Originally Posted by egrady
Vincent's review is enlightening. He suggests that consumers looking to watch movies in a dark room would go OLED. By pushing the HDR light output Sony opted for the highest nit count in exchange for more blooming and higher black levels. Samsung sort of split the difference.
You misstate what Vincent said. There are two "exchanges": Sony's blooming and higher black levels in exchange for "Sony's philosophy...to adhere to picture accuracy" and Samsung's less blooming and darker blacks in exchange for "tricks by crushing shadow detail and...by darkening the brighter elements."
There will always be HDR blooming of an honest (as opposed to Samsung's tricked-out) FALD picture, because FALD hasn't the pixel-level luminance control of OLED. But OLED will not soon, if ever, achieve 4000 nits peak brightness, so for a FALD TV to achieve an accurate HDR picture at the 4000 nits DV benchmark, blooming and less-than-OLED blacks are inevitable. By the way, Vincent says no SDR blooming on the Z9G and less HDR blooming on the Z9G than the Z9F.
The debate isn't which TV is "better," but which trade-off you prefer. I go for picture accuracy at the cost of less-than-OLED blacks and some blooming in HDR. Also, the prospect of a huge 8K screen that can accommodate full-spec HDR blows me away, rendering the trade-offs insignificant.
It occurs to me that one could tweak/calibrate down 4000 nits peak luminance to minimize blooming and maximize blackness and still accommodate HDR with minimal clipping, and have the other superior Z9G features, like picture detail, motion handling and color gamut and accuracy. Rather that, than tweaking up the source HDR luminance to a screen spec that isn't there.
My posts sound like I'm selling myself on this model. Not a slavish Sony fanboy, my TV history is B&O, Sony, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Phillips, Samsung, Sony. Love my 55" Sony, while waiting for a wall-size panel. Now, finally, it looks like with this model, Sony ticks all the boxes I care about.