Macworld Forums: Mitsubishi EX240U projector produces great pictures - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Mitsubishi EX240U projector produces great pictures here

Wow...way to have a projector review without even stating the basics. Is this a widescreen projector? What's its native resolution?

For the curious: It's a 1024x768 projector. The "Specs" tabs is wrong, 1600x1200 is its "max" resolution, which it achieves by throwing away as much information as it needs to in order to fit a 1600x1200 image into 1024x768 physical pixels. Why would anyone buy a 4:3 projector in 2011, when pretty much every laptop is widescreen, and certainly 99% of all video content is widescreen? Makes no sense.

Macworld, on 15 September 2011 - 03:31 AM, said:

Inaccurate review, as Josh commented as well.

It should be elementary to get the specs for the right unit. You describe this as if it were a 1080i/p HD projector but it is limited to 720p!

Your specs:

Display
Brightness 2500 lumens
Broadcast Format Displayed 1080i (HDTV)
Broadcast Format Supported

* 1080i
* 1080p
* 720p

Contrast Ratio 2000:1
Display Type DLP
Max Diagonal Image Size 300
Max Projection Distance 34.45 ft feet
Min Projection Distance 59 feet
Native Aspect Ratio 4:3
Native Resolution 1600 x 1200
NTSC Yes



Mitsubishi specs:
Display

* Imaging Technology:
* DLP 0.55"
* Brightness/Lumens:
* 2500 ANSI Lumens
* Native Resolution:
* 1024 x 768
* Maximum Resolution:
* 1600 x 1200
* Viewable Size:
* 40"- 300"
* Contrast Ratio:
* 2000:1 (On/Off)
* Color Wheel:
* 6-Segment (R,G,B,W,Y,C) (On/Off)

I'm not sure how the native resolution is 1024x768 and they magically are able to bump that up to 1600x1200 (you can't split LCD pixels) ... but then maybe that should have been part of the review, with a few extra comments and photos.

icerabbit, on 16 September 2011 - 03:59 AM, said:

It actually can't even do true 720p -- 720p is defined as 1280x720, and this projector only has 1024 horizontal pixels. So it fakes 1280x720 the same way that it fakes 1600x1200 -- by discarding as much information as it needs to in order to make it look like it's displaying the higher resolution. No matter what, though, it's never going to be able to display more than 1024 columns and/or 768 rows of pixels.

I think a review is pathetic when the comments provide more useful information that the article itself. This is the second review I've read from Ben Harvell, and both are lacking. Is the reviewer working under a word limit imposed by editors? why bother...