The best current picture on any new TV.

[Phooey]

Just a bit of a thread resurrection as we were talking about pic quality on smaller sets (less than 55") and noticed theres a new kid on the block. Philips 50PUS7394. Not sure if I've understood the tech properly but it's direct lit (according to RS) as opposed to edge lit. I might have read it wrong but direct is better than edge? Anyway, it's £799 without discount so a good £500 cheaper than the Sony XG9005. I need another tv for another bedroom so waiting for reviews on the Philips..

[gizlaroc]

The Philips is OK.

I had one, but lots of edge enhancement that, for me, ruined the image.

I think the Sony XE9005 is much better, XF9005 close, but has more blooming, and the XG9005 is to be avoided.

I paid £440 for the Philips off amazon. so be careful with pricing.

I swapped for the Sony XE9005 in the end, cosy me around £600.


I have an oled as my main set,. I would happily have the Sony as the main set, not the others.

[Phooey]

gizlaroc said:

....and the XG9005 is to be avoided.

Isn't the XG9005 the replacement to the XF9005 which you (and others) rated very highly? Out of interest why would you avoid it? Is it missing some of the specs of the XF? Really interested to know why as the XG is top of the list at the mo for a tv for our bedroom (having a unit built to accommodate a 49" set).

Cheers

[gizlaroc]

Phooey said:

Isn't the XG9005 the replacement to the XF9005 which you (and others) rated very highly? Out of interest why would you avoid it? Is it missing some of the specs of the XF? Really interested to know why as the XG is top of the list at the mo for a tv for our bedroom (having a unit built to accommodate a 49" set).

Cheers

It is not as good, not missing anything, but the backlight is not as well controlled and you get blooming.

The XF also had it, but not terrible, I think the XE is the best one.
It does have one issue, the occasional frame skip, but never really notice it.

Buy an XE9005 for £600, they are always popping up.

[untakenname]

I had an XE9005 and smashed it so got an LGB8 OLED, the Sony wasn't too bad picture wise but the software was a dog.
Had to reset it weekly the TV weekly as it just seemed to slow down over time and my phone would stop casting to youtube regularly, they may have fixed this in a later software updates.

Zirconia said:

Yep. There are panels and then there are panels.

4k done well over IP is very good, there are good non disk sources out there if you want them. I would favour IP over aerial or satellite anyway of the week though (some caveats).

BBC are doing Wimbledon UHD HLG and it seems that Virgin are getting in on the act. Article explains more but they have their BBC iPlayer app on that box on the BBC approved list I think. Dynasties was excellent via iPlayer Beta on a Panasonic 4k Blu-ray player.

https://www.t3.com/news/virgin-media-tv-will-broad...
https://www.whathifi.com/advice/how-to-watch-wimbl...

BBC list
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/latest-news/wim...
You can all see how your panels perform.

I noticed it prompted me to watch in UHD yesterday when tennis was still on past 8pm, flicked back and forth a few times to try and discern the difference but couldn't see much improvement apart from if I focused on the faces in the crowd, couldn't see any difference with the colour palette and think it was still SDR (my tv pops up with HDR in the corner if HDR source is detected)
I watched F1 live in UHD HDR via RTL satellite earlier in the afternoon and it's noticeably better than what Channel 4 were showing colour wise.

[gizlaroc]

Problem for me with HDR is the image is often not bright enough for my room.

You need to hold back two stops with HDR to show whiter than white, those super bright areas of a scene. One stop is half the brightness.

For a normal screen like the XE9005 or B8 OLED that can do around 500 nits that means a maximum of around 125 nits output.
That is fine for a room with decent light control, but not really good enough for a brighter room.

So unless you have a really bright, 1000-1500 nit capable screen many will find HDR just too dark.

I like my screen calibrated to around 180nits, 125 (which is reference for a dark room) is not enough for me and my room, and I think probably the majority are the same.

[Zirconia]

untakenname said:

I noticed it prompted me to watch in UHD yesterday when tennis was still on past 8pm, flicked back and forth a few times to try and discern the difference but couldn't see much improvement apart from if I focused on the faces in the crowd, couldn't see any difference with the colour palette and think it was still SDR (my tv pops up with HDR in the corner if HDR source is detected)
I watched F1 live in UHD HDR via RTL satellite earlier in the afternoon and it's noticeably better than what Channel 4 were showing colour wise.

The test feed form Wimbledon I found quite subtle but that was through the Panasonic 820, my TV will not do HLG. As a 4k picture is was as sharp as I have seen a good live feed after transmission. Colours were very good, not blown and just right.


I think the problem with HDR is that it is confusing for many. There are too many versions getting banded around and they work differently to some extent and applied differently. I like the Panasonic 820 disk player, it has an optimiser than can pin the HDR10 values "maxcll" (forget exactly which) etc. closer to nit value what the OLED can use. It is a good picture still and the only thing I have seen that is better is the 8k Samsung demo. I expect that the LG 8k to be superlative but not seen it yet (enough of that, worms, can of).

I am still happy with the OLED a few years in as the best screen I have seen, I keep looking out when I am in JL etc. I expect newer OLED screen technology to be better than mine especially with HDR versions but nothing has tempted me elsewhere.

The mess that is HDR
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=s...

Basic picture no HDR and it is still OLED all the way for me. Just those blacks are so black (there is a reason that appeals to me and it is a sound reasoning).

