What was your source for SEDs not ready for prime time til 2008?
31 responses Add your response
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'm hoping that Sony includes 1080p input on next years' SXRD RPTV models. From what I was told, Sony didn't include them this year simply to save a few bucks as there wasn't any 1080p sources available anyways. I've looked at a lot of options and I think the 60" SXRD will be my next TV. I'm in the process of upgrading electronics this year so I'm willing to wait until August or so when the new models arrive on showroom floors. Maybe someone on here who was at CES already knows if 1080p input/s will be on the next model?
Read about the delay on Canon/Toshiba's SED tv's on www.avsforum.com. under DISPLAY DEVICES sections.
Sorry, but I have to kindly disagree that the current breed of plasmas have a better picture than the Sony SXRD LoCS RPTV's.
I checked out and compared ALL LCD, Plasma, DLP RPTV's, and the Sony SXRD's last weekend at Circuit City, Best Buy, and Now Audio/Video. This also included the Hitachi 55" plasma, and the Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas.
The Sony 50" and 60" SXRD LoCS RPTV's surpassed all of them in overall picture quality...IMHO.
Not trying to stir up anything, but I have to agree with daltonlanny on this one.
The current breed of 720p plasmas video images simply DO NOT compare with the Sony SXRD 1080p RPTV's overall picture.
The resolution of the Sonys picture is a leap ahead of them.
A few months ago I purchased a Sony 60" SXRD LoCS after extensively comparing all the available technolgies, including ALL of the top plasmas. I had no bias toward any particular brand or display technology before hand.
I kept going back to the Sonys amazing resolution and detail.
A couple of them may have done one or two things equally well or slightly better than the Sony, but the Sony was overall the best of the bunch.
The reviewers also seem to agree with me on this one.
I am anxious as well to check out the new breed of 1080p plasmas when they do become available in the US later this year!
HAPPY LISTENING AND VIEWING!!
PS- SED is probably stillborn already.
For those that like the Sony SXRD, try to find the HP MD6580(yes, HP as in computers) 65" Micro-Display TV. It is outstanding! Better picture quality that the Sony, 1080P input, more attractive cabinet, better cable management(all cable inputs at on the front of the TV in a hidden compartment w/built in light) and the replacement bulb can be replaced from the front of the TV, not the back.
Seriously, HP nailed this one, but very few consumers are even aware of this TV. Here's a quote from the Sound and Vision Review: "Put simply, HPs MD6580n produced the best DLP-based rear-projection TV image Ive seen yet, and in many ways its picture compared favorably with that of the much more-expensive Sony Qualia 006.".
Check it out if you get the opportunity. If a 65" TV is too big, the 58" HP is basically the same in a smaller package.
The Sony SXRD LoCS rptv's:
1. Won Sound and Visions product of the year and Editors Choice Award for 2005. The HP unit was also tested by Sound and Vision in 2005. [The Sony is NOT a DLP rptv set...it is a LoCS rptv set]. Two different technologies.
2. Won the 1080p rear projection face-off in Home Theater Magazine which also included the HP unit in the face off.
3. Received C-Net's highest rating of any type of video display they have ever tested, including DLP, LCD, Plasma, and even CRT sets.
4. Read Michael Fremer's review in Ultimate A/V magazine.
5. Audio Video Revolution said the Sony SXRD "It seems impossible to find a better looking picture at this price point" and "looks significantly better and brighter than any other television in its price range."
6. ETC., ETC.
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.
I whole-heartedly disagree with you about the only thing that is better than plasma's pq is the SED tv's.
CRT easily beats plasma in absolute black level and black quality, and smokes them in contrast ratio.
Plasma at its best has about 3:000 to 1 or 4:000 to 1 contrast ratio. CRT's EASILY have a 15,000 to 1 contrast ratio.
So plasmas are NOT the current best in picture quality.
My Sony KD-36XS955 36" crt tube tv beats the pq on any plasma that I have saw to date, and I have viewed them all.
Plasma still has a ways to go before they will surpass the best HD crt displays in absolute pq.
The new 1080p plasma sets due out this year may be better and may come closer to matching CRT's pq. We will see.
The ONLY disadvantages to crt's is the smallish screens and their bulk.
I've heard many people say that HD on a CRT is the best, but I've never seen it be so. To me, regardless of black levels and various digital artifacts that may occur, the color on a properly set-up plasma display has depth and the kind of warm, rich, natural and organic qualities of real life that drive so many audiophiles to tube amplification. Plasma is to video displays as tubes are to audio amplifiers. YMMV.
Of course, I've never seen an SXRD outside of a Circuit City or a Sony Style store, neither of which bother to set them up properly. (If the Sony Style stores would set their displays up correctly, I bet the stuff would fly out of the warehouse. What can they be thinking?)
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.
I have to agree with Rysa4. As an owner of plasma (NEC) and RP LCD (Sony GW IV) and also very familiar with SXRD PQ, plasma is head and shoulder above any RP TV in skin tone or color balance. Not to mention if you watch movie in completely dark room, any RP will give you the feeling there is a light bulb behind the screen.
SXRD fixed the SDE problem, but SSE is only reduced and not eliminated. If you don't know what that means, I suggest you don't ever find out because it will bother you once you know just like rainbow effect.
