Upcoming plasma 1080p tv's vs Sony SXRD LoCS?

Well I have seen all of the upcoming 1080P plasmas and the Sony SXRD LCos and the plasmas have a much better PQ IMHO. In fact the current plasmas have better PQ as well.

I like the Sony SXRDs. Skin tones and over all realism is better on plasmas however. Contrast ratios/black levels are better on most plasmas as well. The human eye cannot discern resolution differences as you move further away from the display itself.

I did. Its cool we all have different opinions. No big deal. First off, in answer to the question about whether or not Sony would accept 1080P next year, I didnt get that answer. In fact, among all manufacturers, I found the Sony folks to be more into marketing as opposed to any major fact or technical discussions. ALl other manufactureers mentioned in this thread, were up on much more technical discussions. Even blu ray was really more of a marketing discussion than a technical one. I dont any reason why ALL manufacturers, both for audio and video, wont eventually get around to ensuring a true 1080P signal and hi res audio input and decoding. Kinda where things are headed.

As far as PQ,the Sony displays are quite bright and do well in well lit rooms. And the detail is razor sharp for sure. But color inaccuracies remain an issue, although much better than single color wheel DLPs ( which are awful). AS mentioned above about the pink tint issue, this really plays on skin tones. If you hold your hand up and compare your hand to the skin tones on a screen, plasma always wins. Pioneer, Hitachi, and Panasonic. The colors are just more accurate. Also, like I said, the human eye cant diffentiate resolutions as we get further from the screen. The only technology that beats a plasma on PQ is in fact SED. I hope it isnt still born! ( What a weird analogy). It is really top notch!

AS far as viewing angles, because LCos works on reflecting instead of transmitting, you actually get the viewing angle limitations in the vertical directions and not horizontal, obviously an improvement.

Thanks for your reply Dalton. You are welcome to disagree. Black levels alone dont make for PQ as you are saying. But then you say that your CRT has a better PQ, basically saying that the better black levels on a CRT give it better PQ? I've seen all of the 1080P plasma displays including the Hitachi prototype. The 103 inch 1080P panasonic is so far beyond every FP out there that if it is ever released that will be the standard. Second place is truely not close!

The problem with LCDs and LCos is that they depend on light bulbs or light sources in order to display info, so details can be lost in darker scenes, referred to as a loss of shadow detail. Detail and no light simply arent a good fit!!

I think if you will pick up any issue, including the March issue, of Widescreen review magazine, you will see the consistent steps that are used to evaluate a display quality. This by no means implies or devalues someone liking a certain type of display. Its just that things such as grey scale accuracy, color accuracy, black levels and a host of other features are objectively measurable. In this sense, plasma is a better technology in general than most options for pure lifelike PQ in a way that other technologies, except for SED, cannot really reproduce.

Anyone can choose and like whatever they want. Its all good. I'm just sharing some info. No big deal.

By the way, contrast ratios are brand specific and reported ones cant be usefully crossshared to compare diffrent manufacturers. They use different forumlas.

Certainly an interesting discussion. Plasma, LCD, and CRT are direct view technologies, while LCosS ( Sony SXRD and JVC D-ILA), DLP and LCD-P are projection technologies. I prefer direct view for PQ at this point becuase it gives more realism to me.

1. CRT- This technology is quickly becoming unavailable as in the past. I dont doubt it strengths. Weaknesses are peak brightness and a propensity to a long list of artifacts including Moire, Gaussian Beam, Drift, screen regulation and magnetic interferrence. But again, for better or for worse, its not a real consideration for the OP question becuase it is disappearing rapidly from stores.

2. Plasma - Its pretty interesting as some folks have a real hard time with objectively looking at the thing. For instance " Spatial and Temporal dithering." Well OK. Lets look at a Pioneer Elite Pro 1130 plasma display ( currently available). It doesnt have that stuff. No way. And certainly no motion artifacts. Major brand plasmas do not have motion artifacts. The more realism issue is not an illusion that passes. It stays and the images dont fatigue most viewers like displays that depend on bright light to show video information. IN the dark, plasmas tend to really outdistance other technologies, but not in lighter environments.

3. LCos- First a couple of things. Randy Tomlinson is just another poster at avsforum.com in the plasma section like the rest of us. When you run with the writers and manufacturers and dealers in your HT and audio groups and national meetings and such, they are people with interest and knowledge just like us. Except some of the periodicals have various advertiser pressures that can affect their comments in one way or another. This has been discussed thoroughly and then some in the whole Wilson audio reviewer threads. That aside, the Hitachi 55 inch, which I looked at side by side with their 42 inch ALIS panel in direct comparison same source at CES in January, is a good plasma but isnt as strong in PQ as their 42 inch one. Also, I just wanted to point out that some specific comments really indicate a concerning bias. Plasma in the residential setting has almost zero potential for burn in. I mean none. Unless you really really try. I have NEVER seen it in the residential setting, and certainly havent had it myself. If it is so great a problem? Why can I only see it on old monitors in train stations and airports? Any reviewer that lists this as an advantage for an alternative products is really reaching and should know better. Plasma burn in- a real myth. Up close it exhibited SDE- well yes sure. But how close do people watch their movies? AT 10 feet people with 20/20 vision do not see SDE. ON the 1080P plasmas, you dont get any even on the big ones until 3-4 feet. 3-4 feet. On a 103 inch plasma. Believe it. Now- descfribing the you are there effect as "an illusion" is silly. I guess that is a shared and very persistent illusion. Let me put it this way- My dog gets tricked by the plasma and gets involved with the dog scenes on my plasma if there is one in a movie. Kinda funny. IN front of my LCDs and CRTs, he just sits there. He knows the difference between watching a TV and something more realistic!!! HAHA. But its true. The flesh tone thing blows the deal on the Tomlinson review entirely. A plasma really shows extremely realistic skin tones and details. When watching the Sony SXRD, which again is RAZOR SHARP for sure, and sharper than my plasma also FOR SURE. the skin tones are simply less realistic. I am watching a very sharp brilliant TV, and I know it. The plasma, when calibrated, is simply closer to real world. And SED, I am going to say again, is just scary good.

I do think the Sony SXRD Line sets a new standard for rear projection technology. And I recommend it to many friends for various reasons Its a really good display. Really good. But to say that its head and shoulders above plasma technology really is a bit foolhardy!

Henry- you are exactly right. The price drop really makes it difficult for a new technology to be rolled out since they gotta compete with stuff thats been out awhile and has seen falling prices.

OP- No need to apologize. Actually I believe the discussion will guide others with similar questions to looking at things closely. Thats why we are all here- at least partly.

Audio-Girl; I have no interest in convincing you of something. Its just that your method of posting is typical of industry afiliated folks who provide one sided evidence, denigrate a technology that is threatening to that interest, and shrug off differing views, however factual and well meaning, as something much less. My goal is to provide more factual counter balancing information so that folks give pause before actually believing dramatic "this is head and shoulders above that "statements that are far from the truth.

The Tomlinson article is problematic because it takes time to purposefully go after a plasma comparatively and specifically by making statements about realistsically non-existent issues such as burn in ( show me one residential customer who has it), and screen door effect ( no one sits close enough when viewing movies to see it) as well as other non-practical information. ISF calibration is another topic of controversy but if I use that type of service I am equally interested in their actual equipment as I am their credentials. ( Service grade vs professional grade for instance).

In anycase, as others have pointed out, their isnt a one display fits all best option. Thats why its important to talk about lighting consitions for instance.