TVs & Home Theaters forum

General discussion


by april601 / February 15, 2007 4:38 AM PST

I'm all for most bang for your buck. I would like to get a nice DLP with a bigger screen. DH would prefer to get a smaller TV (42 in) in LCD. What are pros and cons for each? For you LCD fans, persuade me...and for you DLP fans, give me some ammo I can use on DH!


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: DLP vs. LCD
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: DLP vs. LCD
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by bevillan / February 15, 2007 5:31 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

DLP is definitely the best bang for your buck in terms of PQ and screen size. The LED DLPs are starting to trickle out, but they are about $500 to $1000 more than the color wheel ones.

Personally, I would rather have a LCoS TV that is more expensive than DLP but cheaper than LCD for the screen size. What is your budget?

Collapse -
We're thinking...
by april601 / February 15, 2007 11:41 AM PST
In reply to: DLP

maybe $2500 max. But if we find something we both like, we'll probably spend a bit more for it.

Collapse -
by Riverledge / February 16, 2007 1:21 PM PST
In reply to: DLP


Collapse -
Go ahead & stick your neck out
by NM_Bill / February 16, 2007 1:48 PM PST

Advocate anything you wish, but DLP ain't dead. And when you detect a perfect plasma or LCD, please let us know.

Best wishes...

Collapse -
HEY, I HAVE STOCK IN "TI", .........
by Riverledge / February 16, 2007 1:56 PM PST

DLP WILL BE dead as a doornail in less than two years.

Don't you think that pisses me off...........


Collapse -
Maybe LCOS & SXRD are trying to work around
by NM_Bill / February 16, 2007 2:40 PM PST

Texas Instruments as an obstacle.

Collapse -
by stewart norrie / February 15, 2007 8:51 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

To tell you the truth both displays look awsome and for a smaller screen size I would go l.c.d. BUT Iam a wierd duck I wanted the biggest display I could find WHY THE MOVIE THEATER EXPERIENCE You dont get that with a tiny display So I went with a 72" d.l.p. monster and I love the picture quality and as far as rainbow effect, color wheels and lamp problems after a year still works beautiful and I dont mind blowing $200 every 3 years or so for a new lamp Any any top brand set is going to give you a movie theater quality picture so wnjoy steweee

Collapse -
by april601 / February 15, 2007 11:40 AM PST

HOLY SMOKES!! 72"?! How cool is that?! Our family room isn't big enough for anything like that. It would be pretty nice though!

Collapse -
(NT) Neither. LCoS is the one to see.
by Coryphaeus / February 15, 2007 9:01 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD
Collapse -
(NT) Off to check out the LCoS!
by april601 / February 15, 2007 11:42 AM PST
Collapse -
LCD resolution is so darned sharp, but I'm getting to share
by NM_Bill / February 15, 2007 9:23 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

the opinion they are great as computer monitors & I enjoy a 20" LCD, but they are just not currently ultimately satisfying at the 40&+" for watching TV & DVDs.

Something about the "softness" of a plasma picture kind of bothers me. I seem to be so negative though I didn't intend to.

I had to get a replacement nearly 4 years ago when a Sony XBR CRT died in just 4 years. I naively got a Sammy DLP. Had 2 expensive repairs just past warranty. That seemed to fix what the didn't do right the 1st time in hurried production. Fine now. It's on most of the day. Lamp isn't as bright as new, but i won't replace yet. Yeah, as such, dark scenes at mid day are tough. I accept the $180 replacement as DLP still is the poorer man's cheaper introduction to big screen. Too bad the initial LED DLPs aren't as good a picture.

Bang for the buck is still up to you, not anyone else unless they will pay or it. So why be concerned at what others think?

Collapse -
Any buyer's remorse?
by april601 / February 15, 2007 11:46 AM PST

My dad recently bought a 52" Samsung DLP and had gripes about it. Within 5 months he had to replace the lamp. I think that is why DH isn't so into the DLP. Not so concerned at what others think, really. Just want to get my way and DH wants to get it his. I just don't want to spend $$$ on an LCD if a DLP would be just as good.

