analog RS SPL meter and an Exel file fill-in-the-blank form with extrapolated/extended frequency intervals you could use also.

Mike,

In order to adjust the red push you will need to use the service menu, which of course your owner's manual will not tell you how to access. I used to know the code, but I haven't messed with a Mits in a long time. As Hank said though, it should be easy to find doing a keyword search of (Mitsubishi Service Menu Code) on any of the popular RPTV/calibration forums.

I should caution you though that unless you have a color analyzer, and/or have a lot of experience calibrating RPTVs, I would not jump into the service menu and start messing with the RGB push & drives. While it may look like you have a red push problem, it may in fact be a green drive issue. The only way to be sure is by measuring the color temp and analyzing each color output. Worst case scenario, always remember to write down the current settings, so that you can always get back to where you started.

Good luck, those Mits are not fun to calibrate... I know of several ISFers who charge more for Mits sets because of their calibration issues. That said, the effort is almost always worth it for the improved PQ. While you are in there, you may also want to evaluate your convergence. In my experience Mits sets can only hold their convergence for about a year, so if its been that long since it was last calibrated or if its a new set, more than likely it could benefit from a little adjusting.

"...so I plug the pair of White van speakers and they did not sound that bad."

Good Grief! You're wife shoulda smacked you upside da head.

Red push and convergence are two very different issues. If your problem is convergence, you can mostly fix that via the standard menus without entering the service menus. Just enter the convergence section of your menu and use the arrow keys on your remote to adjust the crosshairs, boxes, dots, or whatever Samsung uses until everything lines up. That should get you started.

My mistake, I read Hank's response and he mentioned that you had a mitsu.

The best way to determine whether your problem is with convergence or with your gamma settings is to run those specific test patterns found on VE or AVIA. I have both if you would like to borrow one. If it is a convergence issue and your set allows for convergence calibration without going into the service menu then you should at least try and fix the problem that way. I would be very surprised however if that type of calibration is very thorough. Most sets I have encountered have offered no more than 10 points of convergence. I suspect that by going into the service menu of your set you will be able to fine tune the convergence with a 72 point grid pattern. Also, when you are doing convergence, it is a good idea to start from the center of the grid pattern and spiral out. Doing so will save you from having to go back and fourth between grid points as you make your adjustments.

If the problem is related to your gamma settings (which unfortunately is the case for almost all new and uncalibrated TVs), then I would recommend you hire an experienced calibrationist armed with a spectroradiometer, color analyzer, or optical comparator who then will be able to set the gamma correctly.

For future reference to any one considering RPTV, Toshiba's are the easiest to calibrate and maintain their calibrations the longest. Mitsubishi's are the worst in both respects (excellent PQ though once done). Sony's will hold their calibration well, but calibrating their gamma is complicated by the fact that each change in a drive or push results in a 100 degree or more difference. Compare that to Toshiba's which change only about 10 degrees. I have never worked on a Samsung, but I even in the case of Mitsu's and Sony's, its just a matter of practice and patience and eventually you can get it perfectly calibrated and have a superb picture.

First of all, the LV-S1 is a data grade projector (300:1 contrast ratio is the most obvious way of telling). While it may do a decent job as a laptop presentation device, for video it will fall well short of projectors designed mainly for video.

There are some video grade projectors that can be had for about the same price. The one getting the most attention due to the positive reviews and rock bottom pricing is the InFocus X1 (MSRP $1,600; 1000 lumens; 2000:1 contrast ratio; 3000 lamp hours; and faroudja DCDi video processing chip set). Its only obvious weakness is resolution, but as long as you don't have a viewing distance to screen width ratio any smaller than 1.5:1 then the lower resolution will hardly be noticeable, if at all. Of course if it is noticeable you can make the image smaller so that the ratio is more like 2:1 or until the image appears smooth enough for you to enjoy the picture without being distracted by any pixcelation.

As for the pros and cons of RPTV vs FP.

RPTV = PICTURE QUALITY
Unless you spend the big bucks, even a basic RPTV will outperform a FP.

