# Mitsubishi DLP Opinions



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm thinking of getting a Mitsubishi DLP TV. Does anyone have one and if so what are your opinions of them?


----------



## PACSMAN (Aug 13, 2007)

I've had my 82" for two years now and love it. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase on again.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I've got 3 of them - 1.5 years old, 2 years old, 3 years old.

Love them.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I've had my 73" for 3 years, so far no problems, still on original buld (4K+ hours).


----------



## rlnoonan (Jan 6, 2007)

I've got a 57" (see my sig) that I bought in December of 2006. It has never given me a single problem and I love the picture. Have not had to replace the bulb yet either. I would definitely recommend it.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Great TV's and they do 3D very well.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

Thanks for all the opinions. If you guys approve I know it'll be a smart buy.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Hate to be a wet blanket but my experience has not been too positive with them. I won't go through all the issues I had with mine (6 year old 62" 720P set) but Mitsubishi would not stand behind their product despite significant quality (insufficiently rated capacitors) and display keystone issues. The only reason I still have it is I bought an extended warranty for it (the only product I've ever done so for oddly enough) and then found a way to replace the capacitors myself when it failed outside the extended warranty.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I've been wondering about the DLPs myself. So cheap. Can they actually be that good? Don't they have the same problems as LCDs with viewing areas? I see huge ones advertised for less than a thousand dollars in my area quite frequently. I'm not worried about changing bulbs, that seems simple enough. There must be something about them that causes a TV that gives such a good picture (I sat entranced by one when they were first released) to be so low priced. 

Rich


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

rich584 said:


> I've been wondering about the DLPs myself. So cheap. Can they actually be that good? Don't they have the same problems as LCDs with viewing areas? I see huge ones advertised for less than a thousand dollars in my area quite frequently. I'm not worried about changing bulbs, that seems simple enough. There must be something about them that causes a TV that gives such a good picture (I sat entranced by one when they were first released) to be so low priced.
> 
> Rich


The thing about DLP's is that the picture is bright and clear for the price you pay. I owned a DLP for several years and they are a great value for the money.

With that said the only caveat is that the picture has a slight "sparkly" look too it but it's not really enough to be distracting.

Recently I switched to a Sony LED and I must admit the picture is razor sharp compared to the DLP. Of course, I paid $2000 more. 

What it comes down do is that if you are on a budget, a Mitsu DLP is the way to go. Great picture and nice big screens for a good price.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rich584 said:


> I've been wondering about the DLPs myself. So cheap. Can they actually be that good? Don't they have the same problems as LCDs with viewing areas? I see huge ones advertised for less than a thousand dollars in my area quite frequently. I'm not worried about changing bulbs, that seems simple enough. There must be something about them that causes a TV that gives such a good picture (I sat entranced by one when they were first released) to be so low priced.
> 
> Rich


Yes, if you get off angle too far the PQ does go down. Guess the price is so low since it's mostly just air. :lol:

I just have to think that it just costs a lot less to make a little DLP chip then a big LCD or plasma panel.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Chris Blount said:


> The thing about DLP's is that the picture is bright and clear for the price you pay. I owned a DLP for several years and they are a great value for the money.
> 
> With that said the only caveat is that the picture has a slight "sparkly" look too it but it's not really enough to be distracting.
> 
> ...


Thanx, Chris. That answers my question perfectly.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> *Yes, if you get off angle too far the PQ does go down.* Guess the price is so low since it's mostly just air. :lol:
> 
> I just have to think that it just costs a lot less to make a little DLP chip then a big LCD or plasma panel.


Thanx, again that answers my question perfectly.

Rich


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Rear Projection DLPs have pretty good horizontal viewing angles but do have a loss of brightness when off angle in the vertical axis. It's still fairly wide but it is something you have to consider when deciding on where the DLP set would be in relation to seating area.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobukcat said:


> Rear Projection DLPs have pretty good horizontal viewing angles but do have a loss of brightness when off angle in the vertical axis. It's still fairly wide but it is something you have to consider when deciding on where the DLP set would be in relation to seating area.


So, it appears that nothing has changed since I sat and watched that DLP many years ago. I didn't buy it because it was very expensive at the time, seemed like an untested technology, was monstrously big and had poor viewing angles. I guess only the prices have changed.

Rich


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Depends on your perspective Rich. 

Monstrously big? Not in my case. One of mine is in a built in niche and the other two are on lowboy stands. They're about 12" deep, so it's hard to hang on the wall, but I wouldn't hang any TV on the wall anyway - that's what the lowboys (A/V stands) are for.

