DOBEMAN,

I suggest you take note of my remarks about 'point of reference' for future use. No offence, but yours needs a little 'shifting' I think.

You say your Sony 10ht is 'excellent' but you know that the 11ht has been out for quite a while now and you must admit is much better right?

So would you call the 11ht 'super excellent' or what?

I've seen both, and thought the 10ht was very low contrast making it dull, flat and lifeless, and the pixel structure was easily seen from a typical viewing distance and screen size. I thought the 11ht was quite a bit better than the 10, but still had all the negatives of the 10 -just to a lesser degree.

The Piano I owned for a trial period was (is) a better overall picture than both of these. Would that be 'extra super excellent' then?

The store I saw both of the Sonys in eventually got in the Sharp 9000 which I think looks just like the Piano but w/ a higher resolution for a sharper more pixel free image. Should I call that 'ultra extra super excellent'?

My 65" Mitsu looks much better than the Sharp and for thousands less, with no bulb life worries and no pict. quality loss in daylight use.

'Deluxe ultra extra super excellent'?

The only way the Sony 10ht could be called 'excellent' is compared to the other current digital projectors at the time it was first released, and since the Infocus 350 was out at the time for a lot less money and much better picture (if you didn't see the rainbows in it's slow color wheel), I don't think the Sony could have been called 'excellent' for a dig. projector even back then, but it would be debatable enough.

Today, it's not 'excellent' compared to... well... almost anything.

If you use a fixed 'best there is' reference point like real life vision or in more practical 2D use -a photograph for picture quality (and live vocals and instruments for sound quality), then you'll never have to change your description of any products that you describe ever, and more helpful, we'd all be using the same point of reference.

If you compare the 10ht to a photo you'd be hard pressed to call it even a 'so-so' picture.

You could call a CRT RP 'very good' or 'very close' though w/ a high def. feed, and 'good' w/ a prog. scan DVD.

Close behind that for the Sharp 9000 if you have no rainbow problems and in a totally lights out room.

To a lesser extent the Plus Piano and I'm sure the similar Infocus Screenplay if you don't have rainbow problems, and you defocus the lens a tad to eliminate the pixel structure -unless you're so far away that you can't see the pixels at all, but then the screens down shrinks to big screen RPTV sizes.

IMO, the Piano's the minimum level of pic. quality you can get in a large screen display that comes close enough to the reference point of a photograph to be worthy of comparison, and why I waited till it came out to buy a FP, but it just wasn't good enough for me (een if rainbow wasn't an issue).

A CRT RP is much closer to 'photo real', but a little smaller in size (depending on the distance of the seating to the screen).

Something related...

I can't optimally set up my very tall line source front speakers (Newform Research) in my HT room without blocking a screen bigger than ~80" on the wall. Don't want to degrade my audio imaging just to have a little bigger picture by speading out my speakers too far apart -the reason most people think they need a center channel speaker (but that's off topic).

Since the screen of my 65" RP is set 3' in front of that wall, the image at seating is very close to the same size.

I could also see the pixel structure in the farther away Piano from that seat (~16'), and I could sit even closer than the 13' I'm from my Mitsu without seeing any pixels, so I don't even really have a size compromise with the 65" screen.

I'd like an 80" digital RP someday, but I don't think I would be buying something that huge on the internet from Outlaw.

I don't think I would trust the shipping of it by 'Oops'.