The 2015 Sony TV Thread

[Nikyo]

Cant use bias lighting because I use screen in middle of room and not near to wall. But i think im happy with IPS contrast if its same like my TN. This forum black backround is very black and im happy with that if thats 700:1

Antec makes some bias lighting strips you could attach to the back. Unless you mean you're worried about shining light in the middle of a room (into someone's face.)

I do. But with IPS there's still not much we can do to improve the poor blacks perception no matter how hard we try.
My already 'old' 1080p W6 (2013) might have less-natural-than-IPS colors, but it's still MUCH more enjoyable to watch movies on it than on any IPS I've used before.

Regarding the 'debate', it's obvious that the Sony's are the superior displays, Sony almost always produce competent displays anyway (still lacking 10-point white balance settings though), those Samsungs in comparison are very expensive for such a clumsy design.
But I bet people will still choose the Samsungs for the lower lag, which I have to admit is a major point in their favor.

Whatever people, go see an OLED in an appropriate showroom if there's one in your area, and you'll feel any LCD is too expensive.

I typically watch movies in a fully lit room, so I can't really comment much on this. I like VA panels, but I question their use as actual monitors. Using a VA TV as an actual TV, sitting further back, and with cinematic content, they are quite enjoyable.

explaim to us, like we are 5 years old, how can panels with the very same W-LED backlight have significantly different color spaces?
AFAIK, all these sub $1000 4k panels use W-LED and are restricted to 99% sRGB coverage.
I am not aware, that the Philips panel has "lots of gamma shift", since i was led to believe by TFTcentral that this dispaly actually has the smallest gamma shift among all modern VA panels. the very same TFTcentral review led me to believe that this display does not have a smaller color space than competing W-LEd solutions. Did TFTcentral lied? ( retorical question).

It is better for work (coding, typing, reading) because:
- it is not 43" in size
-does not suffer from BLB nor IPS glow
-has much higher contrast
-has displayport, which is easier to connect to laptops than HDMI 2.0 solutions like the Sony.

neither display is adequate for real color critical work, like printing stuff IRL, and for web content production, if anyone has an advantage, itis the Philips, without BLB or IPs glow.

Is this serious? Monitors just have different levels of gamut coverage. The Philips is incredibly mediocre, and suffers from the same gamma shift as other VA monitors. Furthermore, TFTcentral doesn't, and has never, listed gamut sizes. They've also never said it has the "smallest gamma shift among all modern VA panels." So no, they didn't lie, you've just misinterpreted, and/or have no idea what you're reading.

Relevant quote:

Viewing angles of the BDM4065UC were quite comparable to other VA panels we've seen in the past. Horizontally the viewing angles were not bad. As you moved you line of sight past about 45° contrast shifted and a pale tint appeared on the image. The image got progressively more washed out as you moved further away from a central point of view. On some older AMVA panels the image tends to go very yellow from a wide horizontal angle but on the BDM4065UC it just went pale and washed out instead. Vertically the contrast shift was more pronounced and the image became more washed out from a shorter angle. This was actually apparent slightly when using the screen from a couple of feet away on a normal desktop position. Being pretty tall, my line of sight was about 3/4 of the way up the screen if I looked head on. If I glance towards the bottom of the screen the image becomes slightly washed out due to the viewing angles. If you move further back from the screen for movies or games, you don't see this, it's only when up close and due to the sheer size of the screen.

Viewing angles were not as wide as IPS or PLS panels as you might expect given this is a VA matrix. They were not too bad though compared with a lot of other VA panels out there which was pleasing. The contrast shifts were evident here from wider angles, but there was very little colour tone shift thankfully which is far more noticeable on most other VA panels. Being VA based the panel did suffer from the off-centre contrast shift you will see from these technology panels. If you view a very dark grey image with a black background head on, the grey content is somewhat lost in the image and appears darker than intended. Only as you move your line of sight slightly away from a head on central field of view does the grey content appear again. This is common of all VA matrices, and is one of the reasons why IPS is so popular for colour critical work. It should be noted that not everyone would even see this issue or be bothered by it. The viewing angles are certainly much better than TN Film panels of course.

So, you know, a normal VA panel.

