[Indyrider800]

I have an opportunity to get a fantastic deal on a Sony Bravia 40" EX400 LCD, and I'm wondering if there's anyone out there that has purchased one of the EX models. I've been searching for reviews of this particular series (both professional and user) but haven't found anything. I'm assuming it's a relatively new model - and that's why there isn't much info on it.


If you own this model - could you let me know what you think of it? I only have a week to decide, and I'd like some feedback before I pull the trigger

Thanks!


Jess

 

[naus]

I have this exact model (40ex400). For its price, this is a great TV. The blacks are really black, as black as models twice its price and the colors are fairly vivid. One of my biggest complaints with the TV is the gray plastic panel at the bottom. It's ugly and distracting, makes it look cheap. I believe the Costco model (40ex401) is entirely black and I'm contemplating exchanging mine for the Costco one.


There is some motion blur during fast-paced sports scenes (say Olympics alpine skiing), you do notice it at this size. The ex500 would solve that. But if you watch sports rarely, it's not a big deal. The picture is definitely satisfactory, and I would say better than any LCD panel just two years ago.

 

[Indyrider800]

Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't even notice the gray panel in the picture. What was Sony thinking? Anyways, I have a Samsung LN32A330 right now. It's only a 720p and I want something a little bigger (w/1080p) for my PS3. I pretty much use it for watching sports - but haven't experienced any motion blur on my current LCD (which is probably a year old or so). Is it the higher refresh rate on the EX500 that eliminates blur?

 

[naus]

Yeah the 120hz refresh rate on the ex500 is supposed to eliminate the motion blur. I think 720p televisions just see less of that blur since networks broadcast at either 720p and 1080i (not 1080p). The 1080i (interlaced scan) might be more susceptible to motion blur versus the progressive scan. It's really not that noticeable on the ex400, I've just been watching a lot of Olympics lately. The most noticeable sport has been alpine skiing.

 

[Indyrider800]

Ok - that makes sense. I was just checking the specs of my samsung and it's showing a 6ms response time (but doesn't give me the refresh rate) with a 8000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Looking at the sony it's showing a refresh rate of 60 Hz. I've been looking at some sites trying to figure out how to translate response time to Hz. I guess a dumb question - which TV has less chance of blur?


I'm worried I would be taking a step back. I can't find any contrast ratio info on the Ex400 either. I hate making these kinds of decisions

 

[naus]

The dynamic contrast ratio on the Sony should be either 30,000:1 or 50,000:1.

 

[Steve S]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyrider800 /forum/post/18180470


Ok - that makes sense. I was just checking the specs of my samsung and it's showing a 6ms response time (but doesn't give me the refresh rate) with a 8000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. Looking at the sony it's showing a refresh rate of 60 Hz. I've been looking at some sites trying to figure out how to translate response time to Hz. I guess a dumb question - which TV has less chance of blur?


I'm worried I would be taking a step back. I can't find any contrast ratio info on the Ex400 either. I hate making these kinds of decisions

You can't translate pixel response time to hertz, they're two separate things.


Hertz is how many times per second the frame refreshes, pixel response time is how long it takes each pixel to refresh. The hertz spec can't be "fudged" the pixel response time, like contrast ratio, can be fudged. Fudgeable specs are not good for comparisons between different brands because no two mfgs. fudge the same, and sometimes the fudge recipe changes from one year to the next even among the same mfg's products.


Motion blur on lcds is primarily a result of slower pixel response time than on crt or plasma, higher framerates (120-240hz) coupled with frame interpolation are an effort to overcome this deficiency. CRT and plasma sets never needed this trickery, but plasma mfgs. have all started advertising 600hz "sub-field drive" in order to "keep up" with the lcd 120-240hz hype.


This is not to say that an lcd can't produce a very nice picture with reduced motion blur, just that it's gonna cost more and there may be some trade-offs involved in the frame interpolation like artifacting or "soap opera" look from the smoothing.


Your old Samsung is a 60hz set, btw.

 

[westa6969]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S /forum/post/18184386


You can't translate pixel response time to hertz, they're two separate things.


Motion blur on lcds is primarily a result of slower pixel response time than on crt or plasma, higher framerates (120-240hz) coupled with frame interpolation are an effort to overcome this deficiency. CRT and plasma sets never needed this trickery, but plasma mfgs. have all started advertising 600hz "sub-field drive" in order to "keep up" with the lcd 120-240hz hype.


This is not to say that an lcd can't produce a very nice picture with reduced motion blur, just that it's gonna cost more and there may be some trade-offs involved in the frame interpolation like artifacting or "soap opera" look from the smoothing.


Your old Samsung is a 60hz set, btw.

