Originally Posted by Latinoheat
Hopefully they are right, a lot of tv company agents are clueless or just read of the info charts.
Agreed. These agents are seemingly limited only to information and pre-written responses given them on "flip charts"/PC Q&A software by company marketing divisions. We often read about their misgivings in forums when they veer off that information with speculation or culled from outside sources. However, I would encourage doubting Thomases to go back and read posts 685
in this thread. Everyone who continues to doubt that the CX850 will feature FALD should ask themselves "why would Panasonic design and declare its 2015 "flagship" a lesser performing edge lit TV particularly on the heels of the AX900?" Why would the engineers who designed arguably one of the best performing IPS LCD panels (perhaps next to the Sharp Elite PRO-X5FD) that we'll probably ever see again in the AX900, abruptly abandon the one technology (FALD) in the next year's flagship that served as a major component for making it so good? Stated otherwise, why would the company take two steps back in a TV market increasingly crowded with OLED with edge lighting tech commonly plagued by poor uniformity and flashlighting in corners and at the edges?
You might be tempted to think that this is possible because such a move isn't necessarily unprecedented - it abandoned plasma. "They dropped one superior display tech before, they'll do it again with the CX850!" But look at why that happened and what came next. No one knows exactly why Panasonic pulled the plug on plasma but it surely had to do with the inability at the time to miniaturize plasma cells for a 4K display. Of course, there are other theories out there as well like these
from member dsskid. Whatever the reason, Panasonic didn't just follow up its plasma line with any old LCD. It went back to the drawing board and came out with "a unique and highly capable display" that while it "[fell] short of emissive displays when it comes to contrast," impressed imagic
to the point that he believes it possesses color accuracy unrivaled by any OLED
. So the abandonment of plasma isn't somehow proof that the company is willing to replace greatness with a grape at the flip of a switch. Instead, the AX900 is evidence that the company at the very least cares about its reputation is an industry leader in PQ with consumer televisions.
The AX900 will probably always be viewed as a concept TV that due to high costs of engineering and manufacturing simply wasn't feasible for the consumer market but that doesn't mean Panasonic has to throw out everything it developed. Lesson learned. Techniques and manufacturing improved. Gone is the IPS panel with its low native contrast ratio; substituted with a vertically aligned panel for the CX850. Sure we get fewer zones and perhaps no BT.1886 but my guess is that the switch to a VA panel along with the local dimming technology developed for the AX900, the company found a way to render those added features and their associated costs largely unnecessary. Like all new TVs, time, reviews and hands on use will tell. That is where we need to be ready to focus our attention and, well, discussion in anticipation.