Going from 40 - 43" is not a huge jump; see: http://www.displaywars.com/43-inch-16x9-vs-40-inch-16x9

VA panels can suffer from backlight bleed, but are less likely. IPS glow is less of an issue than VA gamma-shift (lol, what is accurate gamma?) Furthermore, I don't really see how that's going to affect coding, typing, and reading.

It has much higher contrast, but that only affects black depth, and not any of the usage scenarios you've listed. Of course, that's only really going to be of huge help in a dark room, which only an idiot would be reading/coding in a dark room unless they like eye strain.

It having displayport is a plus, I guess.

Uh, basically you have no idea what you're even talking about, do you?

 

[NCX]

explain to us, like we are 5 years old, how can panels with the very same W-LED back light have significantly different color spaces?

I have a better idea: please stick to recommending gimmicky matte 24" 4K Dells...actually scratch that. Go do some reading instead of continuing to mislead people with inaccurate information and useless recommendations.

Information about the size of a displays colour space and how it effects image quality can be found in most in depth reviews. I don't know the technical reasons as to why the large, non-high-end VA panels have smaller colour spaces than the 24-27" VA monitors, but it clearly has something to do with the manufacturers not wanting to spend the time and effort on the cheaper panels they sell in order to make the higher end panels actually better instead of just more expensive.

I am not aware, that the Philips panel has "lots of gamma shift", since i was led to believe by TFT Central that this display actually has the smallest gamma shift among all modern VA panels. the very same TFTcentral review led me to believe that this display does not have a smaller color space than competing W-LEd solutions. Did TFTcentral lied? ( rhetorical question).

TFT Central along with most other reviewers do not take into account how glow/contrast shift and gamma shift work in relation to viewing distance or how the a displays bezel colour/shade and room lighting have a bigger impact on contrast than the actual number.

It is better for work (coding, typing, reading) because:
- it is not 43" in size

This point is just straight up stupid, but I'm not surprised you posted something like this. If one finds a display too big, one can sit further away, derp.

-does not suffer from BLB nor IPS glow

The 43"+ IPS panels are usually bleed-less and VA panels suffer from more contrast shift (black glow) and colour loss than most of the newer IPS panels

-has much higher contrast

A bias light or bright room light can render these differences moot.

-has displayport which is easier to connect to laptops than HDMI 2.0 solutions like the Sony.

Another stupid point which has no relation to the actual quality of a panel.

The Sony and Crossover 434K have more vibrant colours, no gamma shift, are glow and contrast shift free when viewed from 90cm/3ft away, faster pixel response times and no PWM blur or flicker. The Philips only advantage is its higher contrast, but a bias light or bright room light can render these differences moot.

 

[rinaldo00]

If you want to be an advocate for ignorance and lower standards then you should start your own forum ([R]etard Forum is a suitable name for a forum founded on the above ideas) or just stick to the 4k Samsung thread where your kind of thinking is celebrated.

You must be a joy to be around in person

Read the Rtings review and check the AVS forums for this information...

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-brand/sony/x830c

Do you realize that the very site you used here rates the Samsungs much higher than the Sonys?

 

[Nikyo]

You must be a joy to be around in person

Do you realize that the very site you used here rates the Samsungs much higher than the Sonys?

That was in response to input lag measurements, which Rtings would be actually useful for. Nice job taking things out of context.

Rtings values contrast ratio too high in their review ratings, and they've yet to fully understand some of their own review criteria, such as PWM artifacts in their pursuit camera test reviews.

Try actually taking the time to read up on display technology, standards, and other usual bits of information, so you can interpret reviews and make informed purchases, instead of relying on subjective number ratings that hold no actual value.

 

[NCX]

Do you realize that the very site you used here rates the Samsungs much higher than the Sonys?

Do you realize that the same site doesn't take motion clarity ruining PWM into account even thought their response time pictures clearly show that it ruins motion clarity as well as ignores the fact that displays like the Samsung 8500-9000 series PC mode uses the wrong colour space for consumer media or that VA gamma shift and viewing angles reduce colour vibrancy, evenness and contrast? I already know the answer, and that was a sad attempt to try and take my post out of context to use against me.

 

[rinaldo00]

I will say this to both NCX and Nikyo since you are effectively the same person - both with the same opinions and the same wonderful bedside manner.

I am not an expert on displays, nor do I claim to be. The point of my post, which neither of you got, was that other people on a site that you find reputable for some things has a different opinion. The two of you post your opinions as if no one with any expertise in displays would disagree with you, yet they do.

