Sony's HDR 1080p tv's

[Kobi]

Anyone had one or seen one? Kinda seems like the best of both worlds. My gaming TV has lost its sound, that doesn't bother me too much as I game with a headset on. Was looking at 4k tvs, but they are all pretty huge and I'm not sure I'd get the benefit of one between 40-50". I sit about a meter away, so I'd prefer the tv to be closer to 40".

Keep seeing hdr > 4k and people saying they can't see much difference between 4k and 1080p(that's 4k without hdr). So surely 1080p hdr would be my better option? Genuinely can't tell if its a silly idea or not, I'm quite happy with 1080p and I see sony's have hdr10 screens, no idea on brightness.

I use my TV for 95% gaming on the xbox x and ps4 Pro. The odd occasion I use some Netflix or prime. Worth a punt? Or wait a year or so?

 

[TALON1973]

I've notice these on very site. I couldn't quite pin down who they are aiming it at.

For hdr on netflix you still need the premium subscription which also covers 4k. No terrestrial TV channel does hdr. So that leaves you having to get sky q and the expensive 2tb option.

The tv had no normal market usage.

 

[lucid]

Seems like a reasonable and sensible solution to me. Something compatible with 4K/UHD HDR and HLG, but in a screen size that's more user friendly for those who don't want/need a bigger TV.

 

[VincentHanna]

If you sit a meter away (3 ft) you would be able to tell.

Most people who can't tell sit a lot further back. I'm about 10ft from my 65" 4K OLED.

 

[TALON1973]

Seems like a reasonable and sensible solution to me. Something compatible with 4K/UHD HDR and HLG, but in a screen size that's more user friendly for those who don't want/need a bigger TV.

It's not 4k compatible It's 1080p. 4k and hdr are 2 different things.

 

[lucid]

It's not 4k compatible It's 1080p. 4k and hdr are 2 different things.

BIB: Yeah. I'm aware.

And it is UHD compatible. They can accept a UHD HDR signal; they just can't display the resolution part of it.


HDR is (or has become) a sub-set feature of UHD. In order to enjoy the benefits of HDR it required a minimum of a UHD set. But that has now changed with these 1080p res UHD/HDR compatible sets. In the same way that HD Ready (720p/768p) displays were compatible with 1080i/1080p signals by scaling down the image, these new sets scale down UHD to 1080p, but they can display the benefits of high dynamic range.

 

[TALON1973]

BIB: Yeah. I'm aware.

And it is UHD compatible. They can accept a UHD HDR signal; they just can't display the resolution part of it.


HDR is (or has become) a sub-set feature of UHD. In order to enjoy the benefits of HDR it required a minimum of a UHD set. But that has now changed with these 1080p res UHD/HDR compatible sets. In the same way that HD Ready (720p/768p) displays were compatible with 1080i/1080p signals by scaling down the image, these new sets scale down UHD to 1080p, but they can display the benefits of high dynamic range.

I know how that bit works lucid But my point is still valid ... What market is this aimed at? There's no media for it without paying extra

 

[jpaul]

if you scan avforums .. appears it is not a sony triluminous display with 10 bits and genuine rec2020 colour space, rather 8 bits, so even it ability to display hdr seems questionable.

can you run the xbox or ps4 at 1080p/hdr output and maybe get a better framerate into the sony (only a 60hz panel) or do you have to output 4k/hdr.

... yes market seems unclear

 

[lucid]

I know how that bit works lucid But my point is still valid ... What market is this aimed at? There's no media for it without paying extra

I thought your point was that 4K and HDR are two different things.

Anyway, there's not much in the way of media for any UHD HDR TV without paying extra.

The market is those people who want Sky Q or Netflix/Amazon/Apple content with the HDR enhancements but don't necessarily want the bigger 4K UHD set that goes with it.

The chorus of "but you sit too far away" is deafening whenever anyone talks about smaller UHD TVs. This. Shuts. Them. Up. As the OP said, HDR is the most noticeable benefit of the UHD showboat. Why deprive people of the benefit of HDR just because they neither want or need a larger set than 32-40"

 

[james.miller]

Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[TALON1973]

Having been a 40" 4k hdr user last 2 years I don't get why thus is needed. If your going to put hdr into a 32" TV you might as well go the whole hog and make it 4k The price difference these days is negligible

 

[jpaul]

this article questioned their hdr capability .. were there any 'reviews' ?

