|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | Yes, the bulb was actually redesigned and available before this generation was released. There were parts internal to the bulb that were failing prematurely - these were redesigned and replaced. All of the current generation use the new bulb vs the old one with the faulty parts.
The metal fin that I mentioned - and that is mentioned in the post you linked above - appears to be a more recent addition to the design. However all the user-data I've seen suggests that the new bulb - with or without the fin - is behaving as it should, with normal low failure rates. |
Thanks! I must admit I haven't followed the bulb threads that closely...
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tinman wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: |
I don't even have to take the safety off in this thread. It's doing it all by itself..... |
Funny thing.....
For someone who hates digitals, you sure have a pixely avatar. 
|
Funny thing is Marc, I don't hate them at all. I make some good money repairing them all the time. I have 2 projectors here now for repair.
And i could care less about the convergence issues also. I was just curious as to what was causing the issue since it being digital should not really be an issue. I also suggested it being an optical issue but was chastised for it....hahahaha....
What bugs me about digitals are their build quality. Like everything else these days it's all built like crap. But that's just the way it is. Of course if they were built better I would be making less money........
But I don't like the CRT vs digitals comparisons which tries to prevail digitals as being better then CRT is any aspect other then compact, portable and easier to set up. And like anything else, if someone is happy with what they have then that's all that matters. Just don't try to say it's better then something else, unless it's another digital.
Heck, there thousands of people who buy thse cheap ass 299.00 digital projectors and think they are the cats ass. But you know what, If they are happy thats all that matters in the end. Just don't tell me its better then CRT.... Or analog to be more general.....
Enjoy what you have, tell me what you like about it but dont tell me it's better then something else without a solid basis. Or I'll point out the differences.
There ya go..... I'm not bashing digitals..... I'm just pointing out the differences, hahahahaha.......
Last edited by macgyver655 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | Yes, the bulb was actually redesigned and available before this generation was released. There were parts internal to the bulb that were failing prematurely - these were redesigned and replaced. All of the current generation use the new bulb vs the old one with the faulty parts.
The metal fin that I mentioned - and that is mentioned in the post you linked above - appears to be a more recent addition to the design. However all the user-data I've seen suggests that the new bulb - with or without the fin - is behaving as it should, with normal low failure rates. |
Thanks! I must admit I haven't followed the bulb threads that closely...
Kal |
Me to.. is there any users with around 2000-3000 hours on the new model bulb whos still working right.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tinman
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1326
Location: Carson City Nevada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Tinman wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: |
I don't even have to take the safety off in this thread. It's doing it all by itself..... |
Funny thing.....
For someone who hates digitals, you sure have a pixely avatar.
|
Funny thing is Marc, I don't hate them at all. I make some good money repairing them all the time. I have 2 projectors here now for repair.
And i could care less about the convergence issues also. I was just curious as to what was causing the issue since it being digital should not really be an issue. I also suggested it being an optical issue but was chastised for it....hahahaha....
What bugs me about digitals are their build quality. Like everything else these days it's all built like crap. But that's just the way it is. Of course if they were built better I would be making less money........
But I don't like the CRT vs digitals comparisons which tries to prevail digitals as being better then CRT is any aspect other then compact, portable and easier to set up. And like anything else, if someone is happy with what they have then that's all that matters. Just don't try to say it's better then something else, unless it's another digital.
Heck, there thousands of people who buy thse cheap ass 299.00 digital projectors and think they are the cats ass. But you know what, If they are happy thats all that matters in the end. Just don't tell me its better then CRT.... Or analog to be more general.....
Enjoy what you have, tell me what you like about it but dont tell me it's better then something else without a solid basis. Or I'll point out the differences.
There ya go..... I'm not bashing digitals..... I'm just pointing out the differences, hahahahaha....... |
I'll be the LAST person to claim Digitals are better than a Good CRT. In fact, the whole digital thing has many flaws. Pixelation, jidder, artifacts, etc. Remember, it's SO good, it's the LAW!
Yeah, because broadcasters can ram 10 channels of low quality down our throats for the cost of one, and with less power needed. Of course, if you don't have a good antenna or are too far away, you get "No Signal". And don't get me started on the many wet dreams brought on in boardrooms about compression and DRM! Great for THEM. Not us. It is absurd that I have to RIP a Bluray that I OWN just to watch it in my Media Center PC because of the stupid DRM bull****. Maybe I don't want a stand alone player when I have an integrated system?