RPTV = SPECIAL FEATURES
Automatic Calibrations (with newer top of the line models), PIP, Channel Surfing, etc are common place in RPTV, but will not be found standard in any FP.

RPTV = EASE OF SET-UP/USE
While digital projectors have made the set-up and operation much easier than CRT FPs, they still don't come close to the simplicity of the true plug'n'play of RPTV.

RPTV = VIEWING W/AMBIENT LIGHTING
The advantage here is very significant. The nature of a RPTV is that it is a CRT FP in its own dark room (the cabinet), and you the viewer are in another room. The screen is the wall between the two rooms. The end result is that the image remains quit clear and vibrant even with lots of light in the viewing room because the projection room remains in complete darkness and the screen is not reflecting light from the viewing room. The opposite is true in a FP system so in order to get a good picture, the lights must be controlled, and preferably snuffed out.

RPTV = LOW COST
RPTV are still significantly less expensive. For even the top of the line models like the new Toshiba HiDef RPTVs, for only $2,500 you get a superb 7" CRT displaying a 61" picture with all the latest technological advancements, dual tuners, scaler, interpolator, DVI-HPCP, and much much more. For a top of the line FP expect to pay well over $10,000 of course that wont come with a screen which if you are looking for top of the line with run you at least another $1,000.

OK, now its the FP's turn to show off...

FP = LARGE PICTURE SIZE!!!!
Yes Virginia, bigger is better! FP can produce very large images, and if the projector and environment allow for it, the images can also be very good, if not excellent.

FP = MINIMUM REAL ESTATE
Unless you have the room to spare, RPTVs can be quite intrusive. Most large RPTVs will require a space of about 2.5' x 5'.

FP = PORTABILITY
A typical 61" RPTV weighs in at over 300lbs. Compared to a typical DLP which weighs in at under 10lbs. Enough said.

FP = EASIER UPGARDES/REPAIRS
Just like the common argument between separate audio components vs integrated ones, FPs are easy to upgrade as they are just one part of the system. Also repairs are much easier to do on a projector than on a RPTV due to the portability factor.


BOTTOM-LINE:
If you are on a tight budget and want the best possible PQ, can't control lighting (or unwilling to for comfort or aesthetics), watch TV/movies with four or fewer people, sit very close to the TV, or don't mind a small picture, then RPTV is the way to go at this time.

If you have a bigger budget, willing to spend some extra time installing and setting it up, want to watch TV/movies with a large crowd, enjoy a large screen size (92" or more), don't have the room to spare for a large cabinet, want to move the projector around or travel with it, or willing to do what ever is necessary to control the lighting, then FP is the way to go.

I'm curious though, will the shop that you bought your RPTV take it back for a refund? Or are they offering you credit toward a different purchase, because if so that will limit your choices.

Mike,

Well, I'll add a bit to what Nils said, but I differ on a few points. Keep in mind I am VERY biased towards FPTVs, so take this with a grain of salt, but I have very good reasons.

CRT RPTVS:

- Need converged regularly. Built in convergence will do a good job up to a point. Over time it will become more and more affected by the magnetic fields and the correction factor needed may exceed that of the self convergence software. At that point, you call a pro and he adjusts the lenses and CRTs inside. Its not cheap.

- All CRTs burn in. Wanna watch 4:3 TV? Gotta stretch it. Wanna watch a DVD movie? Well, many movies aren't in 16:9 format, they're in 2.35:1. Therefore you'll have black bars at the top and bottom -- uh oh, that'll burn in. So, you'll need to zoom them in as well. The point is, for everything but 16:9 material, you either risk burnin or have to watch it in a distorted format.

- Stretch mode for 4:3 sucks, and a lot of TV will be in 4:3 for years to come. Who wants to watch Friends and see Jennifer Anniston go from FAT to thin to FAT again as she walks across the screen? It sucks, IMO. I can't deal with it. And if you don't stretch, you'll burn in.

- CRT RPTVs have horrible off axis viewing. They're fine if you have 1 seat and 1 viewer right in front. Someone to the side? Oh well, it looks REALLY dim to them. FPTVs can use screens of many materials, some of which have uniform brightness off angle.