 

[rinaldo00]

Do you realize that the same site doesn't take motion clarity ruining PWM into account even thought their response time pictures clearly show that it ruins motion clarity as well as ignores the fact that displays like the Samsung 8500-9000 series PC mode uses the wrong colour space for consumer media or that VA gamma shift and viewing angles reduce colour vibrancy, evenness and contrast? I already know the answer, and that was a sad attempt to try and take my post out of context to use against me.

Their response time pictures of the Sony and Samsung look nearly identical.

 

[Richard Jones]

rtings.com can be useful sometimes indeed but they are still amateur-level lacking experience in some fields, several of their testings have to be interpreted (even the way they use the LB tester is not always ideal).
Possibly in a few years if they listen to reason they could become a reference.
In every existing review, ratings, specifications and measurements are linked but not the same thing, when one is looking for a display for a particular use he needs to look at those objectively.
I've been into displays for about 8 years, reading most popular reviews and articles around, and more recently about over a year ago I've also included NCX's reviews and posts, because he clearly understands the technical aspects that count, where they count. Nikyo understands that too.
Do I believe long-time amateurs who don't own their own website with nice design and amazon links can have more experience and more objective advice on stuff like that ?
Yes I do. But for the majority in these situations it will always be difficult to swallow, because these rare guys are often isolated by default and tend to be treated as self-righteous annoying persons. Which leads those isolates to become bitter and aggressive with time, naturally I would say because it's frustrating.

 

[Nikyo]

I will say this to both NCX and Nikyo since you are effectively the same person - both with the same opinions and the same wonderful bedside manner.

I am not an expert on displays, nor do I claim to be. The point of my post, which neither of you got, was that other people on a site that you find reputable for some things has a different opinion. The two of you post your opinions as if no one with any expertise in displays would disagree with you, yet they do.

This isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Rtings does not fully understand their own testing, hence why their subjective ratings are useless. They do, however, use testing methods which are universally deemed good; leo bodnar test, pursuit camera, oscilloscopes measurements of backlight and pixel response. It's then up to the user to interpret that information and make an educated purchase. Rtings actual reviewers are in no way knowledgeable, otherwise they would deduct points for PWM, and denounce wide-gamut displays.

It's also important to keep in mind that Rtings reviews TVs as TVs and not monitors. They're not concerned about gamma-shift, because the audience of their reviews plan to sit far enough away from VA panels to avoid any gamma shift issue entirely. At a TV's distance, contrast is probably more useful a statistic.

But given that you do not know anything about display technology, fail to understand that we use specific information out of the review, and are keen about taking comments out of context in which to incite argument -- why would I be even remotely nice? You're arguing something that you don't understand, nor try to. Why are you even arguing this? Read up; learn to extract the relevant information out of things, before you go around making claims.

Their response time pictures of the Sony and Samsung look nearly identical.

Look again. The Samsung pictures have very clear PWM artifacts which, in practice, will ruin motion clairty. Read about PWM here: http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/lcd-motion-artifacts/

 

[rinaldo00]

This isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Rtings does not fully understand their own testing, hence why their subjective ratings are useless. They do, however, use testing methods which are universally deemed good; leo bodnar test, pursuit camera, oscilloscopes measurements of backlight and pixel response. It's then up to the user to interpret that information and make an educated purchase. Rtings actual reviewers are in no way knowledgeable, otherwise they would deduct points for PWM, and denounce wide-gamut displays.

It's also important to keep in mind that Rtings reviews TVs as TVs and not monitors. They're not concerned about gamma-shift, because the audience of their reviews plan to sit far enough away from VA panels to avoid any gamma shift issue entirely. At a TV's distance, contrast is probably more useful a statistic.

But given that you do not know anything about display technology, fail to understand that we use specific information out of the review, and are keen about taking comments out of context in which to incite argument -- why would I be even remotely nice? You're arguing something that you don't understand, nor try to. Why are you even arguing this? Read up; learn to extract the relevant information out of things, before you go around making claims.

Being nice isn't important, but ad hominem attacks are poor form. If you or NCX are truly interested in making a difference and educating the general public I suggest rather than insulting users on a forum you go directly to the source. Rtings reads and replies to email so why not tell them were they are wrong? Here, I will expedite your corrections

Do you have something to tell us? Did you find an error or notice a missing product?
You can always contact us at [email protected] and we will be glad to help you. We are always looking for feedback and ways to improve.