No, the whole technology is still not mature. I think it'll get there, much as analog did. Anyone remember just how bad analog TV used to look? In the end it was as good as DVD when done right.
But we are stuck with it now.
As for digital displays, I have yet to see one that measures up to CRT as a reference when it comes to color and black.
That's why I STILL repair and calibrate old CRT's for the editing industry.
But again, Digital as a technology is seeing vast improvements nearly every year now. I think we have reached a point, although not perfect, it's "good enough".
I figure when this Epson bites the dust, and it will, the next crop will be even better.... and so on.
I love old cars.... they are simple by today's standards and tend to last. But I also have a 2002 Honda civic.
First tune up is in 110,000 miles! And you know what.... it's running perfectly after 120,000 miles with only oil and brake changes. NOTHING has gone wrong with it. The engine is perfect, the tranny is fine, and all the electrical works as new.
Not even a bad bulb! Oh yeah... NO leaks! Iridium spark plugs with coil on plug direct ignition. Totally trouble free.
My old car.... (70's).. tune ups every 20,000 miles.... brakes didn't last as long, water pumps were regular expenses, belts, etc.
Not BAD, but they needed quite regular maintenance to run right. I was under the hood of that thing once a month checking things. And they leaked oil much sooner. Old car.... Cap and rotor, points, wires, plugs that didn't last, etc. Even motor oil wasn't as good as it is today. Never mind having to rebuild the carburetor at least once, and then there's keeping it tuned well enough to pass smog.
I never thought so, but cars DID get a lot better.....
So will digitals.
_________________
This space for rent.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marc, I get what you're saying, but I think cars are as disposable as digitals now. Sure, you can go 100K miles without a tuneup, and you're right, oil has gotten better, but once you're outside of the powertrain warranty, you're effed.
That's the way everything is made now. As with stereos, I think people were a lot more of the DIY mindset. We're lamenting the demised of magazines like Popular Electronics, and 'good' stereo magazines, but everyone wants plug and play. Ditto for the car market.
I say the DIY market is dead and gone. Sad.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, the car thing bugs me too. Older cars when something would break you could buy the parts and fix it for 25, 50 or even 75 bucks.
Newer stuff it's 500, 1000 or 1000's. And its the newer electronics to blame. Just like the thread with the PT cruiser CPU. 250 just to program it so it works..... blah! 
So yeah maybe there is less maintenance on newer but the ungodly cost of repair outweighs that ten fold in my book.
When I shop for home appliances I look for ones with knobs and push buttons. Digital controls I'll leave behind. And what makes that even funny is I can fix the damn things. But I don't want to spend my time fixing my own crap...
Ok Marc and Curt. You guys are getting me started..... 
I hate digital because they are built like crap but I love that they are built like crap cause I make lots of money from that.... hahahhaha!!! Talk about a flip flop......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tinman
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1326
Location: Carson City Nevada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: | Marc, I get what you're saying, but I think cars are as disposable as digitals now. Sure, you can go 100K miles without a tuneup, and you're right, oil has gotten better, but once you're outside of the powertrain warranty, you're effed.
That's the way everything is made now. As with stereos, I think people were a lot more of the DIY mindset. We're lamenting the demised of magazines like Popular Electronics, and 'good' stereo magazines, but everyone wants plug and play. Ditto for the car market.
I say the DIY market is dead and gone. Sad. |
Well, you saw what was left in LA as far as electronics shops. Yes, the DIY market is dead.
And at some point I won't be able to GET the parts for my old car either, so then it's done. The choices are being taken away from us every day.
However, I'd hate to go back to finding a payphone when my car stops.... nice to have that "new" cell phone handy...
It's just the times.
Marc
_________________
This space for rent.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | Yes, the bulb was actually redesigned and available before this generation was released. There were parts internal to the bulb that were failing prematurely - these were redesigned and replaced. All of the current generation use the new bulb vs the old one with the faulty parts.
However all the user-data I've seen suggests that the new bulb - with or without the fin - is behaving as it should, with normal low failure rates. |
Thanks! I must admit I haven't followed the bulb threads that closely... |
I haven't either. Which makes me want to defer to HogPilot. But it seems like I remember reading some comments relatively recently (last few weeks?), from new RS45 owners, who indicated they were experiencing continuing bulb problems, and claiming they weren't alone. Also, reports about how they had lost 50% of their brightness after 400-500 hours.
