Samsung Q8FN (2018) is highly rated for a bright room, but not readily available. Next suggestion would be Samsung Q9FN (2018), which are available.I have never owned an LCD/LED TV. I went straight from Pioneer Elite Kuro Plasma to LG OLED. We just moved into a new home recently with a full wall of windows and my wife likes the natural light. So the OLED will be moved to a dedicated dim media room where I can control the natural light. We still want a 65" TV for the main living area downstairs (open concept with lots of natural light). I'm looking for brightness to compete with the natural light (not direct sunlight) without washing out the picture too much. Is it even possible? I know I wont be able to get the PQ of an OLED in this room but I don't even know where to begin since I have focused primarily on picture quality from my TV's for the past 10 years. The best value/features/power efficiency/no burn-in would be a high priority for me. Where do you suggest I start?
Do you regret buying a curved TV. I don't think I could deal with that.This thread is a bit over the top on how bright a TV is needed in a bright family room. You DO NOT NEED a 1,000 nit display, so you DO NOT NEED a Z9F or Q90R. If reflections are an issue, the Q80R will be just fine because it has the same anti-reflective performance as the Q90R. If you do not have a reflection issue, any TV that can get to 400 to 500 nits full screen brightness will be more than adequate. What makes an OLED a bad idea is that when brightness is turned up to maximum, the pixels will age (dim) faster so you want to avoid that type of usage. I have an older Q7C in my family room with 5 windows on the western wall behind the TV, and two double French doors with transom windows above on the northern wall and it looks fine with the backlight set at 15 (max is 20). Today is a full sun day here today and the Yankee/Oriole game looked perfect with all the sunlight behind the TV.
No I don't. It's located in a corner, so it actually looks very good from both viewing locations. Plus, being it's mounted on a table, it's classy design looks very stylish in the daytime and at night it's so thin it seems to be floating in the air. TBH, I don't even notice the curve at all. And, it was on sale for a 40% discount probably because of the curve so that makes it look even better.Do you regret buying a curved TV. I don't think I could deal with that.
I could not disagree more with the above statement if HDR is important to you. If your primary viewing will be SDR content and you don’t care about HDR, then yes, I agree that 400 - 500 nits should be sufficient.This thread is a bit over the top on how bright a TV is needed in a bright family room. You DO NOT NEED a 1,000 nit display, so you DO NOT NEED a Z9F or Q90R. If reflections are an issue, the Q80R will be just fine because it has the same anti-reflective performance as the Q90R. If you do not have a reflection issue, any TV that can get to 400 to 500 nits full screen brightness will be more than adequate. What makes an OLED a bad idea is that when brightness is turned up to maximum, the pixels will age (dim) faster so you want to avoid that type of usage. I have an older Q7C in my family room with 5 windows on the western wall behind the TV, and two double French doors with transom windows above on the northern wall and it looks fine with the backlight set at 15 (max is 20). Today is a full sun day here today and the Yankee/Oriole game looked perfect with all the sunlight behind the TV.
It's always a good idea to thoroughly read the OP's post before jumping in. He's coming from a Pioneer Elite Kuro Plasma, so no HDR there, and then never mentions HDR in his post for a new TV which mentions coming close to an OLED PQ. So, HDR does not appear to be a priority. These threads have a way of morphing into debates/arguments that have nothing to do with the original post. Rather than try to argue with me, if you are here to help, maybe ask the OP about HDR first. Then, if the OP has a genuine interest in HDR, make your suggestion that he buy your beloved Q90R. It certainly is a nice TV, but is a bit pricey, $1,000 more than a 65" LG B8 OLED (Amazon pricing), and way over what most would ever pay for something as trivial as a TV. Even the 65" Q80R is a bit pricey at $2,000 but he would be saving $800 vs. the 65" Q90R while still getting the same excellent anti-reflective capability and wide viewing angle both of which are important in a bright family room setting.I could not disagree more with the above statement if HDR is important to you. If your primary viewing will be SDR content and you don’t care about HDR, then yes, I agree that 400 - 500 nits should be sufficient.
It's always a good idea to thoroughly read the OP's post before jumping in. He's coming from a Pioneer Elite Kuro Plasma, so no HDR there, and then never mentions HDR in his post for a new TV which mentions coming close to an OLED PQ. So, HDR does not appear to be a priority. These threads have a way of morphing into debates/arguments that have nothing to do with the original post. Rather than try to argue with me, if you are here to help, maybe ask the OP about HDR first. Then, if the OP has a genuine interest in HDR, make your suggestion that he buy your beloved Q90R. It certainly is a nice TV, but is a bit pricey, $1,000 more than a 65" LG B8 OLED (Amazon pricing), and way over what most would ever pay for something as trivial as a TV. Even the 65" Q80R is a bit pricey at $2,000 but he would be saving $800 vs. the 65" Q90R while still getting the same excellent anti-reflective capability and wide viewing angle both of which are important in a bright family room setting.
Do you regret buying a curved TV. I don't think I could deal with that.