Poor viewing angles? Not in my case either. All 3 are in rooms that are about 16' - 20' wide and while the seating areas aren't quite that wide, there's not picture drop off from any seat. Now, if I tried to sit 15' or more off to the side, I'm sure the picture would degrade, but I don't think many people sit that far off center anyway.

So, in my case: very inexpensive, proven and tested technology, smaller than the stands they sit on (depth wise), and great PQ from all angles in the room.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Depends on your perspective Rich.
> 
> Monstrously big? Not in my case. One of mine is in a built in niche and the other two are on lowboy stands. They're about 12" deep, so it's hard to hang on the wall, but I wouldn't hang any TV on the wall anyway - that's what the lowboys (A/V stands) are for.
> 
> ...


How long have they been on the market? Seems like I've seen some that were pretty big. Not as huge as my last Sony HD CRT TV or nearly as heavy, but still pretty big. I haven't bothered to look at them for quite a while, but the ads I see for them have piqued my interest.

I remember that first one and it looked like it had "depth" to the picture that other types of TVs just didn't have, but it was running a looped program made specifically for the DLP. Still looked kinda "3D-ish". I was intrigued then and I think I'll take a look at them again.

Rich


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Not sure how long Mits DLP's have been on the market. 10 years?

They're still bigger than Plasma and DLP's, but they're not as large as they used to be. The bezels are about 1/2", so it's almost all screen now and I think the 65" models have a maximum depth of about 16" (vs most stands which are 21" - 24" deep).

I think the picture is very good. Is it the best on the Market? No. We have an LCD in the bedroom (42") that has a better picture, but not by much. I spent $750 on that 42" display, about the same amount as the 65" Mits in the Living Room. Movies are much better on the 65" Mits than the 42" bedroom TV.


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Not sure how long Mits DLP's have been on the market. 10 years?
> 
> They're still bigger than Plasma and DLP's, but they're not as large as they used to be. The bezels are about 1/2", so it's almost all screen now and I think the 65" models have a maximum depth of about 16" (vs most stands which are 21" - 24" deep).
> 
> I think the picture is very good. Is it the best on the Market? No. We have an LCD in the bedroom (42") that has a better picture, but not by much. I spent $750 on that 42" display, about the same amount as the 65" Mits in the Living Room. Movies are much better on the 65" Mits than the 42" bedroom TV.


+1.

Have a Sammy 50" DLP that offers a great picture for the money. Changed bulb twice in last 6 years with no issue. There are off-axis viewing areas to contend with, but if you set up home theatre seating properly, this is a minimal inconvenience. Sports viewing is excellent, with no motion blur.

When my Sammy eventually dies, I will look at Mitsubishi DLP, especially since I can get a huge picture for less than competitng technologies.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

rich584 said:


> Thanx, Chris. That answers my question perfectly.
> 
> Rich


I can make my DLP razor sharp and not have see each pixel in its perfect squareness. I can even add that electronic glowing edge that you get with LCD. Nothing beats DLP.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

rich584 said:


> Thanx, again that answers my question perfectly.
> 
> Rich


Not that much. I'm sitting at my desk very off angle and the picture is great.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

If LCD is so great. How come all the new theater digital projectors, including the new 4ker's are DLP.

And the Mitsu DLP's are in the 60"-93" area.


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

I went from Mit dlp to lcd and I won't go back. Plasma is even better picture. My 60" lcd was cheap, long lasting, fairly flat (4") and very light. Hangs on the wall with 4 screws into wood studs no problem. Always worried about dlp falling over in shake country. Mitsubishi dlp has a bad reliability rating everywhere. Tough to beat pricewise in huge sizes though.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

kikkenit2 said:


> . . . Mitsubishi dlp has a bad reliability rating everywhere. . .


Where are you seeing this? What model series? I'm seeing the complete opposite being said about all of them. Unless you're talking about old models, years old. We have 5 of the old large big box versions in my area and they are great and still going strong. And from what I have experienced in using and installing the newer versions, all is great. No problems. And throughout the years, my first was their new (1988) 35" Diamond Vision CRT, that I still have, the two times in 20+ years I needed it worked on Mitsubishi was great about it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Doesn't it matter, as well, on what kind of DLP one has? There's the traditional DLP and there also is the LED DLP. I own a Samsung 67" LED DLP and the PQ is superb. I also have a Panasonic 42" plasma in my bedroom. Both units' PQ is outstanding. My dad's old Mitsubishi traditional, non-LED DLP was good, but nowhere near my LED DLP.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> Doesn't it matter, as well, on what kind of DLP one has? There's the traditional DLP and there also is the LED DLP. I own a Samsung 67" LED DLP and the PQ is superb. I also have a Panasonic 42" plasma in my bedroom. Both units' PQ is outstanding. My dad's old Mitsubishi traditional, non-LED DLP was good, but nowhere near my LED DLP.


