I've got a totally honest question for everyone..... (1 Viewer)

[Daniel Becker]

After visiting this forum for the past 3 months and reading up on tv's for the past year I have a question for everyone here.


Besides screen size, why would anyone buy a rear projection television?



I just don't understand it. They seem to be such a pain in the rear from what i've read that I don't know why anyone would buy one in all honesty. From what i've heard they usually require professional tweaking to get the best possible picture quaility, you can't play videogames on them for fear of quick burn-in, the image doesn't look very good if your anywhere close to the screen, and you can't really see the tv all that well from angles! Why would anyone want to deal with all those problems?


Please, don't be offended. I'm just asking a question because i'm interested in hearing people's opinions. I've got my own opinions and i've clearly stated them. I've owned a 32" Wega and a 24" Wega and I personally don't feel I could ever own a projection based upon what i've heard and seen with my own eyes. The image quality and clarity from all angles and distances on a tube tv just can't be matched by RPTV.



Dan.b

 

[Dan_Isaacs]

Besides Screen size? That's pretty much the only reason. But it's a big one.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

You can learn to converge your RPTV yourself. You can set your own brightness and contrast. Color Temp will still be off unless you get an ISF, but all sets (not just RPTVs) have this issue.

RPTVs have better resolution than direct-view. Do not mistake the sharpness of a direct-view set with detail and resolution.

RPTVs don't require the light control and room modifications that FPTVs do.

Some rooms are too small for an FPTV.

Digital FPTVs have insufficient black level (to many of us). Same with Plasma.

CRT FPTVs are typically more expensive than RPTV. Plasma, much more expensive.

Frankly, an RPTV can give the most filmlike image that you can get without going FPTV, and FPTV has even more issues that make it unfeasible for many of us. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Yep, screen size is the main reason. I hope by the time I'm ready to retire my 58" Pioneer, flat panel is in the same ballpark size-wise and much more affordable than right now.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I think most of your PQ-related questions apply to direct-views as well although maybe to lesser extent. If you have the same field of view for a direct-view as for a well-setup RPTV, it's not necessarily true that the direct-view has truly better PQ for non-HD content, IMHO. By well-setup, I don't mean ISF calibration, but doing some tweaking that most any intelligent and somewhat handy person can do. For maximum performance, even a direct-view needs ISF calibration.

And if you're talking HD content, well, none of the direct-views, except maybe the highest end ones like Loew's and Princeton Graphics, can match RPTVs for real resolution.

Yes, there are plenty of caveats w/ RPTVs, but there are definite situations where RPTV is the way to go just as there are definite situations where FP is the way to go. I don't doubt some people are buying their choice of RPTVs for the wrong reasons, but it's certainly not always wrong.

Also, for the most part, you're only describing caveats w/ CRT-based RPTVs, not LCD or DLP (or LCOS!).

And size does matter a whole lot when one is talking about HOME THEATER. And don't make the wrong assumption that size is nothing more than size, since much like PQ, size can have very dramatic IMPACT on the viewing experience. For me, it's not much less important, if at all, than apparent PQ roughly speaking of course...

_Man_

 

[MikeM]

Besides speed, why would anyone buy a Porsche?

You're kind of ruling out the key reason to buy a RPTV. Size.

I had a direct view 36" HDTV and it was nice, but it doesn't even compare to watching a movie in a 57" widescreen set.

The clarity of DVD and HD material look amazing on this set, and tweaking, to me, is a major plus, and lets me fine tune my set to just how I like it.

True, burn in is an issue, but then again, burn in is a major issue with Plasma displays too. If your only option is a direct view set, then you're limited to about 40", and that's a major step backward in size if you're now used to a 65" or 57" widescreen set.

 

[David Von Pein]

I had a direct view 36" HDTV and it was nice, but it doesn't even compare to watching a movie in a 57" widescreen set.

Now THAT's what I call the ULTIMATE HT experience!
Actually getting IN one's own TV and engulfing yourself in its treasures!

(It's a tad bit harsh on the eyes, though, isn't it Mike? Being that close to the screen?)

 

[MikeM]

As long as you dont mind the risk of electric shock, and the bright lights from the guns, you gotta jump inside a RPTV for that full experience.

Ok, ok, sorry for the typo haha....

 

[David Von Pein]

As long as you dont mind the risk of electric shock, and the bright lights from the guns, you gotta jump inside a RPTV for that full experience.

I think you've started a craze here! I'm gonna jump in & try it!

(This...damn...glare shield. Won't..come...(*yank*)...off!)

