Originally Posted by JoelArt
No offence taken
Playing online with the lag that comes with it is often part of the game desing to larger extent. Minzing any extra lag is however desireable. Going with a monitor is the natural choise but I want a big display with as low input lag as possible.
Avarage human reaction time is give or take 1/4 of a second or 250 ms, one frame at 60 fps is 16.7 ms, so adding another 10 ms ontop of ZF9 21 ms sholdn't make a difference right, or lets say 32 ms (two frames of lag), that should make a difference... But it does, for instance, VR head sets should have a maximum 8 ms of lag from user input when moving the head till the screen updates but idealy 5 ms is the best based on research. Even one frame of input lag is slightly noticable when moving between a 1ms monitor and then try to do the same figting game comobs with 21 ms of lag. Also characters feel ever so slightly heavier to move around as well. 21 ms is at the limit of acceptable in my opinion.
Sony has long been really bad at achieving low input lag while Samsung and LG crushes them with lag numbers around 13-16 ms of lag. Also Sony owns Playstation so one owuld think there'd be some reasons to try and angle their own brand of TVs as capable of smooth resposive gaming. So now that ZF9 and XG950 has proven pretty good input lag number with the new X1 Ultimate chip set there really is no excuse for regressing on these number. Input lag is the first and absolutly most important aspect of any TV I buy, if it's not below 21ms it's a no go regadless of how awesome it is in all other areas.
I'll at least concede that, yes, for Sony's top of the line LCD offering, it shouldn't
digress from prior models. If the input lag really is 30ms, that is a 50% increase from the Z9F. However, I bet the increase is due almost solely to the fact that it's an 8K set and so it has to render that much more.
But obviously, Sony doesn't really look at their previous offerings as a baseline, but rather the current market trends and competition. Sucks for us consumers, but that's how Sony is going to maximize profits.
Pointing to the quoted post below...
There are so many enthusiasts here that have and love the Z9D, but how many of them do you think actually bought the Z9D at it's debut price? It dropped from like $6000 to $2000 while it was out. In order to make worthwhile profit margins on high-end offerings, and to mitigate the risk of even venturing into the market of high-end products, luxury items must be sold at very high prices. The additional profit is needed to make that risk worth while. If Sony makes the same profit off of a Z9D that they do for an X900, that's a big problem for Sony. With the new Z9G, they're not going to ditch 8K for a better BMD because a better BMD just doesn't SELL like 8K does. Who has 13 grand for a TV and buys it? Mostly hot-shots that care more about impressing their friends than wise people like us who actually value certain tech, understand what we are doing, and then wait for early adopters to finish so that prices can come down to semi-reasonable levels. I repeat, Sony isn't designing their Master Series sets for us, even if the marketing makes it seem that way. In my opinion, they're designing and marketing them these days to people with more money than sense. Finally, let's be real. For most people... 8K (vs 4K), and the difference in blooming and contrast between a Z9D and Z9F, etc... these are tiny details that just don't matter. But at least 8K is a bragging right that can easily be touted.. so it's more beneficial for Sony to include that than a better BMD. I am just as annoyed as you are that companies like Sony claim to be all about "reproducing the creators intent" but then they go slap pointless 8K on a set instead of better light control... yeah OK Sony, we all know who really runs things over there (the marketing department). Klipsch is the same way.. "Keepers of the Sound" but then they release inferior products and fudge their specs. It is what it is. Companies, profits, marketing. Us actual knowledgeable enthusiasts just have to hope, and then rejoice, when we get lucky and something like the Z9D happens.
All this said, though, I'm sure the Z9G will be awesome in its own right, and will have its place in the world.
Originally Posted by egrady
The black levels, contrast and blooming of the 85Z9G kills it for me. It's almost as if LCD has conceded these core issues to OLED and focused on light output instead. In a way I can understand it as it gives consumers options depending on their viewing environment and image priorities.
Still, I'm disappointed because I wanted a screen larger than 77". While current LCD technology can't equal the strengths of OLED I would have preferred that Sony used the Z9D as a baseline for the Z9G. That is, contrast/blooming/black levels no worse than that. If that meant the additional cost of more zones, then ditch the cost of 8k. And ditch the wider viewing angle until its adverse side effects can be eliminated.
To the bold comment... ding ding ding