Originally Posted by bennutt
What are you basing this statement from... have you seen or owned both?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I actually had a Sony 75x940D and due to horizontal banding did a warranty claim and it was replaced with a 75x940e since the 75x940d was out of production. Been watching the 75x940e for a few weeks now. I'll put it to you this way - If the Sony was 10" bigger and had 3D I would keep it over the UMAX85. But I wouldn't say it's in a different ball park. We're comparing a Corvette to a Porsche.
Of course my wife wants me to keep the Sony and sell the flickering UMAX for whatever I can get for it. We shall see.
The motion handling is better on the Sony but it's really only if you have content with judder to begin with that this comes into play. The Sony can remove without introducing SOE. Content with judder that is annoying to me, is not that common and usually only shows up in select scenes (slow panning or the words scrolling at the bottom of the evening news). The low motion handling setting on the UMAX gets rid of judder but introduces a bit of SOE.
Sony has a better contrast ratio. If you know how things look when you with higher gamma (like 2.4 or 2.5) which is the same as using a negative gamma # setting on the UMAX85 on the US firmware it has that really deep rich look (opposite of being washed out). The sony can give you this look but still maintains shadow detail and doesn't crush the blacks and the brights are plenty bright. On most sets if you set the gamma like that you'll get the deep / rich look but also lose shadow detail and have a dimmer overall picture. Sony gives best of both worlds. But the UMAX is not that far behind.
Also, the Sony does look sharper but maybe due to being smaller. It has something called reality creation which makes things look very sharp but not that artificial sharpness you get from a standard sharpness control. With it on you can noticeably see the pores on peoples faces better and then they look blurry when you turn it off, but it doesn't add any artifacts or edge enhancement.
I have some vertical banding (light and dark vertical lines) on the UMAX on slow horizontal scrolling scenes with a light background (like a light blue sky). The Sony does not exhibit this whatsoever but again this only shows up in specific circumstances on the UMAX.
In some lower quality content the UMAX shows color banding like most TV's do. The Sony has video processing feature smooth gradation that does a great job of getting rid of this. Again only needed in content that exhibits this in the first place.
Also, the Sony does a better job upscaling / dealing with less than stellar content. If I'm watching Netflix I can't tell when it kicks over from 1080p to 4K. It doesn't have any fake HDR or anything like that but it makes SDR looks so good that when I do watch HDR content the difference actually isn't as noticeable. With more nits the specular highlights in HDR are a noticeably brighter on the Sony too but that doesn't do much for me - how much do we really stare at headlights or shimmers in normal content. Just finished Stranger things on Netflix - season 1 was 4K SDR and season 2 was Dolby Vision and I wasn't like omg - season 2 looks way better.
The Sony is the about as good as it gets on LED as far as I'm concerned and their image processing is arguably the best in the biz so a tough act to follow. The hardware is probably similar but it's Sony's image processing wizardry that pulls it ahead.
Obviously the Sony doesn't have any bugs and I rarely feel the need to mess with picture settings as it handles everything consistently. As we've seen the content and source can produce inconsistencies on the UMAX and I found myself messing with the settings more frequently.
The UMAX still looks very good and is better than a lot of LED's out there. I don't think it's that far behind the Sony. If all the content out there was pristine then the Sony's processing wouldn't be as necessary for lower quality SDR content and the Sony would really only have the advantage with higher nits for HDR specular highlights and no vertical banding.
If you watched them side by side you'd probably prefer the Sony. It's like if you went for a ride in a 400 horsepower car you'd think it was fast as hell and very powerful and be very satisfied. You wouldn't know what you were missing unless you drove a 700 hp right after. Either way they're both faster than most cars out there
For me, and as discerning as I am, it's close enough that for the bigger size and ability to do 3D, I'm leaning toward the UMAX.