Did this coupon
work for you?
work for you?
Sorry, this deal has expired.
Get notified of deals like this in the future.
Add Deal Alert for this Item
Frontpage
120" Hisense 120L5F 4K UHD HDR Ultra-Short Throw Laser TV w/ 120" ALR Screen Expired
$2999
$6,799.99
+ 2.5% SD Cashback (PC Req'd) + Free S/H & More
BuyDig has select Hisense L5F Laser TV Projectors on sale below when you apply coupon code LYP28 in your cart. Slickdeals Cashback is available for this store (PC extension required, before checkout). Shipping is free.
Thanks to Deal Editor iconian for posting this deal.
Deal Instructions:
Thanks to Deal Editor iconian for posting this deal.
Deal Instructions:
- Choose from the available options:
- Add to your cart
- In your cart apply promo code LYP28
- Your total will be $2,399 for the 100" or $2,999 for the 120" with free shipping.
- Screen Size: 100" or 120"
- X-Fusion Laser Light Source
- 2,700 ANSI Lumens
- 60Hz Refresh Rate
- 4K UHD HDR Picture Quality
- HDR 10 Compatible
- DLP Display Technology
- Brightness: 2,700 ANSI Lumens
- Resolution: 3840x2160
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9 (4K HD)
- Color Processing: 10-bit
- 802.11ac (2x2) Wi-Fi + Bluetooth
- 4x HDMI
- 2x USB
- 1x Ethernet
- 1x Digital Audio Out
Original Post
Written by
Edited May 1, 2021
at 08:57 AM
- 120" Hisense 120L5F 4K UHD HDR Ultra-Short Throw LASER TV w/ 120" ALR Screen [buydig.com] $2,999 using coupon LYP28
This is the 120" version which includes the 120" ALR Screen where the next lowest price from an authorized dealer is $4,999
also available,
- 100" Hisense L5 Series 4K Android Smart HDR Projector Laser TV [buydig.com] $2,399 using coupon LYP28
- This one includes the 100" ALR Screen
in
4K TVs
(8)
Get BuyDig Coupons
If you purchase something through a post on our site, Slickdeals may get a small share of the sale.
87 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
http://www.displaywars
Visual Comparison for everybody.
Here is an overview of my "research" into these. These have been on my radar since a bit before vava came out with their first model.
-From 80" to 120" is like going from a claymore sword to the Buster sword.
The screen size goes from unwieldy to comical.
-Id bet most of the issues in regards to the screen assembly are because people have a clear wall but dont have enough space or room to assemble or move a screen this size.
-Also the size likely means it's a multi person project because it involves keeping tension between the material and the frame.
-This particular alr material is expensive because it's cutting edge stuff and AFAIK used specifically for this. Unless im completely mistaken $600 of standard throw pj ALR is not comparable to $600 of this UST ALR material.
-The angles involved are different for a ust because the light comes from a different direction. A UST projects a laser based trapezoid image upward at an acute angle and processes it until it unfolds and resolves into a rectangular 4k image. The "unfolding" takes time which leads to *higher input lag;(*edit, accidentally wrote *lower input lag) A standard projector "just" magnifies an image which is faster, despite using zillions of mirrors to do it.
The geometry and angles involved in ust projecting and reflecting light makes these screens look like they are TVs....hence the name laserTV.
From what i understand, A normal standard throw ALR screen is supposed to look good but still not as good as a UST ALR screen. Less loss of light due to distance and high quality of laser light source means these can make the image "pop"
They are probably great for movies, but less so for games.
The input lag for most USTs is over 80ms due to all the processing involved with taking an image source about as wide as you hand unfold into a 100" image from a few inches away.
For gaming, 80ms may be tolerable but it will definitely be less fun. Bad input lag on a pj feels like bad cloud gaming.
As of Nov last year i couldn't find many examples of USTs online that reliably tested below 50ms for input lag. And those that did had been screwed with via firmware and jailbreaking etc. So not out of the box and not easy.
Despite really wanting one of these, for my use case of 80% games these still aren't "good" enough lol
I opted for (found a 1 off slickdeal) an optoma uhd50x. Benq and epson were more than i wanted to pay for my use case lol
The input lag with the uhd50x @4k60hdr is 25ms. I believe it goes down to 16.4ms @1080p240.
