Cost of Sony 55A2000 bulb

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by Get_Real, May 3, 2007.

  1. Get_Real

    Get_Real
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +3
    My dad has asked me to look into getting him a large tv, as his room is about 20 foot sqaure I though a 55A2000 would be ideal. He sits about 15 foot from the screen.

    I just have a couple of concerns about the bulb when it requires to be replaced. I did a search and the cheapest I could find was nearly £500, also what life span can you expect from a bulb.

    Cheers
     
  2. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    That TV is much too small for a 15-foot viewing distance. It's just about okay for standard-definition at that range (barely) but for 1080i hi-def at that distance you should be thinking in terms of a 115" screen and a front-projection system.

    The lamp lifespan is ~8000 hours. If you watch 4 hours a day then one lamp will last you about five and a half years.

    I think you can get replacement lamps for £200-£250 if you shop around a bit.
     
  3. Get_Real

    Get_Real
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +3
    Not wanting to go down the front projection route, as I feel 55" is a good size and the tv can be bought for about £1100 at the moment, which I think is a great price for such a big tv.

    That seems a good price for the bulb, especally if you get 5 years usuage out of it. Where do you get bulbs for that price though, as that is half the price I can find.
     
  4. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    At a distance of 15 feet on a 55" screen a person with normal eyesight will be unable to detect any difference at all between 1080i high definition and standard-definition. It's a fundamental limit of human vision.

    Why buy an HDTV if there is no benefit from doing so?

    You might find this thread instructive: http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312431

    Try this place for starters:

    http://www.cesky-spolek.com/DLP/Lampe-Ampoule-Thomson-Sagem-DLP.php

    Cost is about £250 there. According to Mr hanker100 in this post:

    http://www.avforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4708630&postcount=34

    you may get a better deal on ebay.com.
     
  5. Get_Real

    Get_Real
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +3
    Cheers, that seems a really good price

    you say 1080i, Sony say this TV does 1080p
     
  6. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    Indeed it does, but you probably won't find many 1080p high-definition broadcasts. :)

    It doesn't make much odds as far as what I was talking about, anyway: 1080i and 1080p are both 1920x1080 resolution. The point is that on a 55" screen at 15 feet there is no visible difference between 1920x1080 and 720x576.
     
  7. mart.stokes

    mart.stokes
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Nicholas, I read the first part of your original thread on this and have to agree with your theory, it seems fully grounded in established fact and makes complete sense.

    The problem I have is that it does not seem to hold true if you include the Sky factor.

    I did a quick test (and I may not have the details exactly correct here, it was late last night). Getting the box to downscale a 1080i transmission to about SD and then watching it on my telly (so it upscales to 1080), then what you say seems to be completely supported for the distances quoted when comparing a HD feed to a downscaled (and then upscaled) HD feed. Okay, I am forgiving the system the odd quirk because I am forcing the situation.

    However, comparing a Sky SD source to the equivalent HD source then I can tell a difference at distances greater than those quoted. Obviously, I cannot say anything about resolution, that's proven, it's just not as good a picture and you can see a difference. More "details" are available (not resolution), more can be seen in shadows, you can differentiate between, say, plants in a flower garder (greens are different, not just "one green fits all foliage").

    Any ideas?
     
  8. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,686
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    137
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +1,068
    The difference in quality there is related to the signal rather than to the screen it is being viewed on. In particular, it's related to the bit-rate - the extent to which the original (theoretically perfect) picture has been compressed with consequent loss of infomation.

    Imagine taking an old-fashioned SD CRT TV with an RGB SCART socket and connecting that to the RGB SCART output of a Sky HD box. Now imagine switching between Lost on Sky One (channel 106) and the same episode of Lost on Sky One HD (channel 197). You might well find that channel 197 looks better.

    Clearly you aren't watching a hi-def picture at any time: the box is producing SD output and it's being shown on an SD television. But some SD pictures are better than others: a particularly good DVD will look much better something broadcast on LivingTV. Downscaled high-definition can produce quite high quality SD compared with the average crappy Sky broadcast.

    Much the same applies to watching hi-def (or not) on a screen a long way away. Effectively your eyes are downscaling the hi-def image to SD resolution. But, because the original HD signal is less compressed than the SD one, the SD signal loses even more detail than your eyes do. At the sort of screen-sizes and distances we're talkiing about here, you probably wouldn't see a difference between HD and a good DVD transfer. You probably would see a difference between a good DVD transfer and a bad Sky broadcast.

    There's a possible additional factor in that the TV in question may do a particularly bad job of processing and upscaling SD, but not mess up HD quite so badly.

    So, this isn't quite the same issue as I was discussing higher up the thread. You could perhaps use this effect as an argument to justify buying a Sky HD box and subscribing to Sky's HD service, even if you don't own an HD-capable television. But it doesn't really justify buying a very small HD screen. You should simply be fussier about your SD sources. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...