I guess an owner will have a better impression than me, since I just saw it in the store, but I thought I would give my impressions anyways. I am judging the set on its own merits, but also somewhat in comparison to the 650.
Design- The thinner bezel made the actual screen of the 52" look huge. I know the bezel isn't super thin, like some Toshiba's or the new z's, but the combo of the thinner bezel and the piano black almost made it disappear, so that all you see is the large screen. The "hole" should really be seen in person, because it's not as bad as in pictures. The hole piece is a slightly grayish tint, rather than clear, so it diffuses the brightness of whatever background there is. The speaker below is actually the only part I found cosmetically distasteful. It was slightly better than what I saw on the v, which was a metallic shiny silver. The w has a brushed silver look, so it is much less eye-catching and distracting. The piano black with the thin bezel, and even the hole make for a sleek, modern looking set, especially compared to the 650. The red I can get over, but I don't care for the slight curviture on the bottom and top of those. The stand does not swivel.
Motion- When I got there the picture was set to standard, backlight 8, motionflow on high, cinemotion off. I tested each of the sample feeds (included Spiderman 3 loop, hd golf, still pictures, and news coverage footage) and could see no smearing or blurring that has plagued the xbr4. I ran through motionflow on high, standard, low, and off (I think those were the setting names) and could see no blur, smear, studder, or judder under any setting. I prefer the motionflow to sammy's AMP, because on both high and standard I could tell that the motion was being smoothed, but in a much more natural way than with AMP. Only sometimes on high could I see the videotape, soap-opera type effect. I also played a bit with cinemotion, although not as much, and could see no problems there either. Overall the set handled motion very well, no issues I could detect. My caveat on this is that in order to truly detect issues that affected the xbr4, you would definitely have to see the set over a long period of time, and play video games, to truly eliminate the possibility of these issues.
Color- I pulled backlight, contrast, and brightness up and down and settled on backlight 4 and 50 for the others (halfway on everything). Standard picture and movie were the most appealing, and there were several coloring options, of which I thought neutral and Warm1 looked best. Colors looked natural and realistic. I saw no banding, though on today's high-end sets I think you would REALLY have to be looking to even think you see that. Black looked pretty black to me, although I would have to equally configure something side by side to compare. But on all black screen with Sony logo in the middle, there was very little difference in the deep black of the bezel and the screen.
Issues- Not a whole lot of time spent looking for flashlights, clouding, etc., but again, on all black the screen looked very uniform. Off-angle definitely lost some punch, but didn't give haze or mura. I'm not saying the set was flashlight or cloud free, because that is probably impossible, I'm just saying I didn't notice anything.
Overall PQ and Impression- I liked it a lot and looking at it will just make my decision harder. Compared to the 650, I would say the 650 has more pop. I believe this is due to Sammy's glossy (or semi-gloss now, as they call it) screen, which I do think adds more contrast in the colors, and really just catches your eye and drops your jaw more. The matted screen is less flashy, but there is some benefit. It is hard to describe, but the image seems very real, as if you are looking through an open window with no screen. I am not talking about a 3-d effect due to motion processing, I am just saying that the image seems very natural. I would say Sammy delivers more of a wow factor, while Sony offers a more realistic feeling. I would say the score is as follows:
Design - W. Neither look is especially appealing, but the w's annoying points are slightly less annoying.
Motion Handling- Slight edge to W. The 650 handles motion excellently, and so far there have been few if any reports of the studder, judder, smearing, or blurring that plagued the 71s. However, I noticed none of these things on the w, and the motion processing just seemed a bit more natural. But time will be the real test of whether or not Sony has overcome the flaws of the xbr4.
Color- 650. Glossy screen, though not for everyone, definitely adds contrast and pop. But w has a very natural look, which is also appealing. Also, I don't believe any LCD will touch the 650 on blacks until the LEDs come out. Maybe the z, but without the glossy screen I don't see how.
Overall- Undecided. The only thing on paper that the 650 offers better than w is 10-bit (I called and asked, and it was confirmed from service manual). Maybe this has something to do with 650's "pop" and better color, maybe it's just a marketing ploy, who knows. I do fall under the belief that Sony generally has more credibility for manufacturing quality (i.e. less defects requiring replacement or refund), so I would be slightly more assured in that purchase. For me it will come down to 2 things-price and owner reviews. I am looking forward to seeing if owners will report clouding, issues with motion, or other problems. Samsung's improvement with processing and motion the 2nd time around (especially the 120hz technology) seems to have cleared up virtually all problems from the 71s. Hopefully these new Sony's will do the same. If so, its all about price, because I think the 2 sets match up equally.
Sorry for the VERY long post, but I was excited about seeing it, and I wanted to try to be helpful to those who have been helpful to me.
