Mitsubishi's $6,999 65-inch LaserVue HDTV now hitting retailers

Just in time for your holiday wish list, Mitsubishi has announced that its stunning 65-inch LaserVue HDTV is now on sale at select specialty retailers nationwide. From what we've personally seen and from what we've gathered from those lucky enough to critique it in detail, this here set is a real winner. Of course, coming up with the $6,999 in order to bring one home is another matter entirely, but those who feel like stimulating the economy and their retinas can absolutely do so starting today.

[StalematE @ Oct 28th 2008 12:49PM]

frickin lazer beams

[Knives_Out @ Oct 28th 2008 1:29PM]

Lasers rule.

[Kali4 @ Oct 28th 2008 12:50PM]

Crap,mydroolruinedmyspacebar!

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 28th 2008 2:00PM]

Is this a meme I missed, or did you just invent it? Either way, A+++, would laugh again.

[Samboini @ Oct 28th 2008 2:18PM]

If looks could kill this would be shacked up on death row.

[Erb @ Oct 28th 2008 12:54PM]

"but those who feel like stimulating the economy"

Like sending it to a foreign company helps out economy :)

[Lowest Ranked @ Oct 28th 2008 1:09PM]

But, the taxes and retailers fees help ours.

[Ellianth @ Oct 28th 2008 1:13PM]

Did the article say the US economy?

[CraigJ @ Oct 28th 2008 1:35PM]

first, not all of it is going to a foreign country.

$6,995 is retail, so the store selling it keeps the difference. people work in stores and need to get paid, the guys that drive the delivery trucks that takes them from the port to the warehouse, and from the warehouse to the store needs to get paid, and most importantly, I need a 65" TV powered by lasers.

Honestly, if I'm sending money to a foreign country, I'd rather send it to Japan than say China, or Saudi Arabia...

[Boarderwoot @ Oct 28th 2008 12:55PM]

That's $107.69 per inch! I should start charging that kind of money....hmm, even at only 1.5 inches, i'd still be making more than that guy on the other corner.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 12:57PM]

"That's $107.69 per inch! I should start charging that kind of money....hmm, even at only 1.5 inches, i'd still be making more than that guy on the other corner."

that's lovely. but who's your pimp and how does he market you at only 1.5 inches?

[Boarderwoot @ Oct 28th 2008 1:06PM]

The women of Cupertino, they're perfectly happy associating themselves with mediocrity. You should know this already phanbouy.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 1:09PM]

Touché

[CraigJ @ Oct 28th 2008 1:37PM]

Actually I have personal knowledge that it is the women of Redmond that are perfectly happy associating themselves with mediocrity, and dudes that wear white socks with sandals.

[Patriks7 @ Oct 28th 2008 1:45PM]

Sure they wear white socks with sandals.. but they don't wear a black turtleneck shirt with jeans every time they are seen :p

[Chuckles McGee @ Oct 28th 2008 3:37PM]

I just feel really awful for that other guy on the corner.

[Alex @ Oct 29th 2008 12:22AM]

There are women in cupertino??????

[Mile @ Oct 28th 2008 12:56PM]

Still not as good as a 65 inch CRT would be. Lighter though. I'll give you that.

[Johan S @ Oct 28th 2008 1:07PM]

Since I don't arbitrarily low rank people, I'm going to ask you .. not good as a CRT based on what? Not color gamut, cause (supposedly) this display can do better color reproduction than CRT.

[james @ Oct 28th 2008 1:06PM]

Dude, you're still hanging on to your CRT? Who cares if the quality is better, thin is in! I'm kidding. You can have my CRT when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Or when I have to move, then I'll sell it to you for a steal.

[Ignatius @ Oct 28th 2008 1:56PM]

Can you even imagine the weight of a 65" CRT?

I had to heft a 40" Sony CRT the other day. It was almost 300 pounds. The weight would probably only go up exponentially.

[konshuss @ Oct 28th 2008 3:15PM]

years ago i had to carry a 31" crt by myself and today i have a floating rib as a result. not cool.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Oct 29th 2008 12:04AM]

@all

I think he means a 65" Rear Projection CRT. Back in the days, Pionner Elite Rear Projection 65" CRT's ruled the roost, besting Sony's XBR line in geometry, sharpness, colour, etc. Being Rear Projection, they weren't as heavy as you'd believe.

And I do agree, CRT's still have advantages that modern Panel TVs cannot match; especially considering that CRT's like my XBR960 don't need a scaler to watch SD or 720p content on a 1080 display. CRT's also have a near infinite colour gamut that is more lifelike than just about anything on the market today, except MAYBE this newfangled laservue TV thing; but we'll see...

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Oct 29th 2008 12:05AM]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1068073

[slarity @ Oct 28th 2008 12:58PM]

@Boarder
ROFL, love reading comments like that

@Mile
Dude, you would need a forklift to lift a 65" CRT

[Dave @ Oct 28th 2008 12:58PM]

DO WANT!

