OTHER TECH

Our three video experts summarize their impressions

David Ranada These sets produced much more closely matched images than the ones in our plasma/LCD comparison. The most significant concern with the DLP was the rainbow effect, but I never saw it on movies. While both sets could have done a better job of producing darker blacks, the LCD's black was fairly "bright" and bluish to boot, giving the darker areas in black-and-white films a distinctly blue tint. To me, the LCD also had a "dirty-screen" effect (technically, fixed-pattern noise) - unrelated to the "screen-door" effect mentioned elsewhere - that could be seen not only in basic test patterns but also in all areas of smooth texture that move during a scene, such as in animated features like Tron and The Incredibles. So while the casual observer would be impressed at the similarity between the sets, the DLP had fewer problems with critical program material and is the one I preferred.

Al Griffin In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit to walking into this test with a bias for DLP rear-projection TVs. Although I'd never actually reviewed a rear-projection LCD set, I'd seen plenty of them in stores and at trade shows, and their pictures always looked pale and fuzzy. But the Hitachi LCD surprised me. Its color was rich and natural, lending realism to live-action movies and visual punch to animated movies like Toy Story. Compared with the "enhanced," and occasionally patchy, look of the DLP image, the LCD picture was impressively smooth and clean. The area where the DLP clearly beat LCD - and it's a key one - was contrast. As a CRT aficionado who only recently abandoned tubes for the new digital displays for home viewing, I prefer the DLP's deep, CRT-like blacks and more realistic shadow detail. I also found this DLP's rainbows less off-putting than the LCD's seemingly inescapable screen-door effect. I'm sure I'd find things to like with a big-screen LCD TV in my home theater, but given the choice, I'd buy a DLP.

David Katzmaier I definitely prefer the DLP's picture. Its significantly deeper blacks lent plenty of pop to both bright and dark scenes, especially compared with the LCD. While the LCD had excellent color accuracy, I'm convinced that the DLP's relatively poor performance in these areas was the fault of this particular TV and not of the DLP technology. I was surprised by the significant increase in detail when watching both DVDs and HDTV on the Samsung. While the LCD's softer look was readily apparent in side-by-side comparisons, it was probably a problem with this particular TV and not with the LCD technology. The DLP did reveal more video noise, which seemed in most cases to be present in the source as opposed to a fault of the technology. But I don't find this a huge distraction, especially when you're sitting a reasonable distance from the TV. And I'd be willing to trade a little noise for more picture detail. Yes, I did see lots of rainbows in the DLP (more than usual since I was constantly flicking my eyes back and forth from the DLP to the LCD). But I found the LCD's screen-door effect even more distracting, especially in pans over bright areas where the grid seemed to sweep across the image.

If you liked this article, you might enjoy the following: DLP vs. LCoS Plasma vs. LCD

Back to Homepage What's New on S&V