- To compensate for their dismal off axis viewing they use venticular screens -- ridged plastic. Works well in that it refracts light to the sides. Only downside is that it creates distortion along the edges of images, and the on-axis light is dimmed. Again, this sucks.

- I disagree with Nils, here. A cheap $2K HDTV CRT RPTV won't touch the image quality of a good FPTV as long as you sit a proportionately similar distance away. Put 10 people in a room with a $2500 60" RPTV and a similarly priced good 100" FPTV and ask them which picture they prefer, 9 out them will say the FPTV.

- RPTVs are big heavy boxes that dominate your room. They typically take up 2-3' of space from the wall, meaning your viewing distance is 2-3' less than an FPTV.

On the other hand, Digital FPTVs:

- Can watch any aspect ratio and will never burn in.

- Always have perfect focus once its set.

- Only maintenance required is a new bulb every few years at a cost of $200-300.

- Weigh <10lbs typically, can be easily mounted on a ceiling or placed on a coffee table.

- A 50" RPTV is only 25% of the size of a 100" FPTV.

Now, RPTVs are more plug and play, and do have built in tuners and PIP etc. FPTVs require some thought to mount and setup, as well as a screen. If easy is most important to you, RPTV may be better. But as for light control, if you don't mind getting a couple of room darkening blinds, FPTV will work fine. I watch mine during the day all the time. In fact, an RPTV will look like crap if you have direct sunlight near the screen also.

Ok, as for FPTVs, ditch the idea of a BENQ. The Sanyo Z1($1600) or the Infocus X1 ($1380 shipped online) are built to do Home Theater, and will perform better than a cheap business projector. IMO, for an FPTV, CONTRAST RULES and if the projector's CR has been verified as accurate then that is more important than lumens. For $1600 don't even consider any other model, IMO.

If you wanted to spend $2K, I'd recommend looking at the Dell 3200MP which is available for ~$1900 using coupons on techbargains.com. Its XGA, has great specs, and is a clone of a much more expensive Toshiba model.

If you want to see what a $2K FPTV will look like, let me know. My 3yr old NEC LT150 is several generations behind but will still knock your socks off.

And for all the reasons above, if you DO end up getting an RPTV, save for one of the Samsung DLP models.

-Dave

Mike: Dave is saying that a key advantage of a digital projector over a CRT RPTV is that the projector will NOT burn in. So, the Infocus X1 (or any of these digital projectors) can display material of any aspect ratio without any worries about burn-in. This means you don't have to use the annoying stretch modes, and you can also play PS2 until the cows come home.

First, to answer Mike's questions (putting my response to Dave's critique of RPTV to the end )


Having a short throw distance can actually be problematic for HT use unless you don't mind having the projector installed between you and the screen. Also, the SL703S does not have a zoom lens which means you will have a very restrictive installation/screen size. As for "supporting 16:9" that's just a marketing gimmick - all projectors "support 16:9", but that just means it will display a 16:9 image. It does not mean it displays a 16:9 image in 16:9 native resolution (which this projector does not as it is a SVGA projector (800x600). BenQ is yet another data grade projector company. The model you are looking at doesn't even have component inputs.

I think at this point it would do you good to do some research on what elements make for a video grade projector before you jump in and buy something you might regret later. Projector Central is a decent starting point. You should also make a few trips to some of the many HT demo rooms around Austin and start paying attention to what you like and don't like.


Digital projectors are not affected by burn-in so it makes no difference, but I can tell you that Dave made it sound like watching 4:3 material on a widescreen RPTV will immediately cause burn-in. The problem with this is that burn-in is caused by a static image (for instance leaving the TV on displaying an image that never changes, like a video game on pause mode), but even then, burn-in is mostly affected by the brightness of the static image, and the black bars on the left and right side of a 4:3 image are... BLACK. In the earlier widescreen models that were tested displaying non-stop 4:3 images the effect was a slightly brighter image in the areas where the black bars had been displayed. Since then they have drastically improved the optics and imaging so that only the brightest static images will cause noticeable burn-in. While it is certainly true that it is important to not abuse your RPTV with static images, the truth is that with modern sets, even with abusive use you would more than likely be upgrading your TV before you would notice any burn-in.

