A chance to talk to FlatpanelsHD's reviewers.
User avatar
By Flatpanels
#16959 Our mini review of Sony Z9G (ZG9) is online. It is Sony's first 8K TV. It also features Backlight Master Drive, HDR, and the X1 Ultimate processor.
Link: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php ... 1559201058

If you have questions please use this thread.

Enjoy.
Last edited by Flatpanels on 07 Jun 2019, 02:43, edited 1 time in total.
By samuel.blunt
#16960 Thanks for the review. Struck this off my potential buy list.
Alarming that Sony hasn't even employed a decoder/processor to handle 8K or set it's mind on one - or, two for that matter at that price. It all reads like a work in progress.
Ironic how Sony say developed with the environment in mind and then put out something that runs counter to it.
You have grammatical and spelling errors - lager instead of larger (!), is a mammoth where you'd put is mammoth and on. Oh and you say Z9F (Zf9) should be Z9D.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#16966 Haha, yeah I tried hard but Sony's model names are so confusing! :) Should be fixed now.

I've personally witnessed several transitions; from CRTs to flat screens, to HD, to Full HD, to 4K, to HDR, to 8K etc. I don't understand why TV makers are so eager to get started. Seriously, just wait 1 year for the essential pieces to fall in place.

Now, this is not the case with Sony (however, having just one HDMI 2.1 port is a serious limitation) but I think it is problematic for the industry as a whole that several brands rushed 8K TVs without HDMI 2.1 to the market last year. That's what I would call an essential piece for an 8K TV.
By samuel.blunt
#16967 Essential, indeed.
I'm 50 and so have gone through the TV changes - but not at your level no doubt.
It will be interesting to see whether the wide angle variations the various LCD manufacturers are going with will continue on future incarnations. TCL are employing it in their mini LED model but seem to believe the QD's and mini LED system will still bring in a high enough contrast and black level with zone/mini LED numbers - seems unlikely given results thus far.
As ever, it'll depend on consumer numbers rather than those that actually compare the sets in detail before buying who get called videophiles!
Sony though should get a panning, in my book, for bringing out a set that supposedly aimed at performance and then bung on a tech that ultimately robs it. It's like tech for tech's sake to me.
God help us if the Hadron Collider ever works.
By mclingo
#16968 sony are really dropping the ball with their LCD's at the moment, samsungs seem to be much better PQ wise, plus the wide angle filter seems to make a bit of a mess of the contrast, much more so than samsungs implementation.

UNless you really want Android there is no reason at all to buy Sony right now,
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#16982
mclingo wrote:sony are really dropping the ball with their LCD's at the moment, samsungs seem to be much better PQ wise, plus the wide angle filter seems to make a bit of a mess of the contrast, much more so than samsungs implementation.

UNless you really want Android there is no reason at all to buy Sony right now,


I don't think Samsung's wide angle tech is ideal either. It actually affects resolution quite a bit, something that I think has been underreported elsewhere.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#16983
Kuschelmonschter wrote:Has standby been fixed? Some German Sony supporter mentioned something in that direction.


Sorry, we did not get a chance to check on Z9G since we only had one day.

However, we have had A9G for a while (review published today) and noticed that it spun up a few times. Perhaps less often than before but it still happened during our testing.
By badcatsclaws
#17020 Hey there,

I am confused here because calibrated contrast of X950G is 4700:1 and Z9G has 4000:1. But you say in your review that this TV has better contrast and less affected from X-Wide Angle technology.

Is X950G's contrast correct? Because Rtings rated it 4800:1. (55") If it's correct this wide angle technology didn't affect the contrast at all? :o
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#17023 The reason for the discrepancy is that we don't measure native contrast per se. We use a 8x8 ANSI checkerboard (8 black squares, 8 white squares) to measure contrast.