Originally Posted by irkuck
Not that obvious: HX is taken at a bad angle to emphasize blooming. Second,
it looks HX is not calibrated for maximum pop. In direct view and with proper settings HX would win this hands-on if one leaves out delusion world and sees that HX is sold in large quantities, there is 65" available (bigger definitely compensates for bit better PQ) vs. single laboratory piece which will never
That is not a "bad angle to emphasize blooming" nor do I see why you would claim that it is "not calibrated for maximum pop."
You strongly argue against 4K displays, and now against future display technologies that are a significant upgrade over what we currently have, strongly denying the benefits of either.
Clearly you don't want to upgrade your own display any time soon, and that's fine, but these kinds of comments are just ridiculousI say that as the owner of an HX900.
What benefit is it to Sony to badmouth their current top-tier display, and the last local-dimming LED set they will have on sale for a while?
The comparison clearly shows how much higher contrast is, and how much better the ambient light rejection is with the Crysyal LED display.
The unit was very uncomfortable for me, the OLED panels are low contrast (10,000:1 maximum, half that when calibrated) the image size appeared small to me, colour was less accurate than my current display, and the optics are terrible.
It does, however, provide the best 3D I have ever experienced. I can't go back to anything else after it, and am hoping 4K passive might be the next best thing, because anything else right now has unacceptable drawbacks. (in my opinion)