Sony declined to give out numbers when we asked them at CES so we have no idea how deep blacks are, how high peak brightness is and how large a percentage of the DCI-P3 color space the TVs cover. However, we think it is same to assume that these TVs will not match the high-end TVs’s HDR capabilities. The HDR effect may even be limited but nevertheless Sony is giving you choice.

 

[lucid]

this article questioned their hdr capability .. were there any 'reviews' ?

Sony declined to give out numbers when we asked them at CES so we have no idea how deep blacks are, how high peak brightness is and how large a percentage of the DCI-P3 color space the TVs cover. However, we think it is same to assume that these TVs will not match the high-end TVs’s HDR capabilities. The HDR effect may even be limited but nevertheless Sony is giving you choice.

Hang on. The vast majority of UHD HDR TVs that people buy don't match the black level or peak brightness or colour gamut of high-end TVs either. Thats why each manufacturer has entry-level, mid-range and high-end sets, isn't it? If the budget sets were as good as the high end sets then who would bother to spend more?

Also, Sony rarely lays its cards on the table regarding specs.This isn't anything new.

Why is it suddenly a problem that a 32" HDR compatible set probably uses an 8bit panel with FRC panel when so many UHD 4K sets below £1000 use the same kind of tech for WCG?

 

[Kobi]

Hang on. The vast majority of UHD HDR TVs that people buy don't match the black level or peak brightness or colour gamut of high-end TVs either. Thats why each manufacturer has entry-level, mid-range and high-end sets, isn't it? If the budget sets were as good as the high end sets then who would bother to spend more?

Also, Sony rarely lays its cards on the table regarding specs.This isn't anything new.

Why is it suddenly a problem that a 32" HDR compatible set probably uses an 8bit panel with FRC panel when so many UHD 4K sets below £1000 use the same kind of tech for WCG?

This is very true, it's not gonna blow the doors off, we can all agree that to get the best hdr we need to spend £1k+. 4k is in its infancy right now, if it truly is the next big leap (as opposed to 3d tvs) then we'll have another 10+ years of 4k tvs. So their is no way I'd be keeping the tv that long. My current... 3d tv....is around 7 years old. Its decent, but it's had its day.

I think I read Sony are gonna be releasing a new 1080p hdr tv this year. Will hold off a while and see what happens. As I said in the OP, this is just my gaming TV, its not the main house TV.

 

[jpaul]

Hang on. The vast majority of UHD HDR TVs that people buy don't match the black level or peak brightness or colour gamut of high-end TVs either. Thats why each manufacturer has entry-level, mid-range and high-end sets, isn't it? If the budget sets were as good as the high end sets then who would bother to spend more?

Also, Sony rarely lays its cards on the table regarding specs.This isn't anything new.

Why is it suddenly a problem that a 32" HDR compatible set probably uses an 8bit panel with FRC panel when so many UHD 4K sets below £1000 use the same kind of tech for WCG?

I want to be able to objectively evaluate the law of diminishing returns (eg. whether an b7 at £1300 is worth 2.5X an ex750) and cut away the marketting BS.
(Vincent should do crowd-funding for his reviews)

All the manufacturers are cagey wrt specs, and obviously push the the technical benefit of their (oled-blacks/lcd-colour volume) technology versus the competitors.

The we75x maybe 8+frc and the we6x 8, but it would be nice to know what an additional ~£60 is buying.

 

[lucid]

I want to be able to objectively evaluate the law of diminishing returns (eg. whether an b7 at £1300 is worth 2.5X an ex750) and cut away the marketting BS.
(Vincent should do crowd-funding for his reviews)

All the manufacturers are cagey wrt specs, and obviously push the the technical benefit of their (oled-blacks/lcd-colour volume) technology versus the competitors.

The we75x maybe 8+frc and the we6x 8, but it would be nice to know what an additional ~£60 is buying.

What you've just written is somewhat confusing: You want to "objectively evaluate the Law of Diminishing Returns". Why? It is already proven in economics.

Okay, I'm teasing you, but seriously; how exactly do you propose to objectively evaluate the cost benefit of the features of your example B7 over an EX750? There is no monetary value attached to black level or colour gamut or peak brightness. Even if you had a colorimeter capable of measuring very low brightness levels to make some objective measurements, the only thing it tells the user is that one is better or worse than the other. It's entirely subjective whether a consumer feels that the benefits are worth the cost.

