Azryan,

Hello again!

I'm still not convinced that RPTVs are more reliable than FP. (And limited bulb life is an ongoing cost issue, not a reliability problem.)

I've done the research, and I found that stuck DLP mirrors are the exception, not the rule.

I agree that if you're going to watch TV with lights on, a RPTV is almost always a better choice than a FP (no matter how bright/what technology is being used). Plasma is a good choice here as well.

I'm not convinced 80" RPTVs are all that practical - to stock, to sell, to transport, and to dominate a home. Even a 65" set is considered too big for most multi-purpose rooms (living rooms, family rooms, etc.) by the other 51% of the population.

Stop arguing with me and go watch a movie!

-avi

I know you like your Piano, and feel the need to defend it, but you're just not doing it very well.
It's a great projector if you don't see rainbows, you never ever want to watch something with any lights on, you don't mind paying over and over again for new bulbs, and you don't want to see high def broadcasts, or how sharp and pixel free DVD's look on an HD set.

If people have space for an ~80" FP screen, then they have space for that same screen to be ~2' in front of the wall in the form of a 80" RPTV -look up Scramtech screens.

They'll produce a far better pic than current RP screens, and allow a far shallower depth in a RP cabinet by their tremendously innovative design.

I hope companies start implementing this screen ASAP!

Probably less than 2' deep even for an 80" screen!

And a microdisplay RP (DLP or other)is a FAR lighter system than a CRT based design, and an 80" RP wouldn't weight more than a typical 32" direct view set.

Not that you mentioned weight being a negative for RPTVS, but I thougt I'd hold you off by mentioning it myself since I know it's also an issue for some people.

And a huge digital RPTV wouldn't need to even be a floorstanding design like all large CRT based RP's need to be.

Yes, there's people who can't fit RPTV's into their houses (or wifes won't let them), but those people don't buy FP either, unless they're typically very well off and buy motorized roll-up screens that cost faaaar more than your Plus Piano.
Those people would never be using a projector that's cheaper than the screen.

Your case of HT in the basement isn't common either, but you could fit a 80" RP in your room I'm sure -even if you couldn't get it down the stairs.

I don't see how you think you made your point at all on RPTV's not fitting? Maybe if you were more specific.

That 80" digital RPTV I described would look far better than you Piano, shouldn't cost any more than your Piano, have a super long bulb life (10,000 hours or more just using a conventional design like in your Piano), and since it'd be a little closer to your seating than a FP screen against the wall, it'd be a bigger picture than widescreen DVD's are on your 84" 4:3 screen.
You're 16:9 area is only about a 70" 16:9 screen! How are you thinking your picture is so huge compared to mine?

I had my Piano set to 16:9 on an 80" screen. That'd be bigger than what you have, and IMO about as small as a FP screen should ever be to make it worth all the compromises.
Size is the only factor (and not a factor that I disregard) where FP is king.

Heck, my 65" widescreen (3' out from the wall) isn't hardly any smaller than your picture when watching 16:9 (or wider) material.

What's your seating distance to screen? Mine's 13'. I bet we end up having about the same size screen when you do the screen size to distance math.

I won't debate you thinking bulb life is not a reliability issue. That just a matter of opinion of a loose definition.

The point though is that you don't know when that sucker will go pop, but you know it will go pop, and you know it will go pop when in use (probably during a movie if that's what you use the FP for mostly), and the replacement will cost you over $300, and will go pop at some unknown time too, and so on and so on.

All the while my CRT will likely have zero problems.
That's fine, I don't have to label it a reliability issue if you disagree, it's enough for me to just call it far far better functionality.

And don't worry I do watch movies. Several every week and ALL of them for free from my local library.

Just saw Harry Potter (that'd be a couple days after it was released). It sucked. Glad I don't pay rental fees.

Awful acting (no excuse that they're kids -there's decent child actors out there), and the director tried to put a little of every single thing that was in the book into the film, but didn't have the time (in the overly long film as it is) to really expand upon almost anything.

Tons of tiny details, instead of really spotlight the important main story elements.

Oh well, the book wasn't very good either. Just a typical children's story.
The third and fourth books are far better -maybe if they end up making those films those kids will learn to act by then.

Horrible CG effects too. Very fake. And many scenes had a very poor pic. quality on the DVD -so it wouldn't look good on ANY display.

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix.

Maybe Scott can delete these.

Stupid library comuter didn't display my post so I kept redoing it.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

You could always use the edit button to remove the text and just drop a short explanation in lieu of the full post.

I have the same problem frequently at home -- I post, but it does not show up. Hitting the refresh button fixes that. For some reason when they redirect you back to the post page the browser doesn't always reload.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net