This brings up some other issues Dave brought up. Let me first say that as a FP owner and enthusiast, and one who doesn't even own a RPTV, I am not the least bit biased towards RPTVs, but also being someone with a lot of experience in the video industry, high-end video retail, and as an ISF certified calibrationist, I can not agree with Dave's assessment of RPTVs. The simple fact is that they do produce an ideal image in an ideal environment. Only CRT FP can match their performance, but CRT FPs require a very specific set-up and environment.

Remember that we are talking about picture quality - not size! As I said before, if your audience is small (4 - not 10 Dave - lol), then the PQ of an RPTV blows away that of an digital FP. And yes, I own a digital FP, not a CRT, but I know quality when I see it, and digital FPs still have a way to go to match that which is possible to attain through a CRT FP, and certainly a CRT RPTV. Also, comparing images between that of a 60" screen and a 100" screen, as suggested by Dave, is like comparing speakers with one set at twice the volume. This is an old salesman trick as the mind makes you believe the louder speaker is "better", and in the case of video, larger is perceived as being better - and it most certainly is not. Now I personally LOVE the big screen, which is why I have a digital projector, but true picture quality is not based on size, but on image, and in that CRT RPTVs rule, sorry, but that's the fact. Also, you don't need a "big screen" to get a big image - just sit closer, as it is all about the distance to screen ratio. You can have a "100" screen, but if you are sitting 20' away it is no bigger than watching a 60" screen from 12' away. For me, I enjoy watching with a large group thus I required multiple rows and greater viewing distances.

Off axis viewing of RPTVs is an issue, all though not nearly as dramatic as Dave might lead you to believe.


Dave, Dave, Dave... you got me worried. Did an RPTV bully you in High School?

Sure, there can be some drop in PQ on many models of RPTVs, that is of course why I recommend that you not consider RPTVs if you plan on watching it with a large group. If its only for four viewers, then off axis performance is absolutely not an issue. Frankly though, even then off axis PQ can be quite good depending on make and model. Sure, those old relic RPTVs were terrible when it cam to OAV, but that simply is not the case with the current crop of RPTVs. I was at a party for the NCAA championship game and the host had a very modest 57" RPTV in the family room. There must have been about 15 of us in the room and everyone was commenting how great the PQ was. In fact at one point I was watching from the kitchen which was at least 40 degrees of axis, and the PQ was excellent, not only that, but I was standing up, and at 6'1" I was certainly well off axis.

I can tell Dave loves his FP, as I do as well, but I have no doubt that I could set-up an RPTV next to his FP (displaying the same size) and the RPTV would make his (and my) FP look washed out and 2 dimensional. As an interesting example of this, I had clients who asked me to design HT systems with an RPTV built into the wall and a screen that would drop down in front of the RPTV for use with a Runco DLP FP when they wanted the "big screen". When I went back after the installation was complete and the RPTV had about 100 hours on it in preparation for ISF calibration, the owners said they stopped watching the FP as the picture paled in comparison to their RPTV. Keep in mind they spent over $15k on that Runco unit, it was at that time the best digital FP on the market and it still couldn't match the PQ of their 65" Pioneer Elite RPTV.

I'll end my "rebuttal" with the fact that each technology has its place. each with its own advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day it comes down to what do you like and the only way to discover that is by going out there and trying them out. I recommend when demoing various video displays that you bring along a portable DVD player with your own S-video cable and a calibration disc (such as Video Essentials, or AVIA). This will be the only way to properly compare image quality from one unit to another. Demo units are notoriously uncalibrated and using your own DVD and cables will eliminate any change in PQ that a dealer's equipment might have on your evaluation.

Remember to enjoy the search, be patient, and soon you will find the right device for your requirements - good luck!

Nils,

Well, like I said I am biased towards FPTV. :-) But I also have a lot of experience with RPTVs. I do a lot of consulting on the side and worked in the high-end AV industy for a few years too.

