High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

Panasonic DLP or JVC Hd-Ila

03-12-2005, 03:18 PM
Wondering if anyone can help? I have managed to narrow my options to 2 TV's..... Panasonic's PT 50 (DLP) and the JVC HD-ILA (LCOS)? Can anyone help me? Anyone own one of these? Any problems? Fan noise on the panny? How are the blacks on the JVC... Any recommendations for a dvd to use for testing these sets?
Thanks!!! :confused:

03-12-2005, 06:25 PM
Hi Eagle 98,

I purchased a JVC HD-52Z575 a month ago and am extremely satisfied with it.

The fan is very quiet, I can hardly hear if after turning off the power and the fan is still turning to cool down the lamp. :D

Also the blacks are good too.

I mostly watch TV and have not checked out my DVD on it yet... :)

03-13-2005, 04:37 AM
DILA is not LCOS... completely different tech... each pixel area changes it's reflectivity by flexing a piece of metal ribbon.

03-13-2005, 03:28 PM
I would go with the Panasonic; I think there will be a natural technology shake-out, trending to fewer, not more types of technologies. LCD isn't going anywhere as long as Sony is behind it, and DLP is equally strong across multiple brands. IMO, JVC may have a hard time making a go with their technology choice in the long run. Plus, I have never had a good quality experience with any JVC product. I think they push the technology too fast. Their products over promise and under-deliver.

03-13-2005, 04:54 PM
After months of research, I decided on the JVC HD-ILA (HD-61Z575). It came in January and I can honestly say that I haven't had a moment's trouble with it so far. The HD picture is excellent -- better, in my view -- than anything else currently on the market. As for the blacks, I can't understand why some say they are problematic. They are, by far, the deepest, richest blacks I've seen on any set. And this includes the Sony XBR CRT it replaced.

03-13-2005, 05:57 PM
DILA is not LCOS... completely different tech... each pixel area changes it's reflectivity by flexing a piece of metal ribbon.
What do you make of the second paragraph on this link:


03-14-2005, 06:13 AM
fwiw, onecall's price on the d-ila is incredible right now

03-14-2005, 09:38 AM
DILA is not LCOS... completely different tech... each pixel area changes it's reflectivity by flexing a piece of metal ribbon.

Uhm...Yes it is.

In regards to the D-ILA...there are numerous posts on here about this TV. Just search for them. In a nut shell, I've noticed that the people who own them love them. The people who bash them are skeptical of JVC's quality as some of their products are repair prone. This one is a valid opinion. However, if you get the warranty then you won't have to worry about this. I'm not a warranty type of guy, but with TV's over about $2500 I'd get it. The warranty I went with was the $25 more than a replacement bulb, which it covers.

The bottom line...loook at the 2, side by side, and you'll know which one to get. The picture difference will be fairly obvious.

I saw a Panny DLP yesterday in fact. Not sure, though, if it was the same model as the one you're looking at. I wasn't all that impressed...it probably wasn't fair that it was sitting next to a bunch of Fujitsu plasmas. Not a good way to try to sell a DLP if you ask me. haha

Someone noted that JVC rushes their technologies too fast which lead to less than stellar results. This may be true with some of their products. However these D-ILA's have been in their high-end ($30,000) front projectors for about 4 years now. And have been very highly regarded.

PS-I'm not sure what the Canadian exchange rate is, but CC had this TV for $2499 last week. May be worth checking out if there is one in Canada.

03-14-2005, 04:43 PM
Hmmm... I stand corrected... guess I've confused it with another technology... anyone know what the tech was that changes the reflectivity of each pixel with flexing metal ribbon? Works kinda like a DLP, but alters its reflectivity differently...

03-15-2005, 07:24 AM
Here's a nice thumbnail history of old and new projection technology, including the Grating Light Valve (GLV). (http://www.proavmagazine.com/Current/2004/July/Currentproav/feature1.htm#top)

03-15-2005, 09:55 AM
These are better:



BTW, thanks for the reference---I hadn't heard of this promising new image system before.

03-15-2005, 12:49 PM
That's the one I was mis-remembering as D-ILA...

Note your first link talks about producing a 1080p monitor... but it's 7 years old!

The second is much newer & shows Sony liscensing the tech, so now it's got funding... I'll bet they had to work out lifetime issues before they got picked up to show the tech has 'legs'....