All personally speaking of course.

[Hilts]

gizlaroc said:

Hilts said:

Are any of these new TVs suitable for watching football. I'm still using my old plasma as the LCD models were terrible when the camera panned.

Sony motion is superb.

Their sets with the X1 processor do "clear" and "Clear+" which is black frame insertion and gives you around 900 lines of moving resolution, which is around 1/3 better than the best plasmas. It is silky smooth.

Sounds good. No dark and light areas on the pitch mostly visible when panning? I think the name they give it is dirty screen effect.

Any football watchers here with an LG OLED, wonder how they are?

[gizlaroc]

I have zero DSE on my Sony, nor on my LG OLED.

It is my 3rd OLED and none of them have had any DSE, the first two did however have some pink/green tint, pink on the left third and green in the right side, not bad but you could see it on say a snow scene.
This has absolutely none.

I actually bought a B8 to replace my B6, but that had tint again so I ended up just sticking with this one. There was nothing in it picture wise, just a serial upgrader so wanted the new model. But side by side they were the same image wise so saved me a few quid.

[gizlaroc]

I should just add, the Sony is better for football, nicer motion, and things like a floodlit match is the type of content where the LCD excels.

For everything else the OLED is better, it just feels far more cinematic.

The ability to do absolute black per pixel and what it brings to the table image wise can't be dismissed. The ability to do black and the next pixel to pure white is what gives the OLEDs a 3D depth.

[Hilts]

gizlaroc said:

I have zero DSE on my Sony, nor on my LG OLED.

It is my 3rd OLED and none of them have had any DSE, the first two did however have some pink/green tint, pink on the left third and green in the right side, not bad but you could see it on say a snow scene.
This has absolutely none.

I actually bought a B8 to replace my B6, but that had tint again so I ended up just sticking with this one. There was nothing in it picture wise, just a serial upgrader so wanted the new model. But side by side they were the same image wise so saved me a few quid.

That's basically what I wanted to hear thanks. I'm an LG fan, phones and TVs so I think an LG OLED is now on the cards. Does it matter which one I get, there's a few...B6, B7, B8 C7 etc.I know you said the picture was the same but is the OS better on the newer ones or other improvements? I will have a google later but you know what you're talking about.

[gizlaroc]

Hilts said:

That's basically what I wanted to hear thanks. I'm an LG fan, phones and TVs so I think an LG OLED is now on the cards. Does it matter which one I get, there's a few...B6, B7, B8 C7 etc.I know you said the picture was the same but is the OS better on the newer ones or other improvements? I will have a google later but you know what you're talking about.

The later ones have some extra feature like Alexa voice control etc.

I think a B8 or C8 even would be the sweet spot though. Just keep an eye on the OLED price thread on avforums and bag a bargain.

[Phooey]

gizlaroc said:

It is not as good, not missing anything, but the backlight is not as well controlled and you get blooming.

The XF also had it, but not terrible, I think the XE is the best one.
It does have one issue, the occasional frame skip, but never really notice it.

Buy an XE9005 for £600, they are always popping up.

forgot I posted this!

Cheers gizlaroc, I'm surprised the XG isn't as good as the XF, it's almost like manufacturers just aren't interested in anything less than 55" and OLED tech. Fingers crossed someone makes a 40-48" OLED.

[Zirconia]

I read that LG are going to do a 48".
https://www.techradar.com/news/lgs-48-inch-oleds-a...

Pricing will be interesting as will quality.

[anonymous-user]

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertai...

Just bought this lg-oled65c9mlb, it’s unbelievable.

Coupled with a new LG SL9 sound bar (https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/dvd-blu-ray-and-home-cinema/home-cinema-systems-and-sound-bars/lg-sl9yg-4-1-2-wireless-sound-bar-with-dolby-atmos-google-assistant-10191271-pdt.html)

[Zato]

Why choose the C9 over the E9 given you can get the E9 for the same money ? Curious as I am currently looking at the E9 for purchase or maybe the panasonic 1500 as it same screen but does HDR10+ and Dolby vision. Cannot find a single 1500 review though.

[number2]

Zato said:

Why choose the C9 over the E9 given you can get the E9 for the same money ? Curious as I am currently looking at the E9 for purchase or maybe the panasonic 1500 as it same screen but does HDR10+ and Dolby vision. Cannot find a single 1500 review though.

I bought the 65inch E9 - what's the difference out of interest? The stand?

[anonymous-user]

Zato said:

Why choose the C9 over the E9 given you can get the E9 for the same money ? Curious as I am currently looking at the E9 for purchase or maybe the panasonic 1500 as it same screen but does HDR10+ and Dolby vision. Cannot find a single 1500 review though.

No idea, just went in and bought it this morning, didn’t do any research or what-not, it looked good and was the which choice in this category. (The chap had the which magazine).

[Zato]

From what I have read the E9 has better speakers and the floating on glass stand. Apart from that I think they are the same re picture. Odd they are the same price.

[Douglas Quaid]

chris116 said:

Same issue here, really want to upgrade to a LG OELD but every time I measure up a 55" it just seems too big for the room. Really hoping they go down in size in the future.

How big is your lounge? 55 isn’t really that big unless your house is tiny. Bezels are thin now so a modern 55 is about the same size physically as an old 47.

Edited by Douglas Quaid on Thursday 1st August 05:08