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


Hi everyone,
I recently read that the plasma tv manufacturers will be introducing new 1080p models latter this year, or early next year.
I am especially interested in the upcoming Pioneer and Panasonic 1080p plasma displays.
I love the slim profile and sexiness of a flat panel display such as a plasma, but I still feel that the Sony SXRD LoCS rear projection tv's still surpass them in overall video quality and video detail resolution.
I was extremely interested in the future SED tv's, but read with great disappointment that they will be delayed until 2008! I am beginning to wonder if they will EVER be available?
What do you all feel the video quality will be like on the new 1080p plasma displays?
Do you all feel thats there is any chance that the 1080p plasmas could equal or surpass the Sony SXRD rptv's in overall video quality?
Any comments on this and/or the SED tv delay would be greatly appreciated.
daltonlanny
SORRY THAT I STARTED SUCH A DISAGREEMENT BY STARTING THIS THREAD. GUESS I SHOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED IT.
MY APOLOGIES.
Lanny
Rysa,
Again, MY eyes tell ME that SXRD is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above plasma.
Again, I have extensively compared all the plasmas including the $9000.00 Pioneer to the SXRD and to me the SXRD is simply more realistic looking to me and my eyes.
The skin tones on the SXRD DO LOOK more natural to ME as well.
To each his own, I guess.
Another thing that I do not like about plasma tv's is the horrendous screen glare/reflections when viewing them in a lighted environment. That was a real deal breaker for me.
If you can only enjoy a display in darkness or in near darkness without worrying about screen glare, its not for me.
My SXRD has no screen glare at all. Maybe some SSE, but not glare/reflections in the daytime, which is way more annoying to me.
Randy Tomlinson is not just a AVS Forum member, he is also a professional independent ISF calibrator in the Atlanta area at advancedtechservice.com.
I know a few people who had Randy calibrate their sets and they said he did an outstanding job on them.
They also said he went out of his way to adjust other things on their sets besides just a ISF calibration, such as focus, convergence, gamma, etc., etc.
One final thing:
In a display technology shootout in extremetech.com, Raymond Soneira did an extensive shootout between all the current technologies including CRT, plasma, lcd, DLP rptv, lcd rptv, and LoCS rptv, and found that LoCS was the overall superior display technology.
He also said that LoCS was the ONLY display device currently available that could do 4096 x 2160 resolution in prototype demonstrations by Sony and JVC.
You can keep prasing plasmas over and over, but my own personal opinion stands and is not swayed at all.
Sorry.
Angela
Hey Lanny, what are you apologizing for? This discussion is good and useful even though -- or perhaps because --it's a little heated.

When you start a thread on Audiogon, you need to be prepared for whatever to happen, especially that people will disagree with your point of view. The nature of the beast!

-Dan
I own an SXRD set (the Qualia 70" RPTV), so obviously, I like that technology. But, that is not to say that plasmas are not acceptable. They can look very good and may be better in some applications. Where light control is not very good, the higher brightness capability of the plasma may be decisive. Also, fix pixel rear-projection sets do have their own set of image problems. The most annoying to me is the way solid objects (particularly white objects) tend to sparkle. This is caused by the interaction of the lenticular screen and the fixed pixel projection. It is a problem with both LCos/SXRD, DLP and sets.

The good news is that all of the various technologies have become much better in recent years, and cheaper too.
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.