Collapse -
My main buyer's remorse is due to the fact I bought the new
by NM_Bill / February 16, 2007 1:42 AM PST
In reply to: Any buyer's remorse?

tech DLP nearly 4 years ago & that I paid when the prices seem sinfully high compared to how they have dropped now.

Much better value now. And yes, the trend will continue for better prices over the span of a year from when a set is introduced. Sales of HD have escalated sharply to now - 4 million in 2006 & expecting 10 million a year by 2010.

However the technology is considered to have stabilized (relatively - as changes are still coming & no one set is perfect by any means), so it is said the downward price trend will not be as steep.

Collapse -
High upfront cost, high maintenance cost
by jnriopel / February 23, 2007 8:18 PM PST
In reply to: Any buyer's remorse?

I bought a SAMSUNG 43" DLP 3 years ago. The lamp already went, and I sure hadn<t used 8000 hours or whatever, I wantch little live TV and movies a few times a week. Luckily, my extended warranty covered the $250 or so it cost (single supplier, monopoly=higher prices).
Then last october, it died again. As you may know, besided the mirror and the lamp, there are very few parts in this type of TV. The only other part is one huge component that has the actual brains of the thing, including the chip with the mirrors. So when anything goes wrong, they will need to change that. In Canada, that was another >$1000. Never again.

Collapse -
DLP lamps and power drops
by drphil / February 23, 2007 10:38 PM PST

Currently looking myself for a new TV and one thing I have been warned about is that the lamps are highly sensitive to have the power killed before the lamp fan cools it. Power fluctuations/failures/etc. are a big problem.

The Doc

Collapse -
by woodygg / February 17, 2007 1:05 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

After all is said and done...


However, that wasn't one of your options... so I'll move on!

Collapse -
What are your arguments for plasma?
by april601 / February 22, 2007 12:09 AM PST
In reply to: Personally?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Collapse -
by woodygg / February 22, 2007 2:01 AM PST

i think there's plenty of published information out now...

for me, depth is an issue. i absolutely do not want a huge, 20+ inch tv in my house - however, i have very specific tastes and a smaller home. if i had a huge room, and didn't mind disguising it, i might consider a projection only to have the larger size (65" or so) for the money.

other than that, i prefer the much better viewing angle and overall PQ. i'm looking forward to the day when lcd's (non-projection) improve some, come down in price a bit more.

Collapse -
Check Our Refurbished Sonys
by EXCON / February 22, 2007 12:45 AM PST
In reply to: Personally?

Many people are unaware that Sony offers refurbished models from their factory outlet stores. I saw the $7000.00 set I owned for $5500.00 about 3 years ago. Today with $2500.00 I bet you you buy a 50" plus 1080p set with no problem and Sony, like em or not, manufactures one of the best HDTV's on the market.

Collapse -
Is it
by april601 / February 24, 2007 11:29 PM PST

"safe" to buy a refurbished item? If it was fixed because there was something wrong with it...there could be something else wrong. Or am I misinterpreting "refurbished?"

Collapse -
Size does matter!
by tjhenrik / February 17, 2007 4:08 AM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

That is to say the size of the desired screen and the size of the room in my opinion will determine which form of HDTV one should consider. In our kitchen we have limited space for a TV but wanted food network, ESPN, and the news close by during prep times. With no need for components, we opted for a 30 something inch Sony LCD which looks great. It hangs beautifully on our wall out of the way. PQ is superb and bright although HD games will sometimes look like they are being broadcast through a computer. In out basement for our theatre we wanted a streamline front wall and went with a LCD projector on a 110 inch screen. Great PQ with 7.1 surround. In our family room space was unlimited. I loved the look of a flatscreen that would float on the wall free from furniture, but we were going to need to have components nearby and wanted a bigger screen. We opted for a 65 inch Mits DLP. Watched our beloved Colts win SB41! Absoulutely great picture (best in the house)! I am planning to condstruct built ins which will mask the 20 or so inch depth of the DLP. But, 65 inches for under $2500! In our 30X40 room with vaulted ceilings the size matters!

Again consider desired screen size AND size & style of room when making your selections. Best of luck now can anyone reccommend a DVD upconverter with HDMI output and DVI input to tide me over until I decide on the whole Blue Ray thingy.


