dlp bulbs

[gliz]

I am looging at a mitsubishi 60 inch dlp, does anyone know first had how log the bulbs last?

 

[cpd]

I've had a 62" mitsu dlp since 2005. It is currently on its third bulb. The first went out within 8 months and was replaced under warranty. The second lasted about two years and died in November 2008. The lifespan of those first two may have been shortened because they were used in a non-air conditioned space.

 

[BMXTRIX]

They typically aren't warranteed very long, so if you have concerns, you may want to consider getting a 58" Panasonic S2 while they are still out there. Only about $1,300 and that'll last forever.

Unfortunately, lamps are rarely under a long warranty, and typically have a replacement cost of $250 or more. So, while you may get 4 years or more of use out of the first lamp, you may also only get 8 months like the last poster said. Either way, that's not an issue you have with flat panels and is worth considering.

I'm very hopeful my next projector purchase won't have a standard lamp in it but will have moved on to LED based technology. Wish Mits. would do the same.

 

[GlocksRock]

I'm going on my 3rd year with my 73" mitsubishi dlp and it's still on the original lamp. I've priced replacement lamps with housing on ebay, and they can be had for around $85. They are not OEM lamps, but they are still likely just as good. I would say one should expect to get at least 4000 hrs. from one of those lamps, but probably wouldn't expect more than 6000 hrs. Lamps for dlp projectors are more expensive than lamps for dlp tv's as well.

 

[gliz]

this is a hard deal to pass up. Thanks for all you imput let me know what you guys think about this

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6277535&CatId=1830

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I'm going on my 3rd year with my 73" mitsubishi dlp and it's still on the original lamp. I've priced replacement lamps with housing on ebay, and they can be had for around $85. They are not OEM lamps, but they are still likely just as good. I would say one should expect to get at least 4000 hrs. from one of those lamps, but probably wouldn't expect more than 6000 hrs. Lamps for dlp projectors are more expensive than lamps for dlp tv's as well.

I'm deep into my 3rd year on the bulb of my 73" and my TV is on all the time.

If someone would make a 70+ plasma that I could afford, I would change to that but until then, I am keeping the Mits.

 

[gliz]

as always you guys are great!. I was gonna get a new PC, but i work in IT so I dont really care. i am going TV shoppin!!

 

[yepimonfire]

I am looging at a mitsubishi 60 inch dlp, does anyone know first had how log the bulbs last?

I'm sorry, but G is nowhere close to the K on a keyboard

 

[gliz]

I'm sorry, but G is nowhere close to the K on a keyboard

Legally blind, sorry i also suck at tennis too

 

[gliz]

after a lot of research i have changed my mond and will not take the plunge ther is just too much unknown for me. the viewing angle seems to be really narrow. i will hold out for somethig better, maybe I will get another HSU vtf 2 mk 3!

 

[BMXTRIX]

If someone would make a 70+ plasma that I could afford, I would change to that but until then, I am keeping the Mits.

While I agree with this, there are a number of issues with rear projection that make them a poorer technology than a good LCD or plasma. Power consumption is NOT one of those issues as rear projection does well.

But, the rear projectors with color wheels are more prone to failure with moving parts and they have a significantly dimmer image than plamsa and LCD. Likewise, they have a more limited viewing angle. Finally, because the image must pass through a rear projection surface, typically made of plastic, it degrades and softens the image some.

That all sounds bad, but I don't want you to think that I'm saying the image is bad, because that is FAR from what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws in the technology that are hard to overcome and may make rear projection a less desirable product than LCD/plasma depending on the location of use for some people.

It saves a lot of cash to get a display that size for under $1,000. But, if it is a family room location, then spending a few hundred bucks more on a plasma, especially a Panasonic, at 65" isn't a bad way to go and is an alternative at the very least which should be considered by most people I would think.

I've kept a close eye on rear projection over the years, and they do look good, but they still are far more limited of a display technology and IMO have one of the weakest images compared to good displays from the other techs. If you are in the sweet spot, great, but if your room is bright, you have weird viewing angles, and you have limited floor space, then any of all of these things may make a rear projection setup the wrong choice.

If you do NOT have those issues - any of them - then rear projection is a great way to get a big screen for not a lot of cash for sure! As long as the projection engine holds out and the lamps hold up you are good to go for years of enjoyment.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

While I agree with this, there are a number of issues with rear projection that make them a poorer technology than a good LCD or plasma. Power consumption is NOT one of those issues as rear projection does well.

But, the rear projectors with color wheels are more prone to failure with moving parts and they have a significantly dimmer image than plamsa and LCD. Likewise, they have a more limited viewing angle. Finally, because the image must pass through a rear projection surface, typically made of plastic, it degrades and softens the image some.

That all sounds bad, but I don't want you to think that I'm saying the image is bad, because that is FAR from what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws in the technology that are hard to overcome and may make rear projection a less desirable product than LCD/plasma depending on the location of use for some people.