CRT Burn-in: Well, my friend has a Toshiba 55H81 he bought about 8 months ago. He watches a lot of TV and B&W 4:3 movies. He also likes to watch CNN and CNBC during the day, but can't any longer due to the burn in at the bottom scroll bar. Gaming? Forgetaboutit. Toshiba told him he was SOL. Now he uses his old 30" TV for a lot of things as he doesn't want his RPTV to get worse.

Also, go check out Conn's. All the Mitsubishi RPTVs have warnings on them to "LIMIT 4:3 VIEWING TO LESS THAN 10% OR RISK CRT DAMAGE" on their 16:9 TVs. Not a very reassuring warning label, huh?

Fact is, all CRTs burn-in. If you're careful and mix up your viewing you should never notice it. Play a lot of video games or watch unstretched 4:3 TV and you probably will. Most RPTV buyers aren't like us, they just watch what they want. If that includes the wrong mix of material, they'll have burn-in. It may not bother them, but it would bother me.

To be fair, we need to consider a 65" RPTV vs. a good FPTV throwing a 65" picture. I'll agree that typical TW cable looks crappier the bigger it gets. Therefore, a 65" RPTV would be more watchable than a 100" FPTV. But compare them at the same size? I think the FPTV would win out. Compare HDTV at 100" vs. at 65" and I think it would be even more dramatic.

Now, I'm not against RPTVs. I agree they have their place. Want a 60" plug-n-play TV with no fuss? Get an RPTV.

Want a 60" plug-n-play TV to watch 4:3 TV and play video games? Get a DLP or LCoS RPTV (Which are more $$$). Don't mind tweaking a bit and want a more theater like experience? Get a good FPTV.

I guess I just think that a picture inside a box is still just a TV.....while a picture projected on a wall is more like a theater. I'm trying to play devils advocate a bit, since your original message seemed to lean towards an RPTV, I jumped in ;-)

Oh, Mike, go to shopper.com and search for Infocus X1. A couple of venders have it <$1400. I also heard Projector People has it for $1399 once you add it to your cart, but I haven't checked to be sure.

-Dave "self professed FPTV evangelist" Elliott

Dave, Dave, Dave... what am I going to have to do to get through to you... lol
Isn't this exactly what I said? lol - and the result IS clearly that the RPTV PQ will COMPLETELY outperform any digital FP you want to try and put it up against - I'll bet hard currency on this and will gladly set-up the comparison if you are prepared to discover how much better the PQ from a CRT RPTV is to that of a digital FP.

You yourself said, contrast is everything (although I would not agree with that statement, as there are so many other elements that determine a quality PQ than simply contrast), but that said, LCD, LCOS and DLP projectors (FP or RPTV), are not yet capable of reaching the contrast levels of CRTs and you should know this with your high-end AV industry experience.

I don't blame you on your perception that a 100" picture looks "better" than a 60" picture (given that you are viewing them from the same distance), but it is a perception that does not stand up to true picture quality (color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor). Digital projectors are simply not yet capable of reaching the levels of performance for each of those characteristics and are still plagued with dithering and digital artifacts for which CRTs are not prone to.

It doesn't matter what source you want to feed it, as long as digital projectors lack CRTs levels of color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor, and as long as they continue to show dithering and digital artifacts then the end result will always be an inferior PQ (but you do get a big picture, and as I originally listed, there are many other advantages to digital FPs as well, or else why would I own one - LOL).

It's one thing for you to play Devil's advocate, but I think my original comparisons were actually quite accurate and your statements against RPTVs puzzle me as they stretch the truth beyond reason.

If you want to make the argument that digital FPs and RPTVs vs. their CRT counterparts are better choices for picture size and low maintenance, then you would have no argument, but your statements definitely suggest that the PQ is superior, and that simply is not true. In time I believe digital projection will actually be superior in PQ to that of CRT, but that day is still quite a ways a way.

Now I suspect your interpretation that I was some how RPTV or CRT biased (which I most certainly am not) combined with your obvious enthusiasm over your personal choice of a digital FP resulted in your Devil's Advocate response, but if not, and you still feel that the PQ of your FP (or any digital FP you wish to compare) is better than a CRT RPTV, then I will gladly set-up an A-B comparison for you to discover for yourself the truth.

