Sony LCD or Pioneer Plasma?

yea, i have already read that. I have 2 720p televisions in my home right now actually and love them. but The key thing to note in that article is the last paragraph. Because I am one of those "eagle eyed" viewers that really pays attention to detail. not to say 720p is not great. But it is not 1080p. And when buying a television over 50 inches, 1080p really does make a difference. its not a difference that stands out hugely but it is definitly noticable.
thx

Chadmak09,

I agree with your evaluation of 1080p/120HZ. The interesting thing about the article is that it states that the big difference that viewers will see is the change from SD to any HDTV. Yes, we are all stunned the first time we see HDTV, but after a period of time we start looking at what we can do to get an even better picture. For me, it was 1080p/120HZ. When I bought the Sony KDS-55A3000, the 120HZ processing is adjusted just right, and the images from my PS3 on Blu-Ray are unbelievably sharp and detailed. There are excellent black levels too. I thought about a 1080p plasma, but I paid $1600 and a similar 55" 1080p/120HZ plasma was almost 3X the cost. I like plasma, but $1600 vs $4000 didn't justify my interest in plasma.

I was not aware of any plasma on the market with 120hz feature. Could you get me the make and model so I can conduct some research and do some testing?

Chadmak09: Why would 120hz have such an impact on the TV market? Film is recorded at 24hz. TV is recorded at 30p/60i. Video games (for the moment) are recorded at 30-60hz. I don't see where 120hz comes into play, aside from making LCD look like it has no response time. Get back to me when you figure out a good use for it.

-N.

You are correct about no plasmas having the 120hz feature. I was just jumping the gun a bit. As far at the 120hz feature, you mentioned "Film is recorded at 24hz. TV is recorded at 30p/60i." Film is recorded at 24fps (frames per second).
From a quote from I found from the SF Chronicle: "The refresh rate denotes how often the image on the screen is redrawn each second. It's usually expressed in hertz, a unit of measurement for frequencies. The standard refresh rate for TVs until now has been 60 Hz. For most television programming that's perfectly adequate, because video for TV usually is shot at 30 frames per second-which divides evenly into 60. The only time you run into problems is with movies on film, which traditionally have been shot at 24 frames per second. Because 24 doesn't divide evenly into 60, a mathematical process is needed to synchronize the picture. (This is the 3:2 pulldown factor.) But you don't need that process if you double the refresh rate to 120, which happens to be exactly divisible by 24." When doing 3:2, you add a frame every 4th frame of picture to help division work out.

To quote CNET on their review of my TV: "One goal of 120Hz processing is to eliminate an artifact that is created in the film-to-video transfer process with the use of 2:3 pull-down, called judder, that is most visible as subtle stuttering on pans and other camera movement. Depending on the implementation, it may or may not work well. In the case of the KDS-55A3000, it definitely smooths out these types of scenes, but it also makes the picture look decidedly more like video and less like film." I messed around with the settings on my TV to where I don't think it makes film look like video, but it certainly makes a definitely sharper film image.

Some TVs seem to implement the 120HZ feature better. The Sony "Motion Flow" version of this has received stellar reviews, so for now, I'm happy. By the look of things, I'd bet the 120HZ/24 feature will become standard on all TVs very soon. But as the reviewers have stated, some TV manufactures do a much better job of this than others.

You say some TV's implement the 120hz feature better than others. I agree. I find the Sony Motionflow system to be far superior to that of the Samsung Auto Motion Plus 120hz feature and many others on the market today. This, however, would be just like me saying that some TV's do better with 3:2 pulldown than others. And the thing is, 3:2 pulldown is a more developed process than 120hz (its been around longer and studied more), which is why I can easily say that (at this point) a TV is more likely to successfully process 3:2 pulldown flawlessly than 120hz frame interpolation flawlessly.

I understand the purpose of 120hz, however, this feature is making up more frames than 3:2 pulldown, which makes it more likely to fault than 3:2 pulldown. What I am saying is that there is more interpolation done with 120hz than 3:2 pulldown.

Some plasmas do have a motion enhancement feature. An example (and a very good one at that) is the Pioneer PDP-5080HD. The Pioneer utilizes a 72hz interpolation process that smoothes film without making a video-like appearence. Also, there is less chance of error than 120hz, as there is less interpolation to be done.