A Comment on the Meko homepage mentions a speech at last falls convention by Mr. Faroudja asking the Euro community to NOT standardize any interlaced formats... now THAT'S interesting!

I've been in the progressive camp all along, coming from the computer graphics world... figured if we're changing the standard in a major way then forget about compatibility with legacy standards. Don't hobble yourself with old chains. Clean break. PC compatible.

I've wondered if things might have progressed faster if we had adopted a single format, which would make all the equiptment simpler (and cheaper of course). Assuming all the transmission system limits were the same, it would have to be something that would fit within the 60 Mpixels/sec that the channel provides with MPEG2... one such format would be 1440 x 810 progressive at 48 frames per second (double refreshed to 96 Hz). This would essentially double the old SDTV resolution in the horizontal, vertical, and temporal axes, while gaining the advantages of progressive scan and widescreen at exactly double the framerate of film. And would still have the possiblity of decent 3D television with 24 fps per eye (double scanned), as 720p60 does now.

Whadda ya think? Is my hindsite 20/20?

03-15-2005, 02:20 PM
Hold on there Mr.Wizard, a lot of this stuff goes right over my head, and while I certainly know more than Joe 6-pack, I'm not going to pretend to understand it all. My learning curve has been very steep in the last few months.

That said, I have a couple of points/questions:
I can remember (15 yrs ago?) when computer monitors went "non-interlaced" and I wondered then why not regular TV? There must have been some good reason why the NTSC system scanned half frames 60 times/sec. Was it technically not possible then?

I wonder how much influence Mr. Faroudja has with the Europeans? More than our President, I assume.

Why 1440 X 810p? Why not 1920 X 1080p? It is my understanding that many HDTVs upconvert all signals to 1080p anyway.

I like your 48 frame/sec idea, thereby eliminating the need for the cumbersome 3:2 pulldown. But isn't our television frame rate based on our 60Hz power line frequency and if so, does another frame rate present a problem?

(My apologies to everyone here for going so far off-topic.)

03-15-2005, 03:29 PM
But Mr. Natural knows EVERYTHING! :p

PC monitors went non-interlaced when high speed digital circuits became available at low costs... it's all about fast scan rates & low cost... this started about 20 years ago... but to show a progressive video signal, you need to capture as well as display progressive. This took a couple more years before we had 480p cameras... and the start of digital video processing of semi-pro quality. Interlacing is a trick used to keep the screen brightness averaged while using slow clocks. Early phosphors faded too fast & left the area behind the raster much brighter than the area in front. Today we use even faster dimming phosphors, but scan MUCH faster.

I think even a truck driver from NJ would be better accepted than our current President... at least the stranger hasn't talked down to them while knifing them in the back yet. Mr. Faroudja is the inventor of many techniques for deinterlacing & founder of the company now owned by Genesis. He should get together with Joe Kane, another big expert & progressive scan proponent.

The reason we can't have 1080p48 is the channel isn't big enough... that would take about twice what the broadcast channel can carry... that is why 1920 x 1080 is only 30 frames per second, while 1280 x 720 is 60 frames per second. The channel delivers about 60 Mpixels/sec, which can be doled out at 30 x 2 Mpixel frames or 60 x 1 Mpixel frames, per second. The compromise resolution I invented is intermediate between these two formats, and has advantages of both, and will still fit within the 60 Mpixel/sec bandwidth... higher spatial res than 720p & higher temporal res than 1080i. Our refresh was linked to the electric mains frequency because it was a cheap way to get a stable frequency using analog... but since we've gone digital, we can synthesize just about any clock frequency you like... look at all the different frequencies used inside a PC, all generated from a couple of clock chips.

03-16-2005, 07:07 AM
Gotcha--I'm beginning to see the light. One more thing:

I know 'temporal' has to do with time in this context, but would you be kind enough to define "temporal resolution" for me? Thanks

03-16-2005, 04:53 PM
Temporal resolution is frames per second. With 720p we resolve time into 60 slices per second.

03-17-2005, 08:01 PM
I am so excited...I get my Panasonic 50in DLP tomorrow!!!!!

03-18-2005, 12:02 AM
Make sure to feed it with high quality HDTV signals! Have fun!