Look again. The Samsung pictures have very clear PWM artifacts which, in practice, will ruin motion clairty. Read about PWM here: http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/lcd-motion-artifacts/

I looked again and actually the Sony images look worse

 

[Richard Jones]

I looked again and actually the Sony images look worse

Oh come on the Samsung ones got both streaking and PWM artifacts mixed.
You should compare in practice, this is the problem with still images of blur and motion testings...they're not moving.

PWM backlight affects motion perception negatively, it's a given, read here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm
And here: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/factors-affecting-pc-monitor-responsiveness/

A few years ago when everybody was crying how PWM was crap and the rise of flicker-free backlighting a godsend, nobody wanted to buy displays with PWM anymore.
It's been long-enough now apparently, that people have forgotten all about it.

 

[Nikyo]

Being nice isn't important, but ad hominem attacks are poor form. If you or NCX are truly interested in making a difference and educating the general public I suggest rather than insulting users on a forum you go directly to the source. Rtings reads and replies to email so why not tell them were they are wrong? Here, I will expedite your corrections

Do you have something to tell us? Did you find an error or notice a missing product?
You can always contact us at [email protected] and we will be glad to help you. We are always looking for feedback and ways to improve.

Except there's been no ad hominem attacks. You've no credibility to actually damage, you've already stated that you are not an expert on displays. It's also incredibly clear by your responses that you do not understand the information coming out of reviews. Nobody has said anything that can't be backed up with factual information. Rtings actual information is fine, it's just their subjective rating which is useless. I've no reason to inform them otherwise, because I'm actually able to interpret their reviews for what their worth. They're learning; and I've stated that their reviews are indicative of using TVs for their designed distance, one where contrast could be a more valued measurment and gamma shift is less of an issue. The PWM part is pretty inexcusable, and they're more interested in comparing color streaking than actual in practice PWM artifacts.

I'm really trying to figure out what's so incredibly bad about trying to recommend people a superior product. Like, I'm sorry you enjoy perpetuating wrong information? I would imagine you're on a forum to learn more information on a given topic.

I looked again and actually the Sony images look worse

I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point. Good day.

Edit because it's bothering me: Ad hominem refers to attacking someone's character and as a result their credibility. For example, If I were to tell you you don't know anything about monitors because you're drug user. Calling someone stupid because they've made ignorant claims (and also refuting them) is not ad hominem.

 

[aadik]

I have just little interesting question. Is it possible to reduce input lag with faster keyboard and mouse? Some keyboard makers even claim they have 0.2ms keyboards(a4tech mechanical). So lets say nr.1 computer have screen with 30ms input lag and keyboard with 10ms and nr.2 computer have screen input lag 35ms and keyboard 1ms, so that means nr.2 computer feels faster because faster keyboard compensates bigger screen input lag?

 

[MistaSparkul]

I have just little interesting question. Is it possible to reduce input lag with faster keyboard and mouse? Some keyboard makers even claim they have 0.2ms keyboards(a4tech mechanical). So lets say nr.1 computer have screen with 30ms input lag and keyboard with 10ms and nr.2 computer have screen input lag 35ms and keyboard 1ms, so that means nr.2 computer feels faster because faster keyboard compensates bigger screen input lag?

Pretty sure no keyboard out there has a 10ms delay. Input lag among keyboards/mice is very much negligible.

 

[Richard Jones]

Dunno if it's still relevant today, but people who play very timing-critical games use dedicated software to increase the USB polling rate.
Google it

 

[rinaldo00]

I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point. Good day.

Edit because it's bothering me: Ad hominem refers to attacking someone's character and as a result their credibility. For example, If I were to tell you you don't know anything about monitors because you're drug user. Calling someone stupid because they've made ignorant claims (and also refuting them) is not ad hominem.

It wasn't you, it was NCX (you are similar enough that I got you confused) that said this

dazzle each other with your knowledge of these oh so important details.
If you want to be an advocate for ignorance and lower standards then you should start your own forum ([R]etard Forum is a suitable name for a forum founded on the above ideas) or just stick to the 4k Samsung thread where your kind of thinking is celebrated.

I would say that rises to the level of ad hominem, it clearly isn't helping educate anyone.