HogPilot, are these guys all wet, or is my recall just bad?
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | | kal wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | Yes, the bulb was actually redesigned and available before this generation was released. There were parts internal to the bulb that were failing prematurely - these were redesigned and replaced. All of the current generation use the new bulb vs the old one with the faulty parts.
However all the user-data I've seen suggests that the new bulb - with or without the fin - is behaving as it should, with normal low failure rates. |
Thanks! I must admit I haven't followed the bulb threads that closely... |
I haven't either. Which makes me want to defer to HogPilot. But it seems like I remember reading some comments relatively recently (last few weeks?), from new RS45 owners, who indicated they were experiencing continuing bulb problems, and claiming they weren't alone. Also, reports about how they had lost 50% of their brightness after 400-500 hours.
HogPilot, are these guys all wet, or is my recall just bad? |
Here's the thread on the subject over on AVS:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1376514/jvc-2011-2012-lamp-measurement-project/300
Two things: firstly, it doesn't seem that there's a significant incidence of bulb issues with the new bulbs thus far. Although some people have reported dimming, frankly the number of people reporting the problem isn't nearly enough data to provide a statistically significant conclusion. Secondly, keep in mind that because that thread is about bulb dimming, it's going to attract more people who think that they have bulb problems. However the real question is, what percentage of the total RS45/55/65 population do those people represent? I don't know the answer to that question.
The original primary issue was rapid bulb dimming within the first several hundred hours to unacceptable brightness levels (60-80% loss of brightness) and premature failure. Given the limited data in the thread above, it doesn't seem that either of those issues are still occurring with the new bulb. However it does also seem that JVC is being responsive and sending replacement bulbs to those who are having problems outside of the bulb warranty period, which is more than most projector manufacturers would do.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
So actually there is still no prove, or enough data to support that the new bulb is better.???
Just another angel on it.. 
When they made a sh*tty part, and never made a statement admitting it, or trying to compensate, those who got the bad bulb, or calling back or sending free replacement bulbs. why should they get the benefit of the doubt.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | So actually there is still no prove, or enough data to support that the new bulb is better.???
Just another angel on it.. |
Ha. The data in that thread, in conjunction with the reports in the user threads, would indicate that there's nothing wrong with the new bulbs outside of the normal failure rates that one sees in mass-produced consumer electronics. Not to mention that proving a negative is impossible, which is what you're asking.
AVS is a great place to get info, as long as you can filter out the noise. For a so-called "science forum," there's a significant number of people who post who aren't very scientific about things. And that's a nice way of putting it 
| stridsvognen wrote: | | When they made a sh*tty part, and never made a statement admitting it, or trying to compensate, those who got the bad bulb, or calling back or sending free replacement bulbs. why should they get the benefit of the doubt.? |
Believe me, I live by the phrase "trust but verify" - I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I had some healthy skepticism when JVC quietly informed certain people that they'd fixed the bulb problem last year. But we're also 8 months into the RS45/55/65 life cycle, with few reports of recurring bulb issues. Reports of potential bulb issues started surfacing only a couple months into the RS40/50/60's life cycle, and by this time last year were rampant and solidly confirmed. We've seen nothing of the sort this year.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | So actually there is still no prove, or enough data to support that the new bulb is better.???
Just another angel on it.. |
Ha. The data in that thread, in conjunction with the reports in the user threads, would indicate that there's nothing wrong with the new bulbs outside of the normal failure rates that one sees in mass-produced consumer electronics. Not to mention that proving a negative is impossible, which is what you're asking.
AVS is a great place to get info, as long as you can filter out the noise. For a so-called "science forum," there's a significant number of people who post who aren't very scientific about things. And that's a nice way of putting it |
I didn't read the thread, but is there a lot of users with 2000 hours + that still have plenty measured light output on the new bulb.?
Actually i think JVC never collected data on hours on the old failing bulb, they were just happy that most lasted 3 months.
Mine lasted 6 months/ 700 hours, with the last 100 hours under any useful light output.
Many users could have that lamps for years before it had 700 hours on it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | firstly, it doesn't seem that there's a significant incidence of bulb issues with the new bulbs thus far. Although some people have reported dimming, frankly the number of people reporting the problem isn't nearly enough data to provide a statistically significant conclusion. Secondly, keep in mind that because that thread is about bulb dimming, it's going to attract more people who think that they have bulb problems. |
Thanks, HogPilot. I did take a look at that thread, and would agree with your conclusions.