I should warn you though, once you are pointed out the various PQ flaws in your FP, you will start noticing them each time you use your FP and it may very well distract you from enjoying an otherwise wonderful picture.

I use to head Lucasfilms' THX TAP program in Texas and it practically ruined movie watching for me as I became so trained on picking up and focusing in on a film's visual flaws that even when watching movies for fun, I kept getting distracted by a print's quality rather than simply focus on the story and enjoy the film.

The old saying that "Ignorance is Bliss" is well placed in the world of A/V otherwise you could drive yourself crazy (and go broke) trying to attain a perfect A/V system.

Like I said before, HT happiness is only attained by willing to compromise on areas of least importance such that you can have a system that addresses your needs and limitations. I suspect by your enthusiasm that you have done just that, but at the same time I am positive those that chose to go with a CRT RPTV HT system feel just as strongly about their decision.

Nils,

My main point to Mike was to warn him of CRT burn-in, and the tradeoffs you have to go through to avoid it. I just reread your original message, and you didn't mention burn-in, so I wanted to offer a different opinion. So if I came across wrong, please accept my apologies. But I do feel that burn-in is a VERY big issue that the majority of folks don't consider into their purchasing decision. I wanted to make sure Mike knew of it.

I'll give you that a properly ISF certified RPTV will have better color fidelity and contrast than a good FPTV. But how long will that perfection last? A year? What percentage of customers have their sets perfectly ISF converged? How much does it cost? What I'm saying is not that "all FPTV's are better than RPTVs"... just that if you were to compare the state of most newer RPTVs in homes that an FPTV could, most likely for a similar price, put out a more impressive image with several advantages (no burn-in, no convergence, flexible picture size).

Hey, I used to own a CRT FPTV (a Runco 990 spec'd Zenith Pro 900X). It was great. Perhaps if I had you come and converge it I would still have it! I finally gave up with the monthly tweaking. I've also owned CRT RPTV's, though not recent models.

I *do* think contrast is more important than lumens. Granted, contrast doesn't mean as much if your color is off and you have scaling artifacts. But, all else being equal, I'll take a 1000 lumen/2000:1 CR projector over a 3000 umen/700:1 CR projector.

As for PQ, hey, my NEC has tons of flaws. I see them all. Rainbows, dithering, a green push, light spill, etc. But its a business projector that came out over 3yrs ago. I'm waiting on the next generation to upgrade. Until then, I can live with it. The improvements to the latest batch of HT specific models are nothing short of stunning. 3000:1 contrast, better color temp tracking, decent scalers/deinterlacers built in, and good prices. I still think a $3000 FPTV will outperform a $3000 RPTV for movies. For SDTV? Well, maybe -- it depends on lighting, install etc.

So, I guess I'll just say I defer to your expertise, but I do feel burn-in, to me at least, is a big enough issue to consider NOT buying an RPTV. Most of my issues with RPTV's deal with either burn-in or convergence. But I'm not ignorant (hey I never said you were wrong, only that I disagree). I just have different priorities in my choice of TVs. Now if I sat 5' from my TV maybe I'd reconsider....

What do you think of the new Samsung/Optoma HD2 DLP RPTVs?

-Dave

PS-Mike, Infocus is giving all purchasers before a certain date of the X1 a 3yr warranty, so its not just one vender.

WHAT??!! Nils, why didn't you tell me you're an ISF tech?
If I'd know that, I wouldn't have paid Steve Martin to come down from Dallas to calibrate my RPTV last July.

Dave: I guess I'll wade in with my 2 Hz. I bought a Samsung 54" 4:3 entry level RPTV last February, with the plan to use it for 2 years and then move to FP. I will state that burn-in was NOT a considered factor and that I still don't consider it a factor at all. I don't play video games, so the problem of video game pause burn-in doesn't exist. I think you are putting too much emphasis on burn-in. Also, off-axis viewing is not a problem and no one has complained to-date. I do agree that constant tweaking is a factor to consider for ANY CRT-based projector. Jonathan and others who value the PQ of CRT's has accepted and will gladly do a monthly tweak of his high-end CRT FP. It's all in what you're willing to do to get the image you want, and also, some people frankly enjoy tweaking. I will move to FP for image size, and will give up ultimate best image quality by NOT buying a CRT-based FP.
I've been associated with front porjection for quite a while as my company has sold data grade portable projectors for a few years, and also, our lab guys have developed IMO, the best light engine on the planet via proprietary prism technology. It is LCOS-based and you would be impressed. LCOS is the future.
I don't watch much television, but for people who do, I'd recommend people buy a CRT direct-view television and save their projectors (front or rear) for movies and big sporting events.