Collapse -
upconverting DVD player..
by woodygg / February 22, 2007 1:56 AM PST
In reply to: Size does matter!
Collapse -
Size does matter... but so does picture quality!
by STS / February 24, 2007 3:35 PM PST
In reply to: Size does matter!

Ok, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but thought I'd drop my $.02 into this conversation... Happy

I have been wanting to get a new HDTV for awhile now. I have a 60" Marantz SD 9" CRT RPTV. However, I just have not been able to justify the move to HDTV for a couple reasons.

Of course, (at least until the last 6 months or so), a main reason has been the prohibitive cost of a 70+" HDTV. Why 70+"? Well, our viewing room is about 18'x18' that, due to furniture considerations puts our viewing distance at about 14'. At that distance, the height of the picture on our 60" 4:3 SDTV is about perfect. It is just that when displaying 1.78:1 (or 1.85 or 2.40+:1) material, the screen height becomes much less adequate. (Please don't get me started on the 1.78:1 (16:9) selection for the HDTV standard (for that "movie theater"-like experience, don't you know), when the minimum aspect ratio of movie theater material is 1.85:1 meaning they should have selected something between 17:9 and 21:9.) Anyway, I would prefer to have at least an 80" HDTV so that I would be able to get that theatrical impact. (Personally, I believe that you can sit at between 1.5 and 2.0 times the diagonal size of your TV and not be bother by pixelization of HD material (SD material (at least without a high quality upconversion) might be another story, rather than be hindered by the "recommended" 2.5 times.) Because of this, you can see my #1 limitation when we are talking about the HDTV I would like to get (70++") is cost.

However, if we take cost out of the equation, we still have a number of other issues to consider when making the choice between LCD, plasma, and DLP.

My next consideration is not (surprisingly?) resolution, but rather color accuracy. When I speak about color accuracy, I am talking about three different, but related things.

First, there is the issue of correct representation of the colors red, green, and blue (the basis of color picture creation in TV's). Typically, most HDTV's have presets that emphasize blue WAY too much. They do this because screens in a store appear brighter if they have more blue in them. This can usually be somewhat corrected if you go into the TV's setup menu and change the TV from its "Vivid" (or whatever they call it) to "Natural", "Movie theater", or something similar. Basically, you are trying to find the TV's setting that more closely meets the ISF's color standards (that all the mastering stations the media is prepared on are using) so that, at least, flesh tones appear more normal so that people don't look like they have been spending too much time in the morgue.

However, this usually means that you run into the second problem most TV's have in their decoders and this is "red push". This means that most TV color decoders take in the signal and interpret it to have more red in the picture than it really should have. This is not intentional (unless it is to somewhat compensate for the over emphasis of blue in the default settings), but will cause people to look like they have a bit of sun burn.

In general, I have found the green calibration to be fairly accurate and not affect picture quality nearly as much as blue and red. However, the general green tinge of the 1st, 2nd, and even some 3rd generation (cheapo) plasmas can be a problem that is almost impossible to overcome.

You can see the color decoding issues if you get a copy of Kane's Digital Video Essentials:

HD-DVD version coming in March:

Second, there is the closely related issue of correct grayscale representation. This is important because most SD [sic] material uses grayscale as the reference and essentially layers the colors over it. If they grayscale is incorrect, then the colors on top of them will also be incorrect and they will look "off".

Finally, there is the issue of contrast ratio. This is where the ability to show "near black" items in the picture really adds to the feeling of overall color vividness and picture "depth" (three dimensionality). With lower contrast ratios of less than, say, 2000:1, the picture is noticably "washed out" compared to sets with contrast (not "dynamic" contrast) ratios of >5000:1 or especially >10000:1.

IMO, this issue of color makes a far larger difference in the picture quality of HDTV sets than resolution (even from 720p to 1080p)!

Last, and least, is resolution. Being a geek, I want the highest resolution I can get, but realistically, I won't notice it as much until the screen size gets upward of 80+". At least not as much as I would notice inaccurate color reproduction.

Give *MY* requirements, I tender my (admittedly very subjective) ranking of the current display technologies as follows: (Not including front projectors as they all suck without very good ambient light control.)