Without gaming mode turned on i think the input lag is over 60ms but less than 100ms. So right in the 80ms range of the USTs and for me that wasn't good enough.
Games ARE 100% still playable but darksouls style games are even more punishing because the fine tuned precision needed to survive just isn't there.
With a game like borderlands 3 with gaming mode on it's playable and it feels normal. With it turned off it feels like I'm playing on a laggy server. It's still doable but it's just not nearly as enjoyable.
Also in terms of lag and the scale of the screen, I feel like worse lag is directly magnified because you can now see everything and it's just NOT responding when you want.
Tldr
do your research about assembling the screen.
Make sure this fits your usage. Gaming vs movies
It's probably phenomenal for movies, but less so for gaming.
This is still cutting edge, if not bleeding edge tech. It's probably gonna have kinks for a few more years. It's not right for me now because of lag, but in the near future it will be and I will buy one.
Gaming and movies on an ultra large screen at home are an amazing experience, even if it's not with a UST ALR combo
It's 36% actually by total surface Space fyi. [(n1-n2)/((n1+n2)/# of n's) Also total surface space is not the most important or useful factor. Lastly $600 is a 25% price increase (600/2400) for 36% extra screen surface area. While a deal, it's not exactly screaming.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
In terms of depth, I think the back end of the projector needs to be a little over 11 inches from wall, so for a stand, you need 11" plus the depth of the projector. I have a relatively narrow TV stand so I have about a 6" gap from the wall for the stand.
Performance wise I'm very happy. The screen does great in a well lighted room during the day. It is amazing for movies and for simple games for my kids, like Minecraft. Don't think you'll beat this price performance combination with a screen included.
Do you know if the what the 120 soft vs 100 hard screen difference is? Is the 120 a flexible material? Also is the actual projector the same in this deal? The 120 is just a larger screen with this projector pulled further back to get a larger image? Also is what is the depth on the projector itself? I looked at the dimensions is it 16.4 in?
Thanks.
No, it's 44%
For 16:9
100" diagonal = 87.2" width by 49.0" height = 4273 sq in
120" = 104.6 by 58.8= 6150.5 sq in
6150.5/4273 = 1.44
Hence, 120" TV is 44% larger (area) than a 100" TV
Username checks out
That's what she said...
For 16:9
100" diagonal = 87.2" width by 49.0" height = 4273 sq in
120" = 104.6 by 58.8= 6150.5 sq in
6150.5/4273 = 1.44
Hence, 120" TV is 44% larger (area) than a 100" TV
See my follow up, that equation is wrong. To find the percentage difference is is (n1-n2)/((n1+n2)/2). It's a 36% difference
So if/when the bulb burns out is it replaceable like in 1st gen TVs? I remember those bulbs at first costing $500 if not more. What about the bulb in this projector?
For 16:9
100" diagonal = 87.2" width by 49.0" height = 4273 sq in
120" = 104.6 by 58.8= 6150.5 sq in
6150.5/4273 = 1.44
Hence, 120" TV is 44% larger (area) than a 100" TV
As a follow on that 44% is the difference in screen size compared to the size of that screen. Not the percentage difference between the 2 screens. The percentage is relavent to the total size of each object, it's why we have to add the average using n1+n2/(number of numbers, here it's 2). This makes the screens sizes relavent to each other and we can now determine the total difference. Makes sense?
https://www.mathsisfun.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I was considering the percentage change (from 100" to 120"), not percentage difference, in which case there was nothing wrong with my equation. But yes, if someone wanted to look at percentage difference, your equation is correct.
The conversation was on whether the increase (change) in price of $600 was worth the increase (change) in size, so I'd consider percentage change to be appropriate, especially when it's described like "X is bigger/smaller than Y". Percentage difference is appropriate when saying "X and Y are #% different"
((100-60)/(60))*100=66.6%
Or for 25% more
((120-60)/(60))*100=100%
So now when compared this way it's a killer deal. It's less killer the closer your tv is in size to 120in.
This is why reference matters.