Hank,

I totally agree with you on LCoS. If someone comes out with a native HD rez LCoS thats small and quiet for $4K, sign me up. Hopefully in the next 12-18 months.... Right now the JVCs are >$10K and the Hitachi has other issues.

The problem with Burn-in is that a lot of regular folks DO buy an RPTV to play video games, watch regular 4:3 TV, etc. For those folks, it can be a big issue down the road. And when it does occur, its already too late.

I've mentioned a few times that CRTR FPTVs offer the best picture PERIOD, at least when properly calibrated. You'll get no argument from me there. I'd love to see Jonathans setup.

-Dave

Well, my setup has a long way to go before being considered reference quality. Right now I have weird electrical problem that is making the projector blink on and off about once every two hours, I need to build a new screen, the focus is off, astig is off, convergence is mediocre, and I see a weird blurring effect on motion sometimes. Of course, even with all those problems the image is as good as 90% of the digital setups I've seen and better than 98.1375% of RPTV setups I've seen. I'd say this primarily because 98.1375% of people who own RPTVs don't know what an ISF tech is. I don't know if Ian's RPTV has been ISF calibrated, but to date it's best looking one I've seen.

Jonathan, it seems you need to invite Nils over for a pizza and calibration session. Maybe he never told us he's ISF certified for a reason

OK Hank, its time for your annual Alzheimer's check

Speaking of which, I'm letting the cat out of the bag and letting you all know Hank's "39th" B'Day was last week so give him a virtual high five.

Hank, if I recall we only recently met when you had Steve come down to do your calibration and I didn't even know about it until after you had it done. Regardless, while I am more than capable of doing a complete ISF calibration (setting grey, gamma, chroma, and convergence) my certification only came about when I accepted the position as VP at CST (Custom System Technologies) and was going to be managing a group of ISF calibrators. It was important for me to be able to fully understand what they had to accomplish out in the field so for that reason I took the complete ISF course with Jim Burns. While I did very well in the course, I would be foolish to think that I was capable of doing an ISF as precise, or certainly as quickly as a professional ISFer with years of experience, after all, much of it is subjective and a good ISFer will adjust his calibration to meet the specific needs of each client.

Another problem with DIY ISFing is the cost of the calibration equipment. My training was done on various Sencore calibration equipment which at that time retailed for any where between $2,000-$10,000. On the other hand, I also did some calibration exercises with the use of only an optical comparator, or in laymen terms, a light bulb. There is a German company that makes a 6500D K bulb such that a calibrationist can visually align it to the center of the image and adjust the greyscale to match the bulb. It is hardly precise, but it can get the job done such that only someone armed with a color analyzer could probably tell the difference. The good news here is that the bulb only costs about $300, probably less by now.

I should also point out that many people interested in HT have the impression that only CRT based display units require ISF calibration - and this is simply not true. Digital projectors may not require any convergence, but convergence is secondary to what an ISF calibration does. The heart of an ISF job is setting the proper color of grey, and frankly I have yet to find a digital projector that came from the factory with a greyscale of 6500D. Sure, the settings menu will likely have an option for "Color Temp" and one of those options will "say" 6500D, but I'll be willing to put down a cash bet that if someone checked it with a color analyzer it would not measure 6500D.

In Dave's case his FP's (LT 150?) greyscale is clearly not set at 6500D thus causing him to notice the green push. Without even testing his FP I'd guess his greyscale is at least 5500 or less. Ideally you would want to be within 50 degrees of 6500D, but as mentioned before, video is subjective, and a good calibrationist can make fine adjustments that match the needs of the user.