SED can be the best technology if they ever make it affordable, but that day is still years away.
I still have to say that IMHO, and to my eyes, my Sony SXRD RPTV is head and shoulders above all plasma and LCD displays that I have viewed and I have viewed them all.
And CRT tubes do have a MUCH better contrast ratio and black levels than any plasma I have saw.
Plasmas do have a better picture than LCD's, and they do have alot of potential, but I still feel their images are lacking in some ways.
[I also own a 36" direct view crt hd Sony tv].
I guess disagreement is a good thing?
No, its not just black levels.
Again, the contrast ratio is better on CRT's, CRT's are not fixed resolution displays like plasmas, CRT's don't have video noise in dark scenes like most plasmas do, plasmas also have problems with dithering, gray scale dark artifacts, and some motion artifacts compared to most crt displays.
You say SED displays will be the best:
SED will be based on the same principles as CRT's but thinner and with individual emitters for each pixel, so CRT's pq cannot be that bad.
The main goals of SED's, from what I have read, "will be to combine the slimness of plasma and LCD displays, with the black levels and contrast ratio of CRT's that the plasma and LCD's currently are ultimately lacking in".
Check out Randy Tomlinson's review of the Sony KDS-R60XBR1 60" SXRD RPTV in the December 2005 issue of The Perfect Vision.
He compares it with his reference 55" Hitachi plasma display.
Compared to the Hitachi plasma, the Sony SXRD had "flesh tones were more believable and hard to fault on the Sony. Resolution, too, was an easy Sony win." "The Sony also had less video noise and a smoother, more film like picture at close viewing distances. Up close the plasma exhibited a bit of the screen door effect." He also said the black levels were much better on the Sony.
He said that the plasma did hold the edge in the "you are there" illusion at first, but raising the GAMMA CORRECTION control a notch on the Sony made them EQUAL in this regard.
"the KDS-R60XBR1 will give you a better overall picture and longer life [and with no screen-burn potential] than ANY plasma now available, and for less money. Rear projection sets produced up to this point--move to the rear, SXRD has set a new standard."
Glad to know that someone else agrees with my conclusions.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Larryi, what you are referring to is called SSE (silk screen effect). When I bought my Sony GW IV, I thought I would be bothered by SDE, but turned out SSE bothered me more. But just like rainbow effect, you learn to ignore it and focus on objects that are darker and less susceptible to SSE. But it's there and SXRD still has SSE even though it's greatly reduced compared to LCD or DLP.
Plasma does not have SSE, color rendition is closer to life, and does not have that annoying light bulb behind the screen when you watch in dark room. If it wasn't the cost, I will opt for plasma over any RP any day.
However, SXRD is the perfect technology for projector!
I don't think comparing tv's at a retailer is fair. The factory setups from each manufacturer may not be the most optimum for each purchaser.
I just purchased a Pioneer 5060HD plasma that blows away my 6 year old Hitachi 50" Ultravision and my brother-inlaws 2 year old 55" Hitachi Ultravision HD. Is the Pioneer plasma the best? For me it is! My wants were - thin, wall mountable, a good picture and long life. The 5060HD leaves me wanting nothing more including 1080p. 1080p may be needed if you have a 60" screen and sit 8 feet away.
I think 1080p will be a major issue with current transmitting technologys, i.e. cable and satellite and it may be 8 or 10 years before 1080p makes any kind of showing besides DVD.
All, I've investigate to no avail: Sony's SXRD RPTVs etc are not available where I live, Hong Kong: end of yr. All recent models of 1080p RPTVs same thing.
I am thus no looking at plasmas and again not all of the most recent models are available.
Among the one's I've seen, Pioneer 5060HD vs Panasonic TH-50PV500H. Any comments on either?
My impressions have changed somewhat.
I admit, I was biased toward the Sony SXRD's up until tonight.
At CC and BB the Sonys did seem to have the best overall images, hands down.
But, they were using the Sony demonstration loop on the Sonys and not regular sources like all the other big screens were using.
The Panasonic plasmas were also at the other end of the stores from where the Sonys were, and were being fed what looked like a mediocre source.
Well, tonight I went to a huge Sears at the local mall and they had the Sony SXRD KDS-R50XBR1 and a Panasonic TH-50PX50U plasma display SIDE BY SIDE and were using Dicovery HD Theater as a source.
They actually let me tweak the pictures and play a couple of top notch dvd's that I brought with me.
The Panny plasma and the Sony SXRD were EXTREMELY CLOSE!
To my eyes they were essentially equal in:
1. Black levels
2. Color intensity
4. Motion Scenes
5. WOW factor
The Panasonic SOMETIMES actually seemed better at:
1. Image sharpness and outlines
2. Color accuracy
3. No SSE
4. Wider viewing angle
5. Color uniformity
The only areas where the SXRD MAY have been better, and only on certain scenes was:
1. The Sony was usually alittle brighter
2. No SDE at all.
3. Less screen reflections
4. Images were very slightly denser.
5. Only twice, I thought I saw some very slight video noise or an artifact or two in a very dark scene, but it was VERY SLIGHT!
Makes me wonder how good the new Panasonic TH-50PX60U will be with its 10,000:1 contast ratio and 28 billion colors, and especially the upcoming 1080p plasmas.
My big screen options are now WIDE OPEN to say the least!