It saves a lot of cash to get a display that size for under $1,000. But, if it is a family room location, then spending a few hundred bucks more on a plasma, especially a Panasonic, at 65" isn't a bad way to go and is an alternative at the very least which should be considered by most people I would think.

I've kept a close eye on rear projection over the years, and they do look good, but they still are far more limited of a display technology and IMO have one of the weakest images compared to good displays from the other techs. If you are in the sweet spot, great, but if your room is bright, you have weird viewing angles, and you have limited floor space, then any of all of these things may make a rear projection setup the wrong choice.

If you do NOT have those issues - any of them - then rear projection is a great way to get a big screen for not a lot of cash for sure! As long as the projection engine holds out and the lamps hold up you are good to go for years of enjoyment.

I fully understand and I have 2 large plasmas and one large LCD in my house too. I just want a 73" one!

 

[gliz]

this is all far to complicated and far too expensive, kind of makes me miss the good old days

 

[BMXTRIX]

this is all far to complicated and far too expensive, kind of makes me miss the good old days

The good old days? You mean, when you had CRT screens which were not as bright as a plasma, but were just as reflective, and you KNEW you were going to have issues if you were in a bright room, and if you had the 'big' 32" display you better be brining a couple of friends to move it into the home, and if you wanted to get a rear-projection setup, your room better be theater dark, and you better be prepared to calibrate it regularly?

Things are certainly different now, but it's beautiful once you understand this basic concept:

For almost every room you are in, there is now a display which actually is designed to work for you! All you have to do is describe your room, your viewing habits, and about what size display you want, and you can get some recommendations. A bit of talk back and forth about what your budget is and you can get the perfect display which will last you for years and years without any unexpected headaches (unless it truly does break).

A dozen years ago, when I got into all this fun, a line doubler cost about $10,000 from Faroudja. A line quadrupler ran about $20,000 or more. Those would get connected to CRT front projection systems that typically ran about $30,000 for just the 300 lumen projector it was connected to.

Confusion for having good options is a lot better than the good old days I would say!

 

[BMXTRIX]

I just want a 73" one!

I am in love with the 85" Panasonic 3D plasma.

We all need to win the lottery.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I am in love with the 85" Panasonic 3D plasma.

We all need to win the lottery.

I didn't even know they had that. I figured it would be 2-3k more than the 65" so I found it on Amazon, put it in my shopping cart and was about to check out when I noticed the price

 

[BMXTRIX]

I didn't even know they had that. I figured it would be 2-3k more than the 65" so I found it on Amazon, put it in my shopping cart and was about to check out when I noticed the price

But seriously, if you are going to spend $23,000 on a display, why not just man up with another $15,000 and get the 103" display?

Oh, and I don't think those are the 3D models. Sorry, but if I'm getting an 85" display, you better believe I'm getting the 3D capable version!

 

[gliz]

The good old days? You mean, when you had CRT screens which were not as bright as a plasma, but were just as reflective, and you KNEW you were going to have issues if you were in a bright room, and if you had the 'big' 32" display you better be brining a couple of friends to move it into the home, and if you wanted to get a rear-projection setup, your room better be theater dark, and you better be prepared to calibrate it regularly?

Things are certainly different now, but it's beautiful once you understand this basic concept:

For almost every room you are in, there is now a display which actually is designed to work for you! All you have to do is describe your room, your viewing habits, and about what size display you want, and you can get some recommendations. A bit of talk back and forth about what your budget is and you can get the perfect display which will last you for years and years without any unexpected headaches (unless it truly does break).

A dozen years ago, when I got into all this fun, a line doubler cost about $10,000 from Faroudja. A line quadrupler ran about $20,000 or more. Those would get connected to CRT front projection systems that typically ran about $30,000 for just the 300 lumen projector it was connected to.

Confusion for having good options is a lot better than the good old days I would say!

the good old days: when TV's did not cost thousands of dollars, that is what I ment, yes it is better even with my low vision I can se that but the prices are nuts

 

[mikeyj92]

I got my Samsung 56" dlp back in Sept 2006. One bulb change in 2009. That's it so far.

 

[BMXTRIX]

the good old days: when TV's did not cost thousands of dollars, that is what I ment, yes it is better even with my low vision I can se that but the prices are nuts

TVs were available for thousands of dollars forever.

But, what you usually saw in stores were closer to the $200-$500 range with sets from 19" to 27"...

http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm

I remember in about 1980 or so, a 13" black and white television was $100. A 19" color television was $250. A 27" television was $400 or more.

It dropped to about $200-$300 or so for a RCA 27" television around the early 90's I believe.

Under $300 now can buy you a 32" LCD HDTV if you want it.

Now, if we take $300 in 1980 dollar and apply inflation, that would be the same as spending $835.00 today!

There are a LOT of options available for you for $835 out there. A long list of TVs under 49" and some at 50".

We could talk about gas at $1.00 a gallon, candy bars at $.25 each, and milk at around $1.25 for a gallon, but all that stuff has tripled in price as well.

Just sayin'.