I think it's too early to be able to say whether or not most (or any) folks will get the rated # of hours out of the new bulbs, but that the really serious problems with the previous bulbs are no longer being reported.
In general, there seems to be a fairly rapid drop off to 80-85% of initial output within the first few hundred hours. Then things stabilize, and decay much more slowly. I'm no bulb expert, but this seems consistent with many of the bulb output characteristics I've read about in the past.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | So actually there is still no prove, or enough data to support that the new bulb is better.???
Just another angel on it.. |
Ha. The data in that thread, in conjunction with the reports in the user threads, would indicate that there's nothing wrong with the new bulbs outside of the normal failure rates that one sees in mass-produced consumer electronics. Not to mention that proving a negative is impossible, which is what you're asking.
AVS is a great place to get info, as long as you can filter out the noise. For a so-called "science forum," there's a significant number of people who post who aren't very scientific about things. And that's a nice way of putting it |
I didn't read the thread, but is there a lot of users with 2000 hours + that still have plenty measured light output on the new bulb.? |
I don't think there are many people who have reached that point with their bulbs on current-gen JVCs. That being said, the data that has been collected seems to be consistent with "standard" aging on UHP bulbs.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Actually i think JVC never collected data on hours on the old failing bulb, they were just happy that most lasted 3 months. |
I'd be surprised if they didn't collect data, if for no other purpose than to pass to their bulb supplier to help them fix the problem. I can guarantee that none of that data will ever be released to consumers for numerous reasons.
| stridsvognen wrote: | Mine lasted 6 months/ 700 hours, with the last 100 hours under any useful light output.
Many users could have that lamps for years before it had 700 hours on it. |
That's actually not too bad for those bulbs relatively speaking, but of course horrible for a bulb rated between 2K and 3K hours. The worst of them were dropping by 70-80% of original output within only a couple hundred hours of use, which is obviously unacceptable.
| VideoGrabber wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | firstly, it doesn't seem that there's a significant incidence of bulb issues with the new bulbs thus far. Although some people have reported dimming, frankly the number of people reporting the problem isn't nearly enough data to provide a statistically significant conclusion. Secondly, keep in mind that because that thread is about bulb dimming, it's going to attract more people who think that they have bulb problems. |
Thanks, HogPilot. I did take a look at that thread, and would agree with your conclusions.
I think it's too early to be able to say whether or not most (or any) folks will get the rated # of hours out of the new bulbs, but that the really serious problems with the previous bulbs are no longer being reported.
In general, there seems to be a fairly rapid drop off to 80-85% of initial output within the first few hundred hours. Then things stabilize, and decay much more slowly. I'm no bulb expert, but this seems consistent with many of the bulb output characteristics I've read about in the past. |
I'd agree, the biggest drop in output in UHP bulbs happens within the first 500 hours or so (on average). Usually by that point a bulb will drop to 60%-50% of its original output, and then only drop another 10% of output for the remainder of its life. It seems that the data collected thus far on the new JVC bulbs is consistent with that model, if not better.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just to confirm and add to what I think Hog already said, the bulbs and ballasts are not made by the projector manufacturers. They are made by separate companies and ordered by the manufacturers for their products. What this means is when there is a bulb or ballast problem the manufacturer has to act almost like a third party with the bulb/ballast supplier because they want data also before they will act. Unfortunately this slows the rectification process down greatly. And also puts the manufacturer in an awkward position because they have to rely on the bulb builder to fix the problem correctly, the first time. And that doesn't always happen. And the projector manufacturer gets the blame when it is of no fault of theirs.... So a bulb/ballast problem would not be a projectors manufacturers fault yet they suffer the consequences.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Just to confirm and add to what I think Hog already said, the bulbs and ballasts are not made by the projector manufacturers. They are made by separate companies and ordered by the manufacturers for their products. What this means is when there is a bulb or ballast problem the manufacturer has to act almost like a third party with the bulb/ballast supplier because they want data also before they will act. Unfortunately this slows the rectification process down greatly. And also puts the manufacturer in an awkward position because they have to rely on the bulb builder to fix the problem correctly, the first time. And that doesn't always happen. And the projector manufacturer gets the blame when it is of no fault of theirs.... So a bulb/ballast problem would not be a projectors manufacturers fault yet they suffer the consequences..... |