I. DLP (A "micromirror" device that has hundreds of thousands of physical mirrors that uses an electro-physical method of moving and controlling the mirrors)


a. Inexpensive for the screen size (at the upper end).
b. Great contrast ratios.
c. Fair to good grayscales.
d. Fair primary colors once calibrated.
e. Pretty good power consumption (ie. relatively low).
f. Fairly bright (good in bright light situations), even in larger screen sizes.
g. Fair viewing angle.
h. One 100" set available (by Optoma, but as a "built in" only).
i. Relatively low power requirements.


a. Generally inaccurate primary colors (without a trip into the TV's service menus), a VERY dangerous place if you don't know what you are doing).
b. Only single chip designs are affordable (see a).
c. Color wheel rather than steady primary color light generation (see a).
d. Only fair grayscales (see b and c).
e. "poor" to fair 1080p resolution picture generation (due to TI not using a true 1920x1080 chip, but rather a 960x1080 chip that is "wobulated" (ie. vibrated) in the horizontal plane to double its effective resolution.
f. TI artificially keeping the chip price high and not implementing a full resolution consumer chip.
g. Only good in bright light environments.
h. Fair viewing angle.
i. Bulb replacement is expensive.
j. DLP and controlling circuitry are one unit, dramatically increasing cost to repair, if needed.

Why #1?!? Size, baby! Largest size screens for the money (70+" for <$4K). And they do a fair to very good job at the rest of the criteria (at least with the better brands).

2. LCOS (Basically an LCD driven micromirror device.)


a. The pros of DLP and...
b. Three chip design for superior color rendition.
c. Individual color lamps for superior color rendition.
d. Good to very good grayscales.
e. Slightly better than DLP brightness.
f. Fair to good viewing angle.
g. TRUE 1920x1080 resolution chips.
h. Cheaper than 3-DLP sets (only available in commercial DLP projectors now).


a. Slower than DLP (shows up as high speed motion abberations) a problem in action/sci-fi films (my favorite genres).
b. More expensive than 1-DLP sets that provide 85-95% of the performance for 75-80% of the cost (and some would argue that DLP provides MORE performance).
c. Limited to 72".
d. Is subject to the "screen door" effect if watched at too close a distance.
e. LCOS chips and controlling circuitry are probably more expensive to repair than they could be.

Why second and not first? Cost, baby! Why second and not third? Size, baby! Quality, baby!

3. LCD


a. Inexpensive for <=42" sizes (probably for <50" by the end of the year).
b. Highest true resolution technology at a given price point.
c. Light weight.
d. Low power consumption.
e. Most computer compatible.
f. Highly competitive market, with rapid price drops, and screen size and picture quality increases by the end of the year.


a. Picture quality:
i. Grayscale (generally washed out, an old problem with LCD)
ii. Contrast ratio (low, but new technologies may rectify that in the next couple years)
iii. Color accuracy (generally poor decoders in low to middle price ranges, probably due to pricing pressures)
iv. Color vividness (generally washed out due to low contrast ratios)
b. Pixel switching speeds can be bothersome with high motion material.
c. Expense of repair is often (usually?) higher than cost of new.
d. Size limitations (<56").
e. Sometimes big variation in quality of pictures between (1) various manufacturers and even (2) in sets by the same manufacturer. Name brands do not necessarily correlate to picture quality.

Why third rather than fourth? Cost, baby! Weight, baby! Power, baby! However, I would happily buy this FIRST for a secondary viewing set (<50" and probably mostly for the kids viewing). In fact, when my old 26" SD CRT set dies (is 20 years and still, miraculously, looks fairly good) I will replace it with either a 32" or 37" LCD (size limitations where it is going)!

4. Plasma (essentially thousands of micro-CRT's.)


a. Over the top color accuracy capable (depends on implementation, Fujitsu, the best I have seen, MANY no-so-good low end manufacturers).
b. Great contrast ratios.
c. Great color richness/vibrancy/depth.
d. Great viewing angle.
e. Great brightness (great for viewing in low or high ambient light situations).
f. Largest screen sizes available.
g. Theoretically capable of having individual pixels repaired (don't know what cost would be).


a. Cost, cost, cost, (getting much better recently and may even be reasonable by the end of the year).
b. Weight, weight, weight.
c. Power, power, power consumptions (at least 3 times (!) that of the other technologies at a given size).
d. Can suffer from "burn in", but would have to be abused to get burning on the newest generation plasma technologies.
e. Resolution (most sets are 1024x768 (720p, 4:3 pixels, but in a 16:9 layout with some 1280x720, 1365x768, and VERY FEW 1920x1080 (only at the largest screen sizes!) sets).
f. Some sets have screen door issues at closer viewing.