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Gee, I'm on my second rptv and never had a convergence or burn-in problem. Before I went with rptv I had a 35" Sony XBR direct view, and can honestly say both rptvs have looked better and required less tweaking.

All I do is an occasional AVIA checkup, a couple of easy service menu tweaks, and once a month hit the auto-convergence button.

The first rptv, an analog Hitachi Ultravision stood up to 2 1/2 years of heavy use, lots of letterboxed movies and all-night gaming sessions, and never had a problem. The current Widescreen Sony has done the same for a year and a half now with no problems.

It's beem my observation that there's an awful lot of "sky is falling" nonsense and overexaggeration of the burn-in issue and the supposed need for an $800 professional calibration.

Burn in is not an issue on a properly adusted set with varying use. Pro calibration is not necessary in order to get a very good picture on most sets, and is no more of a factor on rptvs than on direct-view sets. A little well informed owner tweaking in a user-friendly service menu can do wonders and costs at most the price of a service manual.

In my experience, rptvs have far fewer geometry issues than 32+" direct-view sets.

I'll grant you I don't get all whiney about half an inch of overscan like some folks around here, but I do regard myself as pretty picky--can't stand the picture on most of my friends and relative's misadjusted sets.

 

[David Von Pein]

It's been my observation that there's an awful lot of "sky is falling" nonsense and overexaggeration of the burn-in issue and the supposed need for an $800 professional calibration.

Kind of glad to see this in print, and to know someone feels this way.

$800? Gee whiz. No thank you!

I'll put up with a "slightly" off picture before forking that out.

I'm getting a new RPTV soon, but never had even the slightest intention of going for the Pro ISF tweaking.

I'm still, in fact, on the Avia fence.

Steve S., may I impose? ... Do you think the $36.00 AVIA disc is really essential either? Or can the "regular" user-menu convergances do the trick just about as well? (Thanks.)

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

$800?? I thought it was usually less, but it all depends on exactly what's done. Certainly, if you do nearly all the tweaking yourself, except the actual color temp calibrations, it shouldn't cost nearly that much. For nearly all the other stuff, probably having AVIA and being handy at DIY tweaking will be good enough.

And actually, for geometry/convergence, you don't really even need AVIA or the like. AVIA can help make some things easier, but it's not really needed for geometry/convergence. Most people who are picky just use a hardcopy convergence grid transparency to get it as perfect as possible. If you're handy, you can probably create one all by yourself on a computer and print it out at Kinko's.

Personally, I think $36 for AVIA is definitely worth it given the cost of the home theater and software library and cable/sat service, especially if you're not hiring an ISF guy. The only problem w/ AVIA is it doesn't provide HD patterns--and of course, how would you even display a true HD pattern from a DVD w/out jumping through hoops via an HTPC or the like?? I suppose some non-HD patterns upconverted to 720p/1080i may be useful enough. Still...

_Man_

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, my "Man", for the tips/info.

I'm still gonna ride that Avia fence for awhile though. Maybe I'll just wait till I see the picture myself.

Which reminds me (Man-Fai, maybe you can help me) .....

I'm Color-Blind (not "completely" to the point where everything appears B&W...I don't think ANYBODY who's color-blind has it quite that bad).

I have difficulty with "subtle" shades of colors. Off-colors that are not FULLY red, or fully green, or whatever. Especially difficult to identify are greens vs. brown shades.

Anyway, I'm wondering since I have a degree of color-blindness, is it wise to even ATTEMPT to calibrate certain settings on my TV?

Or: Quite possibly, doing it MYSELF might actually be the ONLY way to tweak the set to MY own color-blind eyeballs, huh?!

Interesting thought.

My current 36" Tube Zenith looks great (to me anyway), with no tweaking/calibration at all in five years.

Any thoughts on Color Blindness and the results gained/lost by ISF'ing and/or AVIA'ing?

(My guess is a LOT of men here @ HTF are in my boat....i.e.: a degree of color-blindness. What are their thoughts on seeing a correct TV image? Thanks.)

 

[Cees Alons]

We're slightly off topic, but

... and overexaggeration ... of and the supposed need for an $800 professional calibration.

....... Pro calibration is not necessary in order to get a very good picture on most sets

Not true! (and overexaggeration is a lot of exaggeration! )


The factory cannot afford too many adjustment problems on the TV-sets that are rolling off the rubber band, so they are forced to set "on the safe side". This means in practice that the "mean" (= most sets) are adjusted just below par and only very few are "excellent" (and some are "terrible").