Also even digital FPs will drift away from 6500D over time, but yearly calibrations for even CRTs is unnecessary. Convergence on the other hand should be done yearly, but this is something that can be done by the owner with a little patience and practice. Most modern CRT RPTVs now have convergence memory such that you only have to converge once! From then on the set remembers precisely the settings for a perfect convergence and will maintain that convergence for the lifetime of the TV - so again, lets not scare unsuspecting would be RPTV owners into thinking they have to spend money and time constantly tweaking their sets - that simply is not the case.

The reason many RPTV sets might not look spectacular is that many people who bought them simply turned them on and never changed the default settings. Just spending a few minutes adjusting the basic picture settings (sharpness, brightness, contrast, color, and tint) in conjunction with an over the counter calibration DVD like Video Essentials or AVIA, anyone could make their RPTV as close to perfection as one can without also adjusting the greyscale and convergence.

Given all that, I'll still say that even if I took an out of the box $2000 CRT RPTV and did an A-B comparison with a fully ISFed $10,000 digital FP, the CRT would still provide a better PQ than the digital FP. The fact still remains that CRT technology, even when not perfectly calibrated, provides the best color accuracy, black level, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor) all of which are required elements to making a great picture.

As someone who had the option of having a CRT FP, but ended up choosing a digital (DLP) FP, obviously for me the difference in the quality of the PQ was not significant enough for me to make up for the many other advantages that a digital projector has over that of a CRT and that I personally found usefull, but for each person the story will be different, I just don't want anyone to be given the impression that somehow digital projectors can in any way provide a PQ that meets or beat a CRT. This goes for RPTV and FPs alike.

Sorry for the long posts, but I'm just trying to keep it real because I get tired of all the hype and misleading info that gets spread around the HT community. I think it unnecessarily scares would be HT users from buying a technology that could have easily been the best match for them, and the fact is both technologies coexist because they both have their place. I have no doubt that CRT will go the way of Vinyl records, but that day is still far far away, and will only really happen once digital can match the PQ levels of CRT.

BTW: I should add that the hype and misinformation go both ways as there are plenty of CRT owners/sellers who love to stretch the truth about how poorly digital projectors perform. If you ever find yourself over at AVS' Forums Site you'll quickly see what I am talking about. The amount of "CRT vs. digital" threads is ridiculous. If nothing more than to put an end to all the needless bickering and misinformation, I hope that digital projectors will outperform CRTs as soon as possible. Until then, be ready to turn on your filtering devices otherwise you'll find it very difficult to tell fact from fiction from all the various threads and reviews.

Nils,

Given the very limited adjustments on the LT150, it seems impossible to tweak out the green push without compromising the red/blue (and those PITA yellows). But hey, its a 3yr old business projector that was never marketed for HT. I bought it because a few yrs ago nothing at the price could touch it, despite the color fidelity issues. But AVIA and VE only go so far.

Now, I could get Colorfacts for the LT150 (~$600 with equipment) and break into the gamma tables and set them much closer to 6500K. Mark Hunter of Milori has managed to get the LT150 VERY close in color temp and saturation. Only the reds were off (a little towards blue).

I'm more of a budget HT enthusiast -- I have probably $5-6K total in my setup. I know that pales in comparison to many folks here, but I'd still like to have folks come out and see it. I'm more than happy to trade beers/bbq for any suggestions, ISF certified or not. Perhaps we should start to plan a March event.

But, for now lets just say if I had a $10K Marantz 12Sv2 I'd take you up on your wager Since I don't, lets switch topics....

What do you think of Plasma? (IIRC, I think we agreed on that topic at Colin's...I hope)

-Dave

"Plasma"... yikes!!!!! Danger Will Robinson, DANGER!

Yes, it may be as skinny as a 60's super model, but the problem is it also looks as good as a 60's super model (unless you happen to be someone who finds anorexic waifs pretty).

I believe that should answer your question on whether or not we agree on Plasma's role in HT systems.


Dave, I would gladly accept an invitation for an Austin Movie Night over at your miniplex. Just send us the details and I'm sure you will get an excellent response.