Mitsubishi WD-92840 DLP 3D RPTV

By Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Mar 10, 2011

As I've said all along, you need a really big screen to get the most out of 3D video, and that usually means a front projector, which, in turn, means big bucks. But Mitsubishi will soon offer a more affordable alternative—the WD-92840, a DLP-based rear-projection 3D TV with a ginormous 92-inch screen for much less than most 3D front projectors and separate screens.

Mitsubishi knows a thing or two about 3D—it's been making 3D-capable RPTVs for years using a different approach than most such displays. The pixels are separated in a checkerboard pattern, with one set forming the left image and the other set forming the right image as depicted above. This provides half resolution for each eye, but in demos I've seen, the picture didn't look particularly soft.

Since Mitsubishi 3D RPTVs became available long before 3D Blu-ray or broadcast programs, the company developed an adaptor that allows them to accept the newer 3D signals. However, the WD-92840 does not require this adaptor, and several 2010 models can be upgraded so they don't need it either. In addition, this model includes a built-in IR emitter for active-shutter glasses, which are sold separately—that's right, none are supplied with the TV. (Interestingly, Mitsubishi uses the same IR sync signal as Samsung, so Sammy glasses can be used with Mits TVs.)

Other features include Mitsubishi's Immersive Sound Technology soundbar, formerly available only on the company's Unisen LCD TVs, as well as access to Internet and USB content, Bluetooth streaming audio, center-channel input, surround-channel pre-outs, and subwoofer output. It also offers advanced calibration controls and ISF Night and Day modes, which lock the calibration for dark and bright viewing environments.

And the cost? Less than $6000. How much less? That has yet to be determined, but if I had to guess, I'd say the final price will be right around $5999.99. Still, that's a lot less than most 3D front projectors and a good screen. Of course, the WD-92840 takes up more floor space, but if you want a 92-inch 3D display without breaking the bank, this will be the only game in town when it starts shipping this summer.

Comments

Submitted by Hunkydad on March 12, 2011 - 12:34am.

Now if this set had a Laservue engine driving it, I would buy it in a heart beat, there are 2 companies manufacturing laser engines for projectors, both claim in excess of 75,000 hours before replacement, if the Mit. unit is equal, it's a steal

Submitted by javanp on March 11, 2011 - 9:59am.

... I keep using their names interchangeably lately. Whoops! Yeah, there's definitely a niche for this type of TV, and it's certainly cheaper than an equivalently sized flat-panel.

Submitted by javanp on March 10, 2011 - 4:55pm.

considering Runco's cheapest 3d projector has an MSRP of $4,500. Of course, a 90-something inch tv sure requires a lot more material than a dinky projector. But still... thought it'd be cheaper.

Submitted by Scott Wilkinson on March 10, 2011 - 5:20pm.

Actually, you mean that JVC's cheapest 3D projector is $4500, though your point is well taken. But of course, you also have to consider the cost of the screen, which is probably over $2000, at least for a fixed Stewart of comparable size. I was thinking of this projector when I said that the Mits is much less than most 3D front projectors with screens.

Another factor is that a front projector should be viewed in a highly light-controlled room, whereas a DLP RPTV can easily stand up to a fair amount of room light, which could well be worth something to some folks.

Submitted by Jarod on March 14, 2011 - 7:31pm.

Thank you Scott. I was just curious to how it would look compared to a plasma screen. I don't plan on gettin one though. Those dang bulbs are a pain and I'm a plasma guy thru and thru. Altough 3D on a set as big as the Mits would be very enjoyable thats for sure.

Submitted by Jarod on March 12, 2011 - 11:42am.

Scott, how would a set like this look with 2D 1080p material like a Bluray compared to, say a new 60 in plasma from Panasonic or the like? Other than size of course. Would detail be the same?

Submitted by Scott Wilkinson on March 12, 2011 - 1:09pm.

In 2D, all the pixels are used for the image, so it's full 1920x1080. Thus, there should be no difference in detail from any other 1080p 2D display. Of course, the larger image would reveal any flaws more than a 60-incher, and there's the lamp-life issue and greater bulk of a rear-pro. Be sure to determine your ideal screen size based on your seating distance; here's a good calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html