I, on the other hand, am a purist. I would like to see the picture exactly the way the director intended. Since there has yet to be a television with 4K Cinema Native Resolution, an aspect of 2.35:1, and native 24hz scanning, I suppose for now, I'm out of luck. At least my front projector can keep up.

Well, you are one up on me NS. I cannot afford a projector of that quality, nor do I have ample room for one. I was very surprised to see the news about Pioneer and their move into the LCD field. Is there any potential in the new Laser sets that I am hearing about, or will the production of LCD's be the mainstream technology for awhile?

The laser sets have something the other sets do not: a big backside. This will prevent laser from being trult accepted in a society that expects a flat panel TV.

OLED looks incredibly promising, and so far, I support it 100% (for smaller sets, of course, plasma remains my big TV choice). Unfortunatley, it looks like OLED needs some more development before it can overcome LCD, so it is my evaluation that LCD will be here for at least a few more years, until OLED can get it's feet on the ground (and maybe some more support than just Sony).

I would like to see Pioneer venture into the OLED market for their smaller sets, as opposed to relying on Sharp for the panels. I am rather upset to hear that,as of 2009, Pioneer will no longer make their own panels, rather receive them from someone like Panasonic. This isn't bad, but now Panasonic will know the secret of KURO, meaning they will probably make the best value set very soon.

I would suggest you look at plasma (as it isn't going anywhere) as the type for a 42-60" TV set. Pioneer and Panasonic would be my preference, in that order. For now, LCD 37" and under (unless you could find use for a $2500.00 11" OLED in your living room!) will have to suffice. In this case, the Sharp AQUOS D43U series have excellent blacks, deep color balance, and a superior level of adjustments.

The wife is sold on LCD, basically because of the brightness. We do have issues with reflective light, but I understand that the KUROs take care of that as well as many of the LCD sets. Are you saying that for an LCD set that the Sharp is as good as the Sony? We are looking at 52 inch max and I am wondering if the Sony 120hz feature beats any of the current Sharp TV's.

I realize that 1080p has been considered by many to be more a sales pitch than a feature. I also realize that many consider 1080p to be a must, as well as the 120hz feature.

I do agree with you about OLED. I mean what I have read about it, but no, I am afraid that an 11 inch set for $2,500.00 is rather not feasible at this point.

I like the Plasma sets, but I probably will not win the family argument. I'm pretty much at a loss as to what the best 52 inch LCD is at. I will admit that the price of the Aquos is very attractive.

I would not consider LCD at 52". My recommendations of the AQUOS sets apply for 37" and under only.

For sizes of that caliber, I would most likely go with the Sony XBR4/5 or the Bang & Olufsen BeoVsion 7.

A properly calibrated LCD would be the solution to this, however, I don't think you will win on that one either, because ISFccc calibration makes the LCD much darker.

Your family needs to understand that the sets in the showroom have about half the life of a properly calibrated set, and that the set will end up being way too bright in the home. I suppose they will have to learn the hard way unless you can persuade them otherwise.

I fear that I may end up with a set with a useable half-life and then hope that the OLED's are cheaper by then. I do appreciate the advice on the Sony, as that is what she wants and I have had the drawbacks made abundantly clear. My thanks.

Since Samsung recently dethroned Sony for best LCD, it seems like now you will have to consider comparing the Samsung LN46A750 (step-up model from the Editor's Choice A650) to the Pioneer PDP-5080HD. Seems like Sony will have to try making a comeback with their next-gen XBRs due out later this year.

The new Pioneer PDP-5020 (1080p) are also coming out in a couple of weeks, with 5x the black levels of the first generation Kuro'sand a price tag that is much much lower. In fact pre-orders already being taken for unbelievable prices (less then what the 5080 was going for last year).

Sure, you can compare the newer-generation Samsungs to the Pioneer PDP-5080HD. It's like comparing a 1987 Ferrari F40 to a 2008 BMW M3. Both are excellent, but in the end, the older model wins hands down.

Let's make it fair by comparing a new model to a new model. How about the Pioneer PDP-5020FD? And let's make it the Samsung 700 or 800 series, the 600 series is only middle of the road. I am confident (as I have seen already) that the Pioneer will handle blacks better, as well as lighting conditions, response time, colors, and contrast worlds better than the Samsung LCD's.