I am not trolling. read my next post

 

[rinaldo00]

Oh come on the Samsung ones got both streaking and PWM artifacts mixed.
You should compare in practice, this is the problem with still images of blur and motion testings...they're not moving.

PWM backlight affects motion perception negatively, it's a given, read here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm
And here: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/factors-affecting-pc-monitor-responsiveness/

A few years ago when everybody was crying how PWM was crap and the rise of flicker-free backlighting a godsend, nobody wanted to buy displays with PWM anymore.
It's been long-enough now apparently, that people have forgotten all about it.

OK, maybe I do not know what to look for so I put both images side by side. Tell me which is worse

 

[hannibl]

The one on the left (Sony) has acceptable motion blur. The one on the right (Samsung) has PWM artifacting, which you can see by looking for multiples of the image which overlap. Notice how you can see a tiny letter in pure white inside each letter, which is where the images are overlapping.

 

[Nikyo]

It wasn't you, it was NCX (you are similar enough that I got you confused) that said this

I would say that rises to the level of ad hominem, it clearly isn't helping educate anyone.

I am not trolling. read my next post

Go back and read that in context. That would not be ad hominem regardless. If someone truly wants to rationalize their purchase by spreading ignorant ideology then they're going to be called out and refuted.

OK, maybe I do not know what to look for so I put both images side by side. Tell me which is worse

Take a look at the information Richard and I have posted about PWM. The first image will look superior in practice, despite being blurry in the picture. What's happening is that PWM effectively creates a strobe effect, but one that is not synced with the refresh rate of the monitor, and therefore causing motion artifacting. The motion artifacting is seen in the second picture as weird, cut-up afterimages (look at how cut up the letters are.) So, while the picture appears clearer because of the strobe that the PWM is creating, in actual motion (not picture), the image will appear to be a choppy, discombobulated mess.

 

[rinaldo00]

Go back and read that in context. That would not be ad hominem regardless. If someone truly wants to rationalize their purchase by spreading ignorant ideology then they're going to be called out and refuted.

Just stop. Calling someone a retard is an ad hominem attack, period. No context justifies it. There are ways of calling people out without using cheap insults.

Take a look at the information Richard and I have posted about PWM. The first image will look superior in practice, despite being blurry in the picture. What's happening is that PWM effectively creates a strobe effect, but one that is not synced with the refresh rate of the monitor, and therefore causing motion artifacting. The motion artifacting is scene in the second picture as weird, cut-up afterimages (look at how cut up the I is.) So, while the picture appears clearer because of the strobe that the PWM is creating, in actual motion (not picture), the image will appear to be a choppy, discombobulated mess.

I thought that when discussing motion blur I should be looking for a blurrier image, that is why the one on the left looked worse to me.

You gave me very useful information and it was delivered in a polite, no nonsense manner, that's all I wanted.

 

[Nikyo]

Just stop. Calling someone a retard is an ad hominem attack, period. No context justifies it. There are ways of calling people out without using cheap insults.

I thought that when discussing motion blur I should be looking for a blurrier image, that is why the one on the left looked worse to me.

You gave me very useful information and it was delivered in a polite, no nonsense manner, that's all I wanted.

That is not ad hominem; google it.

I know the internet wants to believe that name-calling is ad-hominem, but it's not. It's name calling. Ad-hominen is when you attack character -- and I've already provided an example of how that would work.

I'm perfectly fine with answering questions when they're asked. You entered the thread effectively insulting NCX, and then pulling his comment out of context. Now all you're doing is patronizing me. I'm done with this conversation.

 

[rinaldo00]

That is not ad hominem; google it.

ad ho·mi·nem
[ˈad ˈhämənəm]
ADVERB
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
relating to or associated with a particular person:
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Actually name calling IS ad hominem, read this

The phrase ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” The fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. The critic hopes that people will believe the claim in question is false simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. For example, “You cannot honestly accept John’s claims about politics because he can’t even find a job!” However, John’s inability to find employment is logically irrelevant to the political claim he is making.

The fallacy comes in two varieties: abusive ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominem. In the abusive ad hominem, the critic attacks his opponent’s character or insults him in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. This tactic is common in politics, and it may psychologically sway people. However, it is logically fallacious because a person’s character (or lack thereof) is logically irrelevant to the validity of his argument. Even if the critic’s negative claims about his opponent are true (e.g., he really is a draft-dodger, or he really did spend time in jail), this has no bearing on the position he is advocating.