I take your point that manufacturers are "cagey" with specs. Something similar has already been said in this thread, and anyone with a passing interest in the technology will have probably worked that out for themselves. Thank goodness then for third party reviews done by people such as those at HDTVTest. But with the best will in the world, they can't evaluate every TV. For one thing, there just isn't the time before the annual model changes. Another factor is that, for the majority of TVs on sale, the consumers really don't care. If they did, we'd still have Pioneer and Fujitsu making TVs; and Sony and Panasonic wouldn't be losing money hand-over-fist in the TV market; and Tosh, Sharp, Hitachi etc wouldn't have sold off their TV businesses. You know, people wouldn't buy their tellies from grocery stores or book merchants. That's not the market today though, is it?

When this thread started I thought we were talking about 32" and 40" 1080p sets with HDR compatibility; and as I said before, I can see value in the 32" set - LG does one as well - and possibly some value in the 40", though that is harder to justify. I wasn't aware of the 49" Sony. Unless similarly-priced 49" UHD HDR sets from competitors make a complete fist of SD and HD TV signals then the 49" WE66x is the one that I can't see having much market appeal.

 

[jpaul]

Okay, I'm teasing you, but seriously; how exactly do you propose to objectively evaluate the cost benefit of the features of your example B7 over an EX750? There is no monetary value attached to black level or colour gamut or peak brightness. Even if you had a colorimeter capable of measuring very low brightness levels to make some objective measurements, the only thing it tells the user is that one is better or worse than the other. It's entirely subjective whether a consumer feels that the benefits are worth the cost.

There are some objective measures - well you make an informed decision, as opposed to based on OC 'I've got that it's great'(cognitive dissonance) feedback,
in particular, comparing contenders against your existing tv.
- under my viewing conditions is dynamic range and blackness visible
- colour space (can I see a strawberry in the real colour .. or the world cup football shirts)
- at the distance I sit & my prescription can I resolve 4k
- what are viewing angles
- is the technolgy robust (earlier posts, I made on oled lg patents and changing pixel size) ... are they telling the truth

 

[lucid]

There are some objective measures - well you make an informed decision, as opposed to based on OC 'I've got that it's great'(cognitive dissonance) feedback,
in particular, comparing contenders against your existing tv.
- under my viewing conditions is dynamic range and blackness visible
- colour space (can I see a strawberry in the real colour .. or the world cup football shirts)
- at the distance I sit & my prescription can I resolve 4k
- what are viewing angles
- is the technolgy robust (earlier posts, I made on oled lg patents and changing pixel size) ... are they telling the truth

I can see what you're aiming for, but a lot of it is still subjective. Depending on the source content, dynamic range is at the discretion of the director. Colour is very subjective. My impression of what strawberry red should look like could be different enough that it would be impossible to reach agreement. The lighting under which a subject is shot affects colour, and the ambient colour of the room and it's lighting affect our relative perception of the colours we see on a TV. I'm not saying any of this to be contentious;just pointing out that it's hard to be entirely objective without the gear to measure to set standards.

It's unlikely that you or I would be the prime market for these type of TVs. We are too demanding. However, on the smaller screen size I can see a potential benefit of having HDR compatibility. The question remains with the Sony whether they'll develop the idea further or just make a true UHD HDR set at 32".

 

[Eliot]

TBH I have always found the "you sit too far away" a bit nonsense....

I have seen many a Blu-ray, No one can tell me the 4K disc I have of Blade Runner doesn't blow any and all of them to absolute smithereens. The HDR is amazing yes that is true, it sis one of the best bits also but MAN, the DETAIL, the rain scene, the girders.


JEEZUS

Looking forward to trying it on my OLED55B7V coming monday versus the 49inch KS7000 i had before

 

[jpaul]

I have seen many a Blu-ray, No one can tell me the 4K disc I have of Blade Runner

I'd like to see 2049 in 4k... but from others posts thought the jury was out on the original @4k ... I'm not grain averse eg Leon

It's unlikely that you or I would be the prime market for these type of TVs. We are too demanding

this is good - avoids un-necessary wallet opening.
After review trawling, my principal concern about the lg oleds is actually the near black detail issues and tone-mapping versus panasonic(oled) or newer lg's, I would want both on audition simultaneously in home to see if there is a significant difference ... a (maybe) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
(at minimum I would be requesting the superman 4k disc which vincent used, for a shop audition)