And the new Mitsu Laser powered LaserVue's. So 3 kinds. I have heard it said that some like the lamp models better due to them being "warmer and richer" in color. I have liked all that I have seen.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

FarmerBob said:


> If LCD is so great. How come all the new theater digital projectors, including the new 4ker's are DLP.


I doubt a theater could sell enough popcorn to afford a LCD the size of most of their screens. Im sure its a cost issue. My first HDTV was a Panasonic 40" rear screen that used a small (about 1" if I recall) lcd, and it had a fantastic picture. I am sure to make the same thing work at a theater, would require a bulb large enough that the lcd would melt.

I would have had no problems with the DLP, other than I could not stand the lens they used, and the TV had to be way lower to the floor than my entertainment center was designed for. At the height it was, I had to raise up off the couch about a foot and a half to bet the full brightness. I tried tipping the set toward the viewing area, but just moving the cast caused the picture to move around on the lens, resulting in some strange geometry.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> I doubt a theater could sell enough popcorn to afford a LCD the size of most of their screens. Im sure its a cost issue. . . . .


Two completely different animals. There are LCD projectors. But the picture in large sizes is very pixely.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

One reason why LCD "appears" to be so wonderful is because it tends to be a brighter source, a brighter picture. Consequently, we perceive the entire picture as crisper, sharper, and better overall, even though in reality, it might not be. 

For sports lovers or those who like fast action in their programs or movies, LCD tends to be a problem, as it often suffers from the jitter or stutter effect.


----------



## FarmerBob (Nov 28, 2002)

Lord Vader said:


> . . . For sports lovers or those who like fast action in their programs or movies, LCD tends to be a problem, as it often suffers from the jitter or stutter effect.


I'm seeing new Mitsu's with a 120Hz refresh rate that is not necessary. Since "motion blur" does not occur with DLP, unless it's in the broadcast or its compression, since the mirrors move 1000 times faster than the LCD doors. So really no need for inserted fake frames to make it smoother. Also I have a ton of presets that allow for everything and several are severely bright and sharp. And noxious.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> One reason why LCD "appears" to be so wonderful is because it tends to be a brighter source, a brighter picture. Consequently, we perceive the entire picture as crisper, sharper, and better overall, even though in reality, it might not be.
> 
> For sports lovers or those who like fast action in their programs or movies, LCD tends to be a problem, as it often suffers from the jitter or stutter effect.


I've never seen an LCD that I thought was better than a plasma. I would have bought one immediately if I had. I think the Sony LCD sets come the closest to the plasmas, but I see that jittering effect even on their 120 Hertz sets. The 240 Hertz sets seem to have that problem solved and I was tempted to buy one, but something stopped me. Probably the return policy of the store I was in. Which was, you walk out of the store with it, you don't bring it back.

Rich


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

kikkenit2 said:


> Always worried about dlp falling over in shake country.


There are many ways to secure them to a stand or the wall behind them, so that should never be an issue, especially if you're mounting your current TV to the wall.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

FarmerBob said:


> I'm seeing new Mitsu's with a 120Hz refresh rate that is not necessary.


Yep, it's just a Marketing thing. JSP comes in to Best Buy and says "hey, this here LCD's got that 120 speed thing, so it must be better than the DLP that don't". Now that can't be said.


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

FarmerBob said:


> Where are you seeing this? What model series? I'm seeing the complete opposite being said about all of them. Unless you're talking about old models, years old. We have 5 of the old large big box versions in my area and they are great and still going strong. And from what I have experienced in using and installing the newer versions, all is great. No problems. And throughout the years, my first was their new (1988) 35" Diamond Vision CRT, that I still have, the two times in 20+ years I needed it worked on Mitsubishi was great about it.


Consumer reports, cnet and home theater magazine periodically put out charts of % of problems by brand. Mitsubishi has always been near the bottom. The reason is probably the technology much more than the brand. Almost nobody makes dlp tv's any more. Why? I think the technology is limited. My tv could never get the corners straight or lighting even. They tried though. Dust on the mirror would show dark spots and there was a 12" circle of blurry screen near the middle. I sold it for cheap. I'm sure they have improved some in the last 5 years. So has everything else.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

kikkenit2 said:


> Always worried about dlp falling over in shake country.


Don't know if it would be that much of a problem, the sets are bottom heavy.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I actually prefer the look of DLP and LCoS because it has a more natural film like look where as my current LED LCD has a pixel look to it. My LCD looks great but I still rather the look of my now deceased SXRD. I think the only thing I rather on the LCD besides the ridiculously thin design is the black level is the best I've seen on any TV.


----------