P.S. Dear Sony, a 52" z would make this decision a lot easier.
Design- The thinner bezel made the actual screen of the 52" look huge. I know the bezel isn't super thin, like some Toshiba's or the new z's, but the combo of the thinner bezel and the piano black almost made it disappear, so that all you see is the large screen. The "hole" should really be seen in person, because it's not as bad as in pictures. The hole piece is a slightly grayish tint, rather than clear, so it diffuses the brightness of whatever background there is. The speaker below is actually the only part I found cosmetically distasteful. It was slightly better than what I saw on the v, which was a metallic shiny silver. The w has a brushed silver look, so it is much less eye-catching and distracting. The piano black with the thin bezel, and even the hole make for a sleek, modern looking set, especially compared to the 650. The red I can get over, but I don't care for the slight curviture on the bottom and top of those. The stand does not swivel.
Motion- When I got there the picture was set to standard, backlight 8, motionflow on high, cinemotion off. I tested each of the sample feeds (included Spiderman 3 loop, hd golf, still pictures, and news coverage footage) and could see no smearing or blurring that has plagued the xbr4. I ran through motionflow on high, standard, low, and off (I think those were the setting names) and could see no blur, smear, studder, or judder under any setting. I prefer the motionflow to sammy's AMP, because on both high and standard I could tell that the motion was being smoothed, but in a much more natural way than with AMP. Only sometimes on high could I see the videotape, soap-opera type effect. I also played a bit with cinemotion, although not as much, and could see no problems there either. Overall the set handled motion very well, no issues I could detect. My caveat on this is that in order to truly detect issues that affected the xbr4, you would definitely have to see the set over a long period of time, and play video games, to truly eliminate the possibility of these issues.
Color- I pulled backlight, contrast, and brightness up and down and settled on backlight 4 and 50 for the others (halfway on everything). Standard picture and movie were the most appealing, and there were several coloring options, of which I thought neutral and Warm1 looked best. Colors looked natural and realistic. I saw no banding, though on today's high-end sets I think you would REALLY have to be looking to even think you see that. Black looked pretty black to me, although I would have to equally configure something side by side to compare. But on all black screen with Sony logo in the middle, there was very little difference in the deep black of the bezel and the screen.
Issues- Not a whole lot of time spent looking for flashlights, clouding, etc., but again, on all black the screen looked very uniform. Off-angle definitely lost some punch, but didn't give haze or mura. I'm not saying the set was flashlight or cloud free, because that is probably impossible, I'm just saying I didn't notice anything.
Overall PQ and Impression- I liked it a lot and looking at it will just make my decision harder. Compared to the 650, I would say the 650 has more pop. I believe this is due to Sammy's glossy (or semi-gloss now, as they call it) screen, which I do think adds more contrast in the colors, and really just catches your eye and drops your jaw more. The matted screen is less flashy, but there is some benefit. It is hard to describe, but the image seems very real, as if you are looking through an open window with no screen. I am not talking about a 3-d effect due to motion processing, I am just saying that the image seems very natural. I would say Sammy delivers more of a wow factor, while Sony offers a more realistic feeling. I would say the score is as follows:
Design - W. Neither look is especially appealing, but the w's annoying points are slightly less annoying.
Motion Handling- Slight edge to W. The 650 handles motion excellently, and so far there have been few if any reports of the studder, judder, smearing, or blurring that plagued the 71s. However, I noticed none of these things on the w, and the motion processing just seemed a bit more natural. But time will be the real test of whether or not Sony has overcome the flaws of the xbr4.
Color- 650. Glossy screen, though not for everyone, definitely adds contrast and pop. But w has a very natural look, which is also appealing. Also, I don't believe any LCD will touch the 650 on blacks until the LEDs come out. Maybe the z, but without the glossy screen I don't see how.
Overall- Undecided. The only thing on paper that the 650 offers better than w is 10-bit (I called and asked, and it was confirmed from service manual). Maybe this has something to do with 650's "pop" and better color, maybe it's just a marketing ploy, who knows. I do fall under the belief that Sony generally has more credibility for manufacturing quality (i.e. less defects requiring replacement or refund), so I would be slightly more assured in that purchase. For me it will come down to 2 things-price and owner reviews. I am looking forward to seeing if owners will report clouding, issues with motion, or other problems. Samsung's improvement with processing and motion the 2nd time around (especially the 120hz technology) seems to have cleared up virtually all problems from the 71s. Hopefully these new Sony's will do the same. If so, its all about price, because I think the 2 sets match up equally.
Sorry for the VERY long post, but I was excited about seeing it, and I wanted to try to be helpful to those who have been helpful to me.
P.S. Dear Sony, a 52" z would make this decision a lot easier.
Alas, I don't think the wife would allow it.
