Originally Posted by venus933
According to rtings the dimming scheme on the Q9 doesn't perform very well other than being able to maintain blacks on the top and bottom bars while you have praised its dimming scheme. Even trained folks have discrepancies and being human bias/agendas cannot be completely ruled out.
It has been mentioned that if HDR is given heavy weight that this will favor the LCD displays given they can get much better. With high APL and bright detail that appears to be true but with low APL which is much more prevalent with movies they are actually at a disadvantage IMO. OLED can maintain black levels and peak brightness at the same time with specular highlights while the dimming scheme (which is essential for HDR) of LCD has to mute light output to avoid blooming and elevated black levels. An extreme example would be a star field where the blacks are more of a dark gray and the stars lack pin point brightness but this would also hold true to some extent with other specular highlights in dark scenes and in some cases LCD cannot help but reveal bad blooming effects. I don't think suggestions of bias lighting and turning more lights on is going to cut it with the judges at the shootout.
You would think the Q9 would be the most exposed here with the Sony Z9D being the least exposed perhaps to the extent that it is indeed the best overall display with HDR. But until bright venues such as sporting events are commonly broadcast/streamed in HDR then its hard to fathom LCD having the advantage many think they have.
In any event to an untrained bloke such as myself this is going to really hurt the Q9 compared to the others even with the P series when it comes to the control of black levels and contrast especially if they use HDR content/tests designed to expose blooming/haloing.
I've certainly noted numerous times that the Q9F would be an even better TV if it had FALD instead of being a 32-zone edgelit unit. That's undeniable. It's also a fact it does handle letterbox bars well. You won't find me arguing that Samsung could not have done better in that regard, but you also won't find me joining the crowd that thinks the TV can't produce a phenomenal looking picture much of the time, despite that limitation.
Starfields and all that, yes hello everyone knows OLED does that better at this point. And by everyone I mean the few people who care and spend lots of time discussing starfield on Internet forums. I can't see why someone obsessed with looking at starfields would not buy an OLED, it's absolutely what that technology is best at.
I have nothing invested in how any TV does at this year's "Annual TV Shootout" but I am curious to see how the new structure, with multiple categories up for grabs, only pros voting, Kevin Miller being back in the mix, and the event itself now being under the aegis of CE Week instead of being a Value Electronics (i.e. dealer sponsored) event.
Having said all that, it's hard to see how the Z9D is not the champion emissive LCD at this point and time. That does not mean the Q9F is not a compelling TV, especially for use in brighter spaces (forget bias lights, no family is gonna use one of those in a living room, lol).
Yes, enthusiasts have different priorities and that's fantastic because the stats don't lie.... 5% of TVs sold (i.e. expensive high-end models) = 20% of industry revenue and 40% of industry profit. In the grand scheme of things, these TVs matter.
TCL showed that you can put out a compelling 55" TV for $600. To me that's more interesting than what any of these flagship models can do. I want to see HDR support become ubiquitous, frankly I don't care which top model any one individual thinks is the best. Clearly people do not agree on that topic and will spend a lot of time arguing it.