Geoffrey Morrison

Per screen inch, this is the most expensive TV we've reviewed in years. The early 50-inch plasmas were certainly more expensive (and obviously smaller), but, in the era of higher yields and vicious competition, it's rare to see any company come out with a model that unabashedly eschews the price wars. An obvious comparison would be one of a Ferrari, and Sharp would indeed love that comparison. For the extra money, does this 57-inch offer greater performance compared with the Camrys of the LCD world? The better question would be, does it offer enough better performance to justify its substantial premium?

Bulbs are so 20th century. You can gussy them up, charge a bunch of money for them, even call them fancy names (lamps), but the fact of the matter is, they're still basically light bulbs. Almost all new RPTVs and front projectors use UHP (ultrahigh pressure) lamps to create light. These lamps are fairly efficient for the light they put out but are very hot, costly, and don't last very long. One new technology that's aiming to replace the UHP monopoly is LED, or light-emitting diode.

There are a number of reasons why front projection doesn't have the same popularity as other display methods. The biggest factor is integrating the screen and projector into an environment that has to be lived in. Sure, some of us (like me) have no problem blocking out all light in our living rooms so we can watch our projector during the day. I also don't have kids that could muck up the screen. If either of these issues has prevented you from going front projection, check out these screens.