Name-calling is perhaps the most obvious form of the abusive ad hominem fallacy.

I'm perfectly fine with answering questions when they're asked. You entered the thread effectively insulting NCX, and then pulling his comment out of context.

NCX has been an argumentative instigator for a long time, it goes way back before this thread.

Now all you're doing is patronizing me. I'm done with this conversation.

Actually it was a genuine compliment. Maybe if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder you would not be so defensive.

 

[rinaldo00]

I came across this RTINGS link in the 4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI 2.0 TV Database thread.

Getting back on topic back several months go when I was deciding on a 4K display Sonys did not do 4:4:4 so I never looked at them, I will take a look now.

 

[aadik]

Pretty sure no keyboard out there has a 10ms delay. Input lag among keyboards/mice is very much negligible.

My Logitech K360 have 32.9ms. I tested it with KeyResponse PK.

 

[Nikyo]

My Logitech K360 have 32.9ms. I tested it with KeyResponse PK.

The actual input lag of the screen (i.e rendering from the gpu to what appears on the screen) is different from the input lag of your keyboard. If you want better response from your keyboard, connect it to a PS/2 connector or something.

ad ho·mi·nem
[ˈad ˈhämənəm]
ADVERB
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
relating to or associated with a particular person:
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Actually name calling IS ad hominem, read this

The phrase ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” The fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. The critic hopes that people will believe the claim in question is false simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. For example, “You cannot honestly accept John’s claims about politics because he can’t even find a job!” However, John’s inability to find employment is logically irrelevant to the political claim he is making.

The fallacy comes in two varieties: abusive ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominem. In the abusive ad hominem, the critic attacks his opponent’s character or insults him in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. This tactic is common in politics, and it may psychologically sway people. However, it is logically fallacious because a person’s character (or lack thereof) is logically irrelevant to the validity of his argument. Even if the critic’s negative claims about his opponent are true (e.g., he really is a draft-dodger, or he really did spend time in jail), this has no bearing on the position he is advocating.

Name-calling is perhaps the most obvious form of the abusive ad hominem fallacy.


NCX has been an argumentative instigator for a long time, it goes way back before this thread.

Actually it was a genuine compliment. Maybe if you didn't have a chip on your shoulder you would not be so defensive.

That is from a book on 'exposing' evolutionary theories by denouncing scientists for resorting to name calling. Wikipedia (for once), or some peer-reviewed work from literally any institution would be a suitable source. You've effectively posted someone's opinion on what ad hominem, and they appear to have no idea what the phrase even means. The earlier examples are actually case in point what it is. Of course, there's name calling, then there's refuting a point. If I slip you're an idiot in it, whilst refuting your ignorant ideology with fact, then perhaps you're just an idiot, no? If I call you a fucking idiot and say no one should listen to you, and use that as my argument, then that's ad hominem. But that didn't fucking happen did it?

If you'd try reading this contextually, you'd see that NCX didn't even target anyone in his response, and instead was targeted by another forum member, to which he formed a rebuttal to that forum members utterly bullshit attempt to promote mediocrity and rationalize his inferior purchase. Good lord. How about this: If you don't know about displays, ask a question first, instead of trying to incite another argument. Not really difficult.

It has been so infuriating to use these forums after the creation of the Samsung thread. Everyone thinks they have an idea of what they're talking about; NCX is an idiot for not promoting products made by uncaring manufacturers; every single time I post something, I get into an argument with someone that has no idea what they're talking about. I may as well just ask to be banned.

 

[rinaldo00]

If you'd try reading this contextually, you'd see that NCX didn't even target anyone in his response, and instead was targeted by another forum member, to which he formed a rebuttal to that forum members utterly bullshit attempt to promote mediocrity and rationalize his inferior purchase.

I read the entire thread and no where in the original post or in the reply by NCX was there any substantive discussion besides the insults.

 

[Brigante]

So I've got my 43X830C now. Set it up this evening but I can't get it to work properly.

Firstly it defaults to 1080p in Windows, secondly if I change to 3840x2160 and 60hz I get all funny colours. Like this http://imgur.com/WxFcGZ6

At 30hz it seems to work but it looks more upscale do than the true resolution. Everything is very large, a lot larger than on my 1200p 24" monitor.

