Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
Is this a big deal? Is it worth the extra $1000 that the 9500 currently costs on Amazon?
Especially since Rtings found the picture quality of the 8500 to match and in some cases exceed that of the 9500, FWIW.
"The peak brightness is below average. These measurements are consistently lower than the lower end UH8500, which is a bit surprising. Although the whole screen can get quite bright, the local dimming significantly reduces the peak brightness of smaller windows. This test is performed with a HDR10 signal."
"When viewed at an angle, the contrast decreases a little bit but the colors remain quite accurate. This is about the same result as the LG UH8500 which is good for an LED TV."
"The higher end UH9500 has a slightly more glossy screen than the UH8500, but it is still semi-gloss. It should be fine for a room with a few windows."
"Although the motion blur is better than average, fast movement isn't as clear as some other TVs. The LG UH8500 which is the model below actually has a shorter trail following moving objects, but this still shouldn't be an issue for most people."
"The motion blur is better than average, but noticeable worse than the slightly lower model LG UH8500."
"The LG UH9500 is a good all-round TV, but can be hard to recommend for those looking at the 65" variant due to its similar performance to the cheaper LG UH8500. In some cases, the LG UH8500 actually performs better due to the lower response time and higher peak brightness. For those interested in the 86" variant there is very little competition and it could be a good choice depending on your usage."
Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk