Sony W4100 series thread

Yes... This looks like a model for me to consider going for. Definitely going for the 46".
Just better hope "Big River" will be able to offer a decent price on it for me later on here.

The only one that Amazon's taking preorders on now is the 40", but hope that larger sizes will start showing up later on.
This may be just the right bang for the buck, imo. However, seeing as tho the DCR is only 30K:1, like the Samsung A550, I'm wondering how well this model will do vs. the A650, tho, since that seems to be the one that Sony has to try outperforming.

I think it's worth noting that the European W4100 models have 10-bit panels unlike the US versions.

Has anyone seen one of these in person yet?

LCD newbie here. I was considering the Sony 46W3000. What are the differences between this and this new 46W4100? Is is just the 120Hz Motionflow?

Thank you!

Not just that, but the connectivity is better, as well as a more superior picture quality, since I believe the W4100 is supposedly on par with the XBR4, iirc. Probably even better than that, since the DCR (Dynamic Contrast Ratio) is almost double. Anyhow, I'm hoping that Sony improved on their MotionFlow technology over last year, since there's a whole boatload of complaints about smearing/ghosting all over the place about that.

yeah but our W4000 doesnt have 100Hz.We will get a W4500 though in september with both 10bit/100Hz/DLNA

What advantage does 100hz offer?

better motion handling

Where did you see this? This says that the 40, 46, and 52 are all getting 10-bit:

The 32-incher gets stripped down a bit with the omission of Live Color Creation, a 10-bit panel, PhotoTV HD, and x.v.Color -- all of which are included on the larger models.

So does this:

The new W-Series (Sony W4100) consist of the 40-inch KDL-40W4100, 46-inch KDL-46W4100, and the 52-inch KDL-52W4100. They feature full 1080p HD 10-but LCD panels, 3D interface, 24p, Bravia Sync, DMeX & DMP compatibility. (omits the 32-inch entirely)

Both of those imply that the 32-inch has an 8-bit panel, and the others (40, 46, 52) all have 10-bit panels.

yeh, i hope so too, I would be terribly surprised if they didn't. but seeing how samsung fixed their AMP issues, it's probably a safe bet that Sony would fix theirs too and maybe even improve upon it. but then again, it's not that big of a deal for me as I don't plan on using motionflow that much because I don't like my movies looking like soap operas, true 24p via 5:5 pulldown 120hz conversion is all I need. but yeh I could see how the smearing/ghosting issue could be annoying for gamers who like their games smooth like its running at 60 fps.

i want to buy a kdl-52w4100 too. i will wait for your opinions
but cant believe they removed the v.x color and 10 bit panel. im not very happy with that. IM really hope at least that motion blur is reduced.
so if its not v.x color, the hdmi are probably not 1.3 v

The Sony press release at CES mentioned 10-bit processing and display for the Z series, but not for the W series. And here is what CNET wrote at the time:

The KDL-W4100 series is the first to add the 120Hz technology that we felt performed so well in our review of the company's KDL-46XBR4, and includes identical screen sizes with its 40-inch KDL-40W4100, 46-inch KDL-46W4100 and 52-inch KDL-52W4100.

The features crown among Sony's 2008 CES LCD HDTV announcements belongs to the KDL-Z4100 series. Just two screen sizes are available in this series, the 40-inch KDL-40Z4100 and the 46-inch KDL-46Z4100. They improve upon the KDL-W4100 models by adding a better backlight, 10-bit processing on a 10-bit panel, and compatibility with x.v.Color sources. We're dubious these improvements will be worth the extra cost over the W models, but we'll reserve final judgment for an in-depth review.

Of course, specs are always subject to change without notice .

I totally agree those "cut corners" almost makes me want to go for an A650, but I'm still optimistic that Sony will indeed deliver that XBR4-style quality in their W4100, tho, despite those shortcomings. It's just gonna be too tough of a call, imo.

I found the (attached) spec sheets via a link somewhere in this thread, and noticed that while the specs on the Z4100 explicitly mention 10-bit, the W4100 does not. However, there are some things which are only found in the W4100 list which I'd assume are also present in the Z4100, such as the "TV Guide IPG", which sounds like OTA program guide to me. In any case, I agree with you; it's looking like the W's don't have 10-bit support.

But regardless of all that, after doing some further digging into what 10-bit actually is, I don't think I'm personally too worried about it. I had originally thought it was a per-pixel value, but it's actually per-channel. So "8-bit" is actually 24-bit in computer-speak, because you get 8 bits for each color (R/G/B). This is a good thing, because in computer-speak, "8-bit" usually means 256 colors, which doesn't look good. (PS: If your computer claims "32-bit", that's because it's counting another 8bits for the alpha/transparency channel, which is purely software-side and has nothing to do with your display.)

You know how your computer monitor is showing 16.7 million colors (=2^24)? That's "8-bit" too, so all those gradients comparing a jagged curve to a smooth curve that you see floating around are actually lying to you, because how could anyone here show you a 10-bit gradient when you're looking at it from an 8-bit monitor? Turns out the "smooth" gradient is actually 8-bit (256 levels/channel), and the "jagged" is something under that, in this case 6 bit (64 levels/channel). Sure, it can be argued that this sort of deceptive game is only for comparison's sake, but adding color depth is a game of decreasing returns. As you throw in more bits, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the difference between one bit depth and another. It's like how adding 10mph makes a big difference for 5->15mph, but not so much for 105->115mph. The exact same thing comes into play for the difference between 6->8bit and 8->10 bit.

So considering that no consumer equipment actually *uses* 10-bit right now, it'd make sense that this is a feature which would only be added to the boutique lines. Sure, there's the new 10-bit "deep color" support that comes with HDMI 1.3, but the 1.3 spec also supports *12* and *16* bits per channel, so blowing all your money on a 10-bit display is pretty pointless when you're just going to be confronted with even greater depth in a couple years anyway. If you're going to invest megabucks in minute changes in color depth, why be half-assed about it? Where's the 16-bit panels?

After just discovering what I've described above, I think I'd be perfectly happy with an 8-bit display if it turned out the W4100's used them, because the impression I'm getting is that, at least for now, as far as panels are concerned*, this particular feature is pure marketing ******** with zero gains in view quality. Which is fine with me, because that means that the W series will be cheaper for lacking it.

That said, it'd be nice if each marketing feature were fully dissected in a single stickied thread. It seems like the LCD industry is overrun with this sort of thing, and it'd be great if there was an easy reference for sifting through the garbage when I'm doing my shopping. If the FDA let this sort of thing happen, I'd be seeing Crisco labeled with a "dynamic cholesterol ratio" of zero.

*10-bit internal processing is actually useful, even if you "only" have an 8-bit display, because it gives the TV's processing filters more room to play without making things look distorted as a result.

 

KDL46Z4100_mksp.pdf 479.3525390625k . file

 

KDL46W4100_mksp.pdf 480.736328125k . file

You can buy 52-inch KDL-52W4100 right now at J&R ! http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4228280 And I saw it today there and I was impressed by lighted SONY logo! Actualy,the whole look overall very attractive.The speakers grill I think made from metal.Compare to nearby xbr4 & w3000 black much better-almost black.But screen much more reflective (still not glossy but you can see on w4100 reflected images of other tv`s and what`s there -sort of).The "hole" is probably fine but since nobody tightened cables behind=terrible.The picture itself on crappy baseball source look exactly as on w3000 (wich cost there the same money,BTW) and XBR4 was better,but only on w4100 black wasnt terribly crushed so may be b/c of that picture didnt punch me in the face!?..

So in short you like the quality? What did you think about the 52W4100 vs. the Samsung A650, did it actually look better/worse than Sammy? Also, which styling did you like better, think that glossy black/red was better, or the hole in the bezel with an illuminated Sony logo?

Can someone decipher this for me please. LOL

-Thats a tuff one... 1-STYLING -sams650 very nice if not TOC.I thought nothing wrong with it when I saw it in the dark corner But another one wasnt so lucky and even with moderate light I start to hate it after 1 minute.Its better be stupid brite orange as on 1 little sharp,but since it only TOUCH of red its hiting your mind,like quiet scratch by metal at glass... Of all old sonys w4100 look to me the best!..-But you better cover the hole with something.. 2-PICTURE First impression -sams650=1,XBR4=2,W4100=W3000=3 (IMO) BUT! They were ajusted accordingly!-sams650=no black detail at all,xbr4-lil better and only at w4100 can be seen some shadows.

Look pal,I did my best!

Ahh okay... Sweet to know that... Just better hope that the "glass hole" isn't as distracting as the red bordered bezel of that other brand's 120Hz TV. All in all, sounds great. Will be looking forward to seeing what Sony delivers in PQ vs. the other. Even tho the 52" sounds nice, most realistically, I find myself getting the 46" since I only have a 4' stand to put it on.

I definently like the styling, and could see distration with that gap. I just have never been a Sony fan with everything they make. Don't get me wrong they make fine tvs. Still I would take Samsung, or Sharp over them.

hehe thanks for the info and first impressions

sounds like the 3 are pretty close,I guess I'll just have to wait to see them all in person to judge which aspects of the PQ each excels at and make up my mind as to whats most important to me and sort of weigh their respective pros and cons.

Yeah, but I really don't see a glossy screen as a definition of an LCD HDTV, even tho the W4100 sounds like semi-gloss, I still believe that if you wanted a glossy screen, I'd go for a Panasonic plasma. However, since Sony may not have that reflectivity that the A650 has, this may probably be better for viewing when you have a well-lit room.

Thank you for the impressions and input. Although your posts were not written in a standard manner I/we here at AVS appreciate the eyes on testimonial. I am going to try to summarize what you thought:


Rank of your visual first impression:

1) Sammy 650
2) XBR4
3) W4100
4) W3000


But you are qualifying that statement by saying that the Sammy had crushed blacks, the XBR4 was crushing blacks as well but to a less degree than the Sammy, and the W4100 wasn't crushing blacks (you could make out some shadow detail).

Furthermore you said that your initial impressions may have been influenced by the fact that some of the sets were crushing blacks, and a darker screen can at a glance give you a more 3-Dish picture. So maybe the darker picture of the Sammy and the XBR4 while crushing blacks, gave a better picture from a distance at a glance.

So if the sets were playing a Blu Ray in a darkened room, and all adjusted optimally, you may change your ranking.

How did I do?

yeh I'm confused as well hehe but that's okay. maybe the sets just aren't properly calibrated and who knows what the source is like.

You did very good ,but "So maybe the darker picture of the Sammy and the XBR4 while crushing blacks, gave a better picture from a distance at a glance." thats complitly opposite! - the pictures of the Sammy and the XBR4 while crushing blacks were MUCH brighter! They had just too much CONTRAST.-And if you been at J&R TVs hall -its no light AT ALL there -only from TVs.

hmm... I still don't seem to understand what you're getting at. so are you saying the 650 and xbr4 had crushed blacks despite being brighter while the W4100 had shadow details even though it looks darker?

I don;t know, but to me shadow detail and good blacks trumps brightness anyday of the week. and since you mentioned the W4100 had darker blacks than the xbr4 and W3000, I'd say the W4100 probably has the better PQ.

posted this in another thread but here was my impression of the v4100 at frys

i saw the v4100 in store but it wasn't bluray feed. I was impressed by the de juddering, everything seemed 120hz like even though this set doesnt advertise it as being 120hz, i believe it does has a 120hz processor devoted purely to dejudder, pans etc.. looked exceptionally 120hz like without any fake frames inserted, this was on a fry's crap feed and still noticeable. As for motion blur, yes i still noticed the sony still was blurry in subtle movements even though the frame rate was smoother, there was still a feeling of some blur in peoples faces when they're head would slightly move, it must be the same 8ms refresh rate that's the cause, but for some reason i've always thought sony lcd's seemed more refresh rate blurry than other lcd's.

Everything else like picture options and backlight quality seemed on par with older models. The picture had more detail but the backlight would constantly dynamically change from bright to dark and was quite annoying, especially cause it would do it too late after the picture had been on screen for some time, so if this annoyed you with the last models this part wasnt an improvement imo.

These are just initial impressions at a store so take all this with a grain of salt.

As for the hole, it wasnt that bad in a dark room, we put a peice of white paper behind the hole and it was annoying like heck, but with the silver speaker it kind of camouflages it a little.

So in conclusion I thought the picture quality was fine but I didn't notice any big leap from last models other than the awesome dejuddering, the refresh rate seemed worst than 8ms in my eyes compared to the 65f series next to it. The backlight seemed a little too bright/ washy, lowering the backlight seemed to decrease the color pop dramatically, i mean really dramatically and I didn't really think the backlight black went low enough for me without screwing the color saturation. I had this problem with the 32xbr4 I had and it reminded me of that. The xmb/ menu interfaces seemed smoother where as on my 32xbr4 they were really choppy and slow navigating them.

Look,they are not in my living room so I judged PQ as TVs were set by salespersons.Most normal people will see brighter source first and from greater distance.Period. BTW -when I ajusted at BB 1 new little sony m4000 to my (and yours) liking ,some couple liked some dynex above much better,so we cant blame S.Persons.