Why fourth? Cost, baby! Weight, baby! Power consumption, baby! If I were to ignore those three, it would be, by far, my first choice, but only at the higher end (color, resolution, and size).

I am not even going to touch future technologies such as OLED, SMD, carbon nanotube, etc.

Well, I spent WAY more time than I thought I would on this. However, it is an issue I have been debating with myself for about three years now as I have been wanting to get an HDTV, but have kept holding back because my current Marantz SD CRT-based RPTV still has a picture that is at least equal to 99% of the existing CRT-tube sets, but is 6 years old. Truly a phenomenal set. Until I feel that HDTV's can match the color picture quality/fidelity/vividness, I will hold off until it dies or I get a sudden influx of money (for a top end (ie. >$10K) 70+" plasma), in which case, the kids can watch the Marantz... well, in a year or so I would spend the money... Happy


Collapse -
I'm glad
by april601 / February 24, 2007 11:24 PM PST

you threw your $0.02 in! Thank you so much for the awesome feedback and lay out of pros and cons...I appreciate the post.

Collapse -
Weight? Cost?
by woodygg / February 25, 2007 1:22 AM PST

The reason I didn't post all of that is because it's all over the internet... nothing new. However, SOME your cons regarding plasma's really don't belong...

a. Cost, cost, cost, (unless you're buying a 1080P, not really an issue anymore compared to other technologies)
b. Weight, weight, weight. (okay... are you going to hold it why you watch it?? Happy )
c. Power, power, power consumptions (yes, this is definitely an issue)
d. Can suffer from "burn in", but would have to be abused to get burning on the newest generation plasma technologies. (absolutely correct - but like you said on the newer plasma's not nearly the issue it was)
e. Resolution (in reality, not much of an issue - especially now. I own one, and realize in 4-5 years, I'll want to replace it with 1080P AFTER the HDDVD wars are over, and there's much more 1080P content)
f. Some sets have screen door issues at closer viewing. (if you sit that close, the size should probably be smaller anyway)

I guess it comes down to how big a set you want - beyond 50-60", DLP is probably the way to go. 40-50, Plasma.

I have a friend who is paralyzed by all the differences, and wants perfection before buying any HD TV. In reality, most people will be happy with ANY of the technologies compared to their old SD sets. I decided to jump in and start actually enjoying HD, as it's much better the alternative!

Collapse -
At the 42 inch range
by Rickrack / February 23, 2007 10:33 PM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

At 42 inch range Plasmas are very nice but are more expensive as I?m sure you know by now. 1080p typically isn?t a factor till you get above 50 inches unless your eyes are very discerning. LCD wont have the quite the same black levels which to me are noticeable watching movies in low light conditions. I have all the above and each has its strength and weakness. I use a 61 Samsung DLP in the living room which is going on 5 years a not one problem, I use a Sharp in my Office with the same experience. Find a model or two and do your consumer research on them if there?s a problem with that model they always seem to surface.

Collapse -
Thank you for your input
by april601 / February 24, 2007 11:27 PM PST
In reply to: At the 42 inch range

- with all the different types/models out there, narrowing down and researching seems to be a must. I would hate to buy a TV and then return it...always wanted to know why there is always one person is in line at Costco returning their Vizio. I guess you get what you pay for!

Collapse -
I seem to see
by april601 / February 24, 2007 11:38 PM PST
In reply to: DLP vs. LCD

an inconsistency on this thread. Some people have never had a problem with the lamp on their DLP, while others seem to have issue after issue. What gives? Is it the brand? Care? Location of the TV?

Collapse -
DLP Lamps...
by woodygg / February 25, 2007 1:24 AM PST
In reply to: I seem to see

They sometimes need to be replaced. It's just the risk you take with that technology. Not a big deal... each technology has it's pro's and con's.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?