In the nvidia control panel the Output colour format is locked to YCbCr420 and Output dynamic range locked to limited.

I saw on the rtings.com review that there should be a menu for changing HDMI input to enhanced but I don't have that option. I already checked and I have the latest firmware.

I'm using a 980ti.

What am I doing wrong?

 

[aadik]

Maybe HDMI cable is faulty or not good quality and cant make 4k 60hz?
Can you say how glossy screen is?

 

[aadik]

Is your firmware PKG2.475.0010NAB ?
Is it US model?

 

[Brigante]

It's a UK model. In the information menu it says Build SVP4KDTV15_EU-user 5.0.2 LGY75.S143 2.287 release-keys

I got one of these cables it's 2 meters long, http://www.amazon.co.uk/PLATINUM-Version-High-Speed-ETHERNET-PANASONIC/dp/B002HJ69DO/


The screen is glossy but not like some monitors that are like mirrors. Reflections are a little bit fussy. I have lights in the background where I sit and they don't bother me at all even on dark images.

The unit looks great. I'm just so disappointed I can't get it set up properly. I think the issue is the firmware. It doesn't do 4:4:4 for some reason.

 

[aadik]

How many HDMI inputs TV have? Maybe try some other input. Maybe they all does not support hdmi2.0? I heard some Samsung models only one input support HDMI2.0 maybe same thing with Sony too.
What Windows you use? I have heard some people have had Samsung TV problems with win10 and not with older windows.

 

[Brigante]

I've tried all inputs.

I've just read on Sony.co.uk that there should be a new firmware coming on the 13th this month. Can only hope this is the one the US already got.

 

[Brigante]

Looks like the US and UK are on very different firmware versions.

The latest for the UK is only PKG2.287.0010 so we're way behind.

This thing is useless until we get the 4:4:4 update :-(

 

[aadik]

Seems like last firmware update was for UK models 15-07-2015 according to sony.co.uk so that means that time there wasn't 4:4:4 support yet.
http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/co...ia-kd-x-firmware-update-v2287-eub/KD-43X8305C
Edit: You was faster

 

[aadik]

My country model is x8305C too so that means I dont get 4:4:4 either right now. Im too from EU.
Can you try 1080p/120hz?

 

[Brigante]

I'll try that tomorrow morning for you.

I just had another thought. I wonder if I could flash the unit with the US firmware or do I risk bricking it if I do.

 

[aadik]

I think maybe its better ask it on http://www.avsforum.com forum there are more people who use those Sony TV-s.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...2015-x900c-x910c-x930c-x940c-x850c-x830c.html

 

[Ticker305]

any holy grail monitors like the XBR43X830C with native 1080p/120hz and 4k on the horizon? going to upgrade my monitor soon as Pascal comes out and am down to buy this now if nothing better is rumored.

 

[HoffY]

It has been so infuriating to use these forums after the creation of the Samsung thread. Everyone thinks they have an idea of what they're talking about; NCX is an idiot for not promoting products made by uncaring manufacturers; every single time I post something, I get into an argument with someone that has no idea what they're talking about. I may as well just ask to be banned.

I feel the same. Please dont ban yourself I really like how someone doesn't beat around the bush and tells it how it is. No PC crap. AND you have the patience and ability to write things far more politely and thoroughly then i do. I get that sick of idiots trying to claim they know something about a thing they clearly do not, that i'm just over trying any more.

I really did like the internet before it became main stream. Just because you can google something, doesn't mean whats written still doesn't need to be thoroughly vetted and a proper thought process involved to weed out the opinions from facts and whatnot.

I'm still on the fence about my next monitor purchase. I'm trying to hold out for the 2nd generation (if thats even accurate given the dribs and drabs they've been released in) as the current stuff still doesn't warrant spending coin on for me personally (given i have 30" screens that are still quite high resolution and in an aspect ratio i prefer and don't lack any input options and PIP/BPB functionality). *deep breathe*

 

[Brigante]

Just turned on my PC this morning and it all looks great

It's not 4:4:4 but Windows looks nice and crisp and not any of the weird colours I got last night.

Tried 1080p @ 120hz as well. Works perfectly!

Once I get the 4:4:4 update this will greatly surpass any monitor I've ever tried. It's already amazing and can only get better.

The picture quality is extremely good. Not sure what the rtings review was on about really.