Originally Posted by IMRIZZO
the real estate of that panel is just to much to illuminate adequately and those panels were sub contracted by a few manufacturers and not under Sony's quality control. the 55" panels were better and the 46" panels were the best produced. ( I don't know why Sony dropped the 46" model from their line up ?)
The 55" panel is the same one used in the 46" so what exactly makes the 46" panel better?
And may I suggest to greenslime that before you jump ship back to a 55" set if the whole issue is just brightness, make sure you have the 65" set up properly.
Go into preferences and make sure ambient sensor and light limiter (all the crap in there for that matter) is set off.
I can tell you I have a 65hx929 and I always leave backlight at 3 and its extremely bright. I can't bare to have it any higher especially in a fully darkened/dimly lit room. Don't see why it should be different for the hx950.
And wasn't it confirmed that the 65hx950 had 125 zones? That's about the same ratio to screen size as having 105 for the 55" and 96 for the 46" so I don't see why picture quality should be different.
I know 46/55 have SPVA vs SMVA for the 65 and most people would actually argue that the SMVA is superior to SPVA+Psa especially for 2d pq as the Psa tech sacrifices 2d performance (contrast+ viewing angles) in order to provide better 3d performance.
This would also explain the reports we got earlier about the 55" version having bad viewing angles whereas the 65 has been reported to be quite good for of axis viewing.
It also falls in place with flavius reporting somewhat poor 3d performance on the 65 whereas we are not seeing people say the same about the 55. Probably the Psa tech kicking in which is causing these differences. I'm not saying for sure, but just a guess base on the spec differences between these panels.