Wanna bet?

-N.

I believe you will find even in reviews that Pioneer has excellent anti-reflective coatings on their plasmas, excellent enough to eliminate any glare (that is, loss in contrast). What I think you may be referring to is reflectivity, a televisions tendency to reflect ambient light. In this situation, the plasmas will always be more reflective than the LCD's, as they have a glass surface. But it is the LCD's that are more glare-prone, as they are the first to lose contrast in a high-lighting situation and thus harder to see in the light.

So I will ask you again, have you actually bought and taken home a Pioneer KURO panel and watched it on a Saturday afternoon? Have you done so with an LCD? If either of those questions results in a 'no', then what you have is an opinion, which is most certainly not fact. I have run the tests. The Pioneer came out on top. You run them, see which one does.

-N.

So you have spent $3000 minimum on the KURO AND $2500 minimum on the equivalent LCD and put them in your house on a Saturday afternoon? And thats just in the 40-42" range. Also, you would like to argue the definition of glare? Personally, I prefer the KUROs to every other TV on the market, but there are advantages to LCDs (though very few). I agree the Pioneer wins hands down on strictly picture quality, but there are other facts with which to interpret what TV might fight someone's needs/desires more effectively.

I don't know if you've heard, but I test these things to weed out falsehoods and to better educate the general population on what's-what with HDTV's. And I have tested ion the 50" range as well to assure uniformity among size variation.

The Pioneer PDP-4280HD is 1,699.99 last I checked a few months ago. The Samsung 81F series and the XBR4/5 are what killed me in price.

I have defined glare for you. There is no argument to be made.

What else would one look for aside from how good a set's picture is? Are you looking for sound quality? Are you looking for cosmetics? What are your needs/desires and how can I fulfill them more effectively?

NS, do you know how the reflectivity on the new Pioneers, say the 5020, for instance, will compare to say the Sony XBR4 Bravias?

Although I have not yet the chance to properly view a 5020FD, I can say that it will be better than the 5010FD in this scenario. Pioneer has worked extensively on their anti-reflective technology.

This being said, Sony utilizes a semi-gloss finish on their LCD screens, making them slightly succeptible to reflections, but in this instance, the XBR4/5 wins. There will be significantly more glare on the LCD, however, causing a great loss in contrast, unlike the Pioneer plasmas, which will suffer from virtually zero glare.

hope this helps.

-N.

To answer your question, on my way home from a Memorial Day festival yesterday, I went to a Best Buy on the way, and decided to look at these two sets. They weren't that far away from each other on the store wall, and saw a side-by-side comparison with those. The PQ and black levels almost looked identical, and the motion hardly ghosted on the A750 whatsoever, probably thanks to that extra processing. There were times I didn't even think the Samsung was an LCD at first, up until I saw the description for the TV, the picture just looked too good for it to even be an LCD, imo. Tells you that Samsung is really narrowing the gap in a hurry.

You have not fulfilled my question.

What you looked at in BBY was a set of televisions uncalibrated for their environment, with harsh, unrealistic flourescent lighting (probably not what is in your LR), and salesman/other consumer adjustments made to the TV's. And since you can't access the Pioneer settings without a remote, I'm just about positive you can't guarentee what it was set at.

Mind you, the money required to do such a thing as I requested above is not small, but it will get you real-world results, which is what's important here. I can make almost any LCD look better than a PIoneer plasma if I am able to change settings on both the sets (service menus, etc.), but that is not the goal here.

I believe we are all looking for just that right set to put in our room-of-choice and have it be ideal for our uses-of-choice. The comparison you made does not help this goal whatsoever.

Please take the time to do the comparisons, or at least look at two sets that are of similar settings (movie/cinema mode). You will find a staggering difference. The Samsung lacks color accuracy, and color for that matter. The black levels are still a bit bluish, reminiscent of the 71 series panels, and the 120hz processing makes film look unnatural. SD reproduction is unacceptably horrific and undetailed and ToC can be distracting during nighttime viewing (to some with small lamps turned on). Concluding, there is no comparison.

Good Luck-

-N.