Also, they adjust for J6P-home use (i.e. too much edge-enhancement), so using something like the AVIA disc is the very least you need to greatly improve your image.

Of course someone may be lucky and have one of the 5% (?) "excellently" adjusted sets from the factory. But bet on that?

I've seen really astonishing approvement as a result of ISF calibrations and yes that was on RPTVs too.
It's not mainly the geometry matter, it's especially convergence, color adjustment (!), different other settings and overall quality of the image as you perceive it, that makes everything of a difference. You have to see it to be totally convinced. You simply cannot imagine (slight pun intended) what it means without ever having seen the improvement of ISF-type calibration yourself.

Whether or not that's worth $800 (and even: if that's the amount you have to pay), I cannot say, mainly because those values are so personal.

Cees

 

[Anthony.Lin]

Personally, I have a 40" 16:9 HDTV RPTV, and I always watch DVD's on the 2.35:1 format (with the black bars) and I play Xbox games all day long (maybe not the same one, but I do play for hours at a time) and I've never seen a hint of burn-in. Convergence, yeah, it does mess up every once in a while, but I actually find tweaking it back fun (kinda like washing a car). I went back home to find my dad's 62" Proscan 4:3 DTV RPTV very very badly converged, and a quick check into RCA's service menu and I fixed it right back up, got his set looking almost like new.

The image is much clearer on RPTV's than on direct-view displays, and while FP's may be nice, they're impractical most of the time for regular-person use (i.e. without a dedicated HT room, without 100% control on lights, etc.).

As of today, there simply is no perfect TV set at a justifiable cost. DLP/Plasma/LCD's all suffer from size constraints and cost factors (especially LCD's). 10 years from now when 70" LCD displays are out and are under $3k, maybe then will RPTV's die out.

 

[lee.b]

"The image is much clearer on RPTV's than on direct-view displays, and while FP's may be nice, they're impractical most of the time for regular-person use (i.e. without a dedicated HT room, without 100% control on lights, etc.)."

That's the second time I've read this in recent days - but it completely contradicts what I've read heretofore by the supposed experts.

Perhaps someone with complete knowledge can chime in on this. I have seen, not one rptv that has the clarity of picture as a good direct view crt tv. Someone mentioned a difference between 'clarity' and resolution. With DV having better clarity but worse resolution. Just what are the numbers? And why do my naked eyes tell me direct view has more resolution?

I understand the argument for rptv owners saying that size is important, to them, and that qualifies their purchase. Fair enough, but claiming now that rptv is also the better picture as compared to high quality direct view tv..this should be qualified as well to be sure to educate the folks out here correctly.

 

[Kevin P]

Perhaps someone with complete knowledge can chime in on this. I have seen, not one rptv that has the clarity of picture as a good direct view crt tv. Someone mentioned a difference between 'clarity' and resolution. With DV having better clarity but worse resolution. Just what are the numbers? And why do my naked eyes tell me direct view has more resolution?

The naked eye is translating "sharpness" into "resolution". Resolution is the maximum number of distinct rows, columns, or pixels the display can resolve and still have them be distinct pixels. Sharpness or clarity is how crisp vs. fuzzy the image is, regardless of resolution. Direct view sets appear sharper because (a) the image is smaller, and (b) excessive edge enhancement gives the illusion of greater sharpness (on direct views AND RPTVs).

Also, a poorly adjusted RPTV can appear more blurry, since there are more things that can or need to be be adjusted on a RPTV (e.g. mechanical focus, convergence, etc.).

Lastly, flaws are more noticeable on a large screen, which can lead one to believe that the RPTV has an inferior image, when in reality its higher resolution is bringing out flaws that you don't notice on a small low-resolution direct-view set. It's similar to how a CD that sounds good on a cheap stereo ends up being unlistenable on a high-end system. The high-end system is bringing out the flaws in the recording.

KJP

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If you have a CRT (not LCD) PC monitor, switch it to the absolutely highest resolution it can handle (1600/1200 or whatever).

Now switch it to 640x480.

On a typical PC monitor, the latter is sharper (razor sharp, typically), the former has a lot more detail.

 

[Michael Reuben]

the image doesn't look very good if your anywhere close to the screen, and you can't really see the tv all that well from angles!

Have you ever actually watched a movie on an RPTV? It doesn't sound like it.

M.

 

[Cees Alons]

Oh, Daniel, and now we all have taken your question as serious as we should, apparently, and replied to it, may I urge you to put the question in the topic header next time and not merely a "teaser"?

Thanks for understanding.