I'm in the market for our first HD set. I will be watching a lot of sports, general tv shows, and movies as well. The tv will be placed into a custom built cabinet, so depth is really not a concern. My biggest concern is that right behind the couch we have a set of french doors that get a LOT of light. Our current tv is a 43" Toshiba projection, about 8 years old, and the screen is highly reflective and really does not do well with the amount of light we have in this room. I am trying to determine if I would be better off with something like the 52XBR2(or3), or if the 55 or 60A2020 projection sets would work ok for this use. I'd like to go with the 60 inch rear projection, but am very concerned about its ability to handle the light. The room the tv will be in is rectangular, with the prime viewing seats about 12-14 feet from the screen. We also view from the kitchen, which is farther a way and at an angle, but I don't think that the angle would be great enough to cause real problems with a projection set. I've been to a couple of stores, and some guys seem to say that the flat screen is better, period, while others say that the picture on the rear projection sets is about the same as the flat screen and that I may as well save some $$$ since I'm doing a built in unit and the width of the set doesn't matter.

Any input on which of these technologies would better suit my needs would be very much appreciated.

For sure, get the 'flat lcd' :)

Projection sucks, it can't compare to flat-panel LCD for quality. Plus, projection means ongoing, expensive bulb replacement, bulky equipment, poor viewing angles, and other artifacts.

For sure, get the 'flat lcd' :)

Projection sucks, it can't compare to flat-panel LCD for quality. Plus, projection means ongoing, expensive bulb replacement, bulky equipment, poor viewing angles, and other artifacts.

And LCD means bad contrast, grayish blacks, pixelization, motion blur and a general "un-TV" like experience. :p

-Robert

I'm not quite sure what this "pixelization" you're referring to is. Certainly FP-LCD has high enough resolution that its pixels aren't noticeable within reasonable viewing distance, unlike plasma. And unlike projection, it has much higher brightness (see chrisfromOC's post above, regarding his light concerns).

I've found it very difficult to see motion blur, but if you belive it's a problem then perhaps DLP might be a better solution (LCOS uses liquid crystals too so will also suffer from the problem). Of course, DLP's sequential color means rainbows - then again, some people don't see those. If it can be found and budget permitting, a discrete three-chip DLP would solve that problem, but considering the already slim (soon to be none) availability in stores, shipping from somewhere else + insurance may have to be added to the cost. The feasability of such an approach seems less than ideal.

Plasma is always a possibility, but it just can't show a good contrast ratio in bright environments and its absolute brightness is too low for the OP's situation. Worse, its screen is usually 'highly reflective', something chris is already having a problem with.

All factors in his post point towards FP-LCD being the best choice for his situation. FP-LCD has a diffuse screen, high available brightness, good contrast ratio in a bright ambient environment, excellent availability and competitive pricing which is decreasing rapidly.

Finally, angles. "We also view from the kitchen, which is farther a way and at an angle". Any RP system degrades rapidly off-axis, while FP-LCD doesn't.

I'm not quite sure what this "pixelization" you're referring to is. Certainly FP-LCD has high enough resolution that its pixels aren't noticeable within reasonable viewing distance, unlike plasma. And unlike projection, it has much higher brightness (see chrisfromOC's post above, regarding his light concerns).

I've found it very difficult to see motion blur, but if you belive it's a problem then perhaps DLP might be a better solution (LCOS uses liquid crystals too so will also suffer from the problem). Of course, DLP's sequential color means rainbows - then again, some people don't see those. If it can be found and budget permitting, a discrete three-chip DLP would solve that problem, but considering the already slim (soon to be none) availability in stores, shipping from somewhere else + insurance may have to be added to the cost. The feasability of such an approach seems less than ideal.

Plasma is always a possibility, but it just can't show a good contrast ratio in bright environments and its absolute brightness is too low for the OP's situation. Worse, its screen is usually 'highly reflective', something chris is already having a problem with.

All factors in his post point towards FP-LCD being the best choice for his situation. FP-LCD has a diffuse screen, high available brightness, good contrast ratio in a bright ambient environment, excellent availability and competitive pricing which is decreasing rapidly.

Finally, angles. "We also view from the kitchen, which is farther a way and at an angle". Any RP system degrades rapidly off-axis, while FP-LCD doesn't.

Thanks for your input. Now it comes down to whether to spend $1500 extra for a significantly smaller screen. I'd love to see both an a2020 and an xbr2 side by side in my house to see how they handle the light --- if the a2020 could handle it I would much rather have the extra screen size (at 60") irrespective of the cost savings.

The only difference betwen the XBR & A2xxx Sony screens I've been able to find lies in the price & the standard-def image processing.

Based on the fact that he plans on watching a lot of sports, I'd still first go with an anti-glare Panasonic plasma (or something similar) - mainly because I have ALWAYS been able to detect some degree of motion blur on EVERY FP LCD I've ever looked at.

And then there's that "clouding" issue I've read so much about here, which apparently, Sony XBR FP's aren't immune to. That's an awful lot of money to be payin' to have that problem exhibit itself.

But it ain't me buyin' the set ;).