I have a 650 series samsung and I just received my Pioneer 6020. Black levels are not even close. The Samsung 650 or 750 series black levels (which are still lower then the last years 81 series) are not even close to the Kuros. Just dim the lights or wait until night time and the true deep black of the Kuro are no match not to mention this years anti-reflective coating is much better then last years, not to mention SD video processing. Additionally the new Pionners are being shipped for $3K for the 5020 and $4K for the 6020 from Invision, Clevelandplasma, bestbuyplasma, etc...with prices to drop even further shortly. I am by no way a LCD hater, but the new Pioneer especially with the price drop are hard to beat.

Thanks for this information. I understand that the Samsung and Sony might not do well for SD broadcasts and my main worry has always been about reflectivity. The 52 inch Sony XBR is holding steady at around 3K. The decision sounds like a no brainer when compared with the KURO's.

Please refer to my above explanation (a few pages back, admittedly) regarding reflectivity and glare before passing judgement on my current post.

What one must understand about reflectivity is that it can be detrimental to one's viewing experience, almost as much as glare. And glare is what you'll get with an LCD of any type, regardless of finish type (referring to the glossy Samsungs, of course). At least with plasma, there is no worry about loss in contrast in high lighting situations (with the Pioneers anyway, I have seen Panasonics in similar conditions fair poorly to the new gen. Pioneers.

I am not saying that the new Pioneers will be free of glare, but I am saying that they fair better overall than any other television on the market. Also, think of it this way: ANY flat panel will suffer from far less glare than a conventional round-tube or flat-tube TV. What we are talking about are high-end flat panels, which have (at least in the case of the Pioneer) undergone years of development and change of their anti-reflectivity and anti-glare coats. These developments have paid off, as I own a second-gen, a seventh-gen, and two eighth-gen Pioneers. They all fair well in light, but get consistently better as the generations advance. I am talking from eyewitness experience , as I have put these sets through hell before watching them casually.

I have bought and donated to a needy friend, a KDL-52XBR4, of which I was thoroughly disappointed in the department of reflectivity and glare. Not only could I still see various reflections on the XBR4 (post ISFccc calibration) in a medium-lit room, but it only got worse in the sunroom, my real proving ground. The XBR4 was decent with glare in medium light, however, get it into that sunroom and it looses all contrast. I calibrated the set twice for each lighting situation and even tried the vivid mode for the sunroom, but no positive results came of it.

I would therefore go to question the no-brainer comment regarding the KURO and the XBR4. Mind you, the 6020 the gentleman was talking about above is significantly larger than a 52", so the 5020 would be more in the size ballpark. Seeing as Sony is soon to be releasing their Z-series, I wonder if retail will still hover around 4K for their 52" set. Mind you, when the XBR4 was brand new, it was also around 4K retail.

My suggestion would be to hang tight and give it time. Sony will release their new model, which, as far as I have seen it in the works, will just be an XBR4 with a few more features and a higher advertised contrast, but no physical change in panel structure. A disappointment, really. Then you will see just how good the Pioneer plasmas really are.

-N.

My last statement was very poorly worded. I meant to say that the new Kuro 5020, for price, performance, anti-glare, anti-reflectivity treatments, ability to handle SD, makes this Kuro set a no-brainer over the Sony XBR line.

Thanks for the information on glare and reflectivity. It definitely helps me out to hear from someone who has had the chance to view these sets in a real life situation.

We'll have to wait for Samsung and Sony to release their A950 and XBR8 to see whether or not they will have something to talk about. The Kuro may have the deepest blacks for now, but you have the two LED-backlit LCD rivals coming out later on this year, and we'll have to see if they will be the ones to talk about. It's going to be interesting to see what happens by then...

It will be interesting to see the new sets. It always is. I have been very impressed by the Samsung Touch of Color sets, LN52A750 series, vs the Sony XBR4's....and it is the cost difference as well as the specs. So, I think right now Samsung is leading Sony and getting better everyday.

I still love the Pioneer 5020. That is a set that I would love to have as the main TV in the home. It appears to be an exceptional TV.

Hi first post, I have very good price for Pioneer 4280 brand new, problem is sales rep tray to convinced me to Panasonic or Samsung plasma saying the 4280 is better from last year?s models but this year?s excpecialy Panasonic is better (nothing mention $100 chipper) I?m confuse is this true? (Sales rep saying I have numbers of years experience in this business)
Second question, is big difference between 4280 and 950hd Elite? to justify $500 difference?
This is my first HD television. Cheers.