The conversation was on whether the increase (change) in price of $600 was worth the increase (change) in size, so I'd consider percentage change to be appropriate, especially when it's described like "X is bigger/smaller than Y". Percentage difference is appropriate when saying "X and Y are #% different"
But you have to define your reference point. Are you comparing from larger to smaller so
((120-100)/120)*100
Or from the smaller to bigger
((120-100)/100))*100
They produce different answers because you haven't stated a reference. The only way to compare 2 objects without one object being a reference point is to average them. Otherwise you MUST state your reference point. That is up to personal opinion. If I was buying the smaller one I'd compare the difference vs the bigger one, using the small one as my comparison point, that's the (120-100)/100)*100 equation that produces a 25% cost for 31% screen. If you were buying the bigger one and wanted to see price reduction vs screen loss you'd do the ((120-100)/120)*100 equation resulting in a 20% price decrease for a 44% screen loss. Do you see what I'm saying yet?
This is, again, why it's important to compare them to YOUR OWN TV.
((120-100)/120)*100
Or from the smaller to bigger
((120-100)/100))*100
They produce different answers because you haven't stated a reference. The only way to compare 2 objects without one object being a reference point is to average them. Otherwise you MUST state your reference point. That is up to personal opinion. If I was buying the smaller one I'd compare the difference vs the bigger one, using the small one as my comparison point, that's the (120-100)/100)*100 equation that produces a 25% cost for 31% screen. If you were buying the bigger one and wanted to see price reduction vs screen loss you'd do the ((120-100)/120)*100 equation resulting in a 20% price decrease for a 44% screen loss. Do you see what I'm saying yet?
This is, again, why it's important to compare them to YOUR OWN TV.
I said "120" X% bigger than 100" ". That means that 100" is the reference point.
But what I'm saying is that's not a fair comparison for every consumer. You are assuming they want the 120" and are willing to pay that price. Perhaps the 100" is actually more suitable for their needs and they want to know what the difference is vs the bigger screen.
While your position is 120 is x bigger than 100 is correct and I'll give you that. It's absolutely useless for an objective opinion. If you want a deal you have to consider the difference between the 2 deals objectively. Or you have to come from a reference in your personal life. Your own TV size, space requirements, etc.
You're incorrect in objectively comparing the 2 sizes of the screens or the deal of each. That is my point. You are wrong because you are not objective. that is why you should correct your sizing so people can make an objective opinion, not a marketing/sales style opinion
While your position is 120 is x bigger than 100 is correct and I'll give you that. It's absolutely useless for an objective opinion. If you want a deal you have to consider the difference between the 2 deals objectively. Or you have to come from a reference in your personal life. Your own TV size, space requirements, etc.
You're incorrect in objectively comparing the 2 sizes of the screens or the deal of each. That is my point. You are wrong because you are not objective. that is why you should correct your sizing so people can make an objective opinion, not a marketing/sales style opinion
Objectively, the change *from* 100" TV *to* 120" TV is 44%. That's how precentage change works. And the way to say that is "A 120" TV is 44% larger (in area) than a 100" TV".
You're saying it's wrong, but you're really just claiming that "percentage difference" is objectively a better measurement for judging value than "percentage change". I disagree. And, objectively, my original phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") means I used percentage change based on the base of 100", not percentage difference between two values.
It would be wrong to use my phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") and replacing the 44% (the percentage change) with a percentage difference.
You're saying it's wrong, but you're really just claiming that "percentage difference" is objectively a better measurement for judging value than "percentage change". I disagree. And, objectively, my original phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") means I used percentage change based on the base of 100", not percentage difference between two values.
It would be wrong to use my phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") and replacing the 44% (the percentage change) with a percentage difference.
If you followed my comment the best objective value is to compare TO YOUR OWN PC OR DESIRES. But if you are going to make a GENERAL statement it is best to be OBJECTIVE so using an average for the deal to size ratio is the MOST OBJECTIVE.
Is that simple enough my friend?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
You're saying it's wrong, but you're really just claiming that "percentage difference" is objectively a better measurement for judging value than "percentage change". I disagree. And, objectively, my original phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") means I used percentage change based on the base of 100", not percentage difference between two values.
It would be wrong to use my phrasing (120" is #% larger than 100") and replacing the 44% (the percentage change) with a percentage difference.