So you think we should just contact the bulb manufacture.? And pitty the projector manufacture. Coming from industrial production i also know how much pressure there is to the sub contractors to deliver as cheep as possible. and that tends to effect quality..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | Just to confirm and add to what I think Hog already said, the bulbs and ballasts are not made by the projector manufacturers. They are made by separate companies and ordered by the manufacturers for their products. What this means is when there is a bulb or ballast problem the manufacturer has to act almost like a third party with the bulb/ballast supplier because they want data also before they will act. Unfortunately this slows the rectification process down greatly. And also puts the manufacturer in an awkward position because they have to rely on the bulb builder to fix the problem correctly, the first time. And that doesn't always happen. And the projector manufacturer gets the blame when it is of no fault of theirs.... So a bulb/ballast problem would not be a projectors manufacturers fault yet they suffer the consequences..... |
So you think we should just contact the bulb manufacture.? And pitty the projector manufacture. Coming from industrial production i also know how much pressure there is to the sub contractors to deliver as cheep as possible. and that tends to effect quality.. |
Oh, I didn't say the projector manufacturer shouldn't be responsible to resolve the problem. It was to say that their workmanship could be fine but the bulb/ballast was not. So don't hold all the projector manufacturers products to a lower level because of an outside suppliers quality of a particular product.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | Just to confirm and add to what I think Hog already said, the bulbs and ballasts are not made by the projector manufacturers. They are made by separate companies and ordered by the manufacturers for their products. What this means is when there is a bulb or ballast problem the manufacturer has to act almost like a third party with the bulb/ballast supplier because they want data also before they will act. Unfortunately this slows the rectification process down greatly. And also puts the manufacturer in an awkward position because they have to rely on the bulb builder to fix the problem correctly, the first time. And that doesn't always happen. And the projector manufacturer gets the blame when it is of no fault of theirs.... So a bulb/ballast problem would not be a projectors manufacturers fault yet they suffer the consequences..... |
So you think we should just contact the bulb manufacture.? And pitty the projector manufacture. Coming from industrial production i also know how much pressure there is to the sub contractors to deliver as cheep as possible. and that tends to effect quality.. |
Oh, I didn't say the projector manufacturer shouldn't be responsible to resolve the problem. It was to say that their workmanship could be fine but the bulb/ballast was not. So don't hold all the projector manufacturers products to a lower level because of an outside suppliers quality of a particular product. |
Well if i was JVC i would be open about it.. admitting the problem.. winning the trust of customers, instead of showing the cold shoulder and hoping every one would forget.
I'm quite sure the CMS and bulb issue have put a lot of potential buyers to the new models on hold, or made them buy sony or other brands.
Ill compare it to how DVDO was handling the VP50pro thing..
And why would anyone think that behavior would change if there should be another problem in the future.?
But be sure its cold calculations, and ends with the nr on the bottom line.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WTS
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1276
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would have bought the JVC if it weren't for the problems with the previous years models, instead I went for the Sony.
_________________
Thanks
Walter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
digitalayon
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 921
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't understand why this has to be even argued about. 1st it is good for other CRTers because it leaves more room for higher end units and they become available. 2nd if you are wanting to save space and save on juice, great! Less trees to burn. 3rd if the digital is allowing you to spend more time with your wife and/or children since you are no longer fiddling with endless calibration, then that is understandable. I work in the IT field and people always ask me which is better...MAC or PC? iphone or Android? I tell them whatever they prefer in terms of what they are trying to accomplish. Some people do not even see pixels as others might do. Some see my projector and say it is sharp. I see theirs in return and I think theirs is sharper. Some people love 3-D....I hate it after the alien blue people movie. Some guys like the 1080p 24. Some hate it. CHevy or Ford....doesn't matter!!!! Some CRT's are getting harder to find and they have to be rebuilt. Curt fills that void for his customers and for guys that needs parts. I have a re-tubed VV1 that I plan on hanging sometime this summer. Am I thinking of going digital? Not in the least. But if it was worn out or wearing hard, then yeah I am not sure if I want to go through the effort to fin a nice one or have it re-tubed again. By then I am not sure I will be able to find tubes. Things change and we will all change along with things that come our way. 15 years ago if you were to tell me I would be using a projector that sold for 50 grand, I would have called you f*cking crazy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
