Carl B said:
...I've listened to the laments of folks I know who purchased the LCD/RPs.
But, since I didn't personally attack you, just offerred up some things for the prospective buyer to look at, where do you get off telling me not to post? ...
Sony is reasonably successful selling LCD/RP primarily because of the Sony name. Even with that, they have had to discount the pricing below comparable DLP to get sales volume...
DLPs have their critics, but their principal criticism, rainbows, aren't seen by most people...DLPs are clearly the superior technology.
...if your HDTV is 768 native, you are always watching a scaled HD picture, which is never as good as it could be.
In the first place, vague anecdotal evidence, which seems to fly in the face of empirical evidence and the concensus of owners in the forums, holds little water. I typically don't bother commenting on other folks posts, but when the ideas are just so wacky and out of touch with reality as are these, it's hard to resist, especially when it appears that I've been purposely baited.
Secondly, no one told anyone not to post. Only a moderator can do that. Personal attack? I didn't notice one from either direction, yet. There would probably be little doubt if I actually had, but then I would never do that. I merely suggested that folks please not cloud the issue with what appear to be opinions masquerading as facts but are quite obviously just opinions based on fantasy (and opinions not widely held) as that is not helpful. So again, nothing personal, but please, if the shoe fits, just don't. You're welcome to your opinions, but in my opinion, posting them by some folks is counter-productive to what the rest of us know and are trying to do here. It boils down to a case of gentlemen agreeing to disagree, and nothing more.
That being said, as further examples of how twisted some folks' reasoning is, Sony has 34% of the display market, far more than anyone else. That is NOT an opinion. They don't have to discount or do anything other than deliver superior products to do that. Since a 60XS still commands $3700 on the street (the same price it had the week it was released in October) which is hundreds more than many same-size competitors, I can't see where that constitutes discounting.
You get what you pay for. The "Sony name" is only as good as the product, so saying that Sony is successful because of their name is in essence saying that they have a successful name because the products always back it up. They are not successful because of the name, the name has always had worth because they have always been successful at delivering superior products. I have no allegiance to Sony or the Sony name, just to superior products. Show me an RCA DLP with a better picture, and I'm there. At that point, to hell with Sony, as far as I'm concerned, but then they really don't apparently have much to worry about in that regard.
DLP rainbows might not be visible to some, but they are still always there, whether they are seen or not, and the sad thing is that owners start to notice them just after the 30-day grace period runs out. Even folks who don't consciously see them complain of headaches because of them. They are never there on LCDRPs because they don't exist there. Clearly the superior technology according to who? Not to the vast majority of forum posters, or the vast majority of owners, for that matter. A clearly superior technology would quickly dominate. None has. (Who has the highest market share again?) IMO, both DLP and LCDRP are legitimate formats, and both are good products. So neither of the two of us has yet to trash DLP, which unfortunately can not be said about the two of us regarding LCDRP. It deserves defending, too.
768 is always scaled, but even scaled (at least on a Sony) it looks better than some native displays I have seen. The Sammy DLPs in particular seem to have a lot of motion artifacts that LCDs don't seem to have, even when natively doing 720. Maybe that's due to DLP, or maybe it's just due to processing that sucks, or maybe even a little of both. Who knows? I would rather have a set that scales 100% of the time exquisitely well than a set that scales poorly half the time (since half of what is received must be scaled by definition) and does native poorly the other half of the time. If the scaler loss is insignificant to the point of invisibility, and other factors in other native sets are not insignificant, then I will always prefer a well-scaled picture in that scenario, as, all else being equal, it will always be the BEST picture. Case closed.