[superfresh @ Oct 28th 2008 1:29PM]

Too much TV for me. I would pay the proportionate cost for a smaller set, though.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 1:31PM]

ditto on that, when you're living in a glorified shoebox of a studio apartment in the city, even a 24" monitor will do the trick if sitting within 7 feet of the sucker

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 1:13PM]

hmmm 7 G's on a tv. my question is, with that kinda money, why would you bother getting to the story when you're so busy being fanned by palm fronds from half naked Hawaiin chicks?

[MadMike @ Oct 28th 2008 1:46PM]

Yeah $7,000 on a puny 65" is so last year. Pioneer Kuro 1080p 60" Plasma PDP-6010FD is $3,100 at Costco.

By Black Friday, that TV will be $2,500.

[bob sakamano @ Oct 28th 2008 1:51PM]

you could have gotten like 8, 42 inchers on woot yesterday... much cooler setup!

[Pretend Geek @ Oct 28th 2008 2:06PM]

But I need 9 to make my 126" tv wall.

[Unbiased @ Oct 28th 2008 7:09PM]

Each and every one of your comments wreak of someone who's trying too hard.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 7:42PM]

better than yours which REAK of failure.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 7:43PM]

oh, lookie! you're my stalker troll #23 -- isn't it depressing that half your posting history is dedicated towards defaming me?

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 7:48PM]

oh, one more tip for ya: http://www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/arguing_over_internet.jpg

[Unbiased @ Oct 28th 2008 9:12PM]

Sorry, sir, it's spelled wreak.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 11:00PM]

"reak of" is the usage, you fucking useless retard.

[jrgrade @ Oct 28th 2008 1:19PM]

Got one ordered at ABT and one at Crutchfield. Hope one of those is the "select" dealer.

[boe @ Oct 28th 2008 1:36PM]

I'm all for new technology!

Still - my old RPTV 65" probably would look better than this new unit.

Mits made great looking picture RPTV's only problem is for years they knowingly supplied them with defective daugterboards and never supplied free replacements or fixes. I had to take my whole TV apart just to get to the board and then replace 4 capacitors to fix the power issue. Would have cost me $500 to have a professional technician do it. Not interested in any more mits products as a result since who knows if this new mits has poor quality control on the internal parts as well and if you're going to have to pay $500 or more just to have it working in a couple of years.

And what the heck is it with 65" being the drop point? I bought my 65" 5 years ago and even then they had a 73" model. Why aren't we see a flood of better than CRT 80" and 85" consumer price point displays at this point?

[CraigJ @ Oct 28th 2008 1:40PM]

my old RPTV 65" probably would look better than this new unit.

I have a 10 year old Mits 60", and while it's been a great TV, there is no way the picture on it is as good as these.

[ChimericDream @ Oct 28th 2008 1:45PM]

It's not really a question of 65" being the cut-off point for consumer pricing. The majority of typical consumers just don't have the *space* for anything bigger than 65". Hell, for that matter, a large chunk of consumers probably don't have the space to warrant anything bigger than ~42".

[DLP!!!!!!!! @ Oct 28th 2008 1:49PM]

Or you could buy a top of the line 67" samsung LED DLP for under 2k$.....

This TV is not worth the extra 4500$.....

[Big Wizz @ Oct 28th 2008 1:57PM]

Thank you!

My Sammy 61" LED DLP works just fine.

[Silicon Siren @ Oct 28th 2008 2:18PM]

DLPTV's are awful, just buy the damn DLP projector and project it any size you want, better picture anyway.

[Tony Blunt @ Oct 28th 2008 3:21PM]

At the end of the day this is still a rear-projection DLP TV, with the associated rainbow effect and headache-causing for some (migraine-susceptible) people. Not competition for a good plasma set, especially at that price!

[siva @ Nov 7th 2008 6:01PM]

Hello!! It does not cause rainbow effects. There is no color wheel. Also, it has a wider color gamut than even CRT. Forget about the DLP! This has more color gamut than Plasma and definitely LCD.

[jrgrade @ Oct 28th 2008 3:22PM]

For a TV that has had mostly amazing reviews and has not been shipped, you poeple are very vocal about how it's not "worth it" What is the basis for being "not worth it" based on the reviews, including the one here. Yes it's still DLP but the switching of the laser is much faster, virtually eliminating the rainbow effect, plus it is running at 120HZ.

By the way, a "good plasma" that can display 1080p at least 65" would cost roughly the same if not more. Sony took the plasma "hint". I think others will follow.

[james @ Oct 28th 2008 4:08PM]

The rainbow effect is caused by the sequential color system lamp based DLP TVs use. LED and laser based TVs have individual sources of red, green, and blue light, so no spinning color wheel and no rainbow effect.

[jrgrade @ Oct 28th 2008 4:56PM]

Correct you are; I forgot about that. No rainbow. Can't wait to see it in my room with a BD, lets say Ironman!