I can concur with much of what you say and I would add that often members forget that not all the artifacts are the fault of the panel and I'll give a perfect example of Broadcast compression and it's adverse impact.


An example I've studied is if I were to view Speed Racer HD Broadcast I can see alot of motion issues but if I take the content and feed the Blu-Ray version to my 57" Sharp I see virtually no motion issues at all. I think the Director may have been on acid when filming this movie as it's pretty goofy but perhaps the most colorful BD (=eye candy) you'll find and the motion is extreme indeed.


This is an extreme example where the action and color transitions are dynamic as hell but the end result are nearly opposite when it's fed via a Broadcast Signal that's been compressed versus a Blu-Ray passthrough. I truly don't recall ever witnessing motion issues with Blu-Ray content being passed through even on my 3.5 yr old LCD. Looking forward to witnessing these new Sony Panels, especially the large new LED panels to see how they compare to the Samsungs.

 

[Steve S]

^^^Couldn't agree more regarding overcompression. I take pains to explain to my customers that what is perceived as motion blur when watching broadcast, satellite or cable HD is more often than not really overcompression of the digital signal which no tv can do anything about, plasma or otherwise, and that the most pristine HD source material available now is Blu Ray disc.


We had one customer who returned 2 Samsung 8500 series sets due to the effects of frame interpolation. He ended up swapping to a Samsung PN58B650 plasma and hasn't been heard from since.

 

[Guinea]

So motion blur reduction (120hz) is mostly a gimmick?

 

[bk.secret23]

Samsung B7000 vs Sony NX800...

 

[Indyrider800]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S /forum/post/18184386


You can't translate pixel response time to hertz, they're two separate things.


Hertz is how many times per second the frame refreshes, pixel response time is how long it takes each pixel to refresh. The hertz spec can't be "fudged" the pixel response time, like contrast ratio, can be fudged. Fudgeable specs are not good for comparisons between different brands because no two mfgs. fudge the same, and sometimes the fudge recipe changes from one year to the next even among the same mfg's products.


Motion blur on lcds is primarily a result of slower pixel response time than on crt or plasma, higher framerates (120-240hz) coupled with frame interpolation are an effort to overcome this deficiency. CRT and plasma sets never needed this trickery, but plasma mfgs. have all started advertising 600hz "sub-field drive" in order to "keep up" with the lcd 120-240hz hype.


This is not to say that an lcd can't produce a very nice picture with reduced motion blur, just that it's gonna cost more and there may be some trade-offs involved in the frame interpolation like artifacting or "soap opera" look from the smoothing.


Your old Samsung is a 60hz set, btw.

This is all a bit over my head. Haha. So to simplify - is the Sony Bravia EX400 (40") going to be an upgrade over my Samsung LN32A330? I haven't had any problems with motion blur on my Samsung - but I really want a bigger screen for my PS3. Thanks for all the help everybody.

 

[RayChuang]

I had a chance to see KDL-40EX400 at Costco and the picture quality is actually not bad--pretty good colors, and playback of Blu-ray movies is not bad, either. I do agree that you do see very slight motion blurring on extremely fast action like sports, but you have to be literally a feet in front of the display to actually see it.


I'm still wondering when will Sony start shipping the KDL-40EX500, a model that I am interested in besides the Samsung LN40B650.

 

[Indyrider800]

I just went to Best Buy this morning and they have the EX series on display. Of course, they only had the 32" and the 46" up on the wall. The picture on both (EX400's) looked really crisp, especially next to other brands of comparable specs (most of which were more expensive). Yeah, I'm not sold on the gray panel - but I can live with it. It looked worse on the sonystyle website than it does in person. As I said above - I really just want a bigger TV. Will it be an upgrade for me (going from the Samsung to the Sony EX400)?

 

[Steve S]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyrider800 /forum/post/18185839


This is all a bit over my head. Haha. So to simplify - is the Sony Bravia EX400 (40") going to be an upgrade over my Samsung LN32A330? I haven't had any problems with motion blur on my Samsung - but I really want a bigger screen for my PS3. Thanks for all the help everybody.

One word answer--Yes! The Sony will have a higher contrast ratio and more accurate vs "poppy" color, probably less gaming lag.

 

[Indyrider800]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S /forum/post/18191477


One word answer--Yes! The Sony will have a higher contrast ratio and more accurate vs "poppy" color, probably less gaming lag.

Haha. Thanks for the simplified response Steve. I appreciate all the help. I'm going to order it this weekend - I'll post a review as soon as I get a chance.

 

[dwarren2]

Mitsubishi has offered me a store credit of $640 for my dead 52725 DLP. The store has the 40 inch 400 series priced at $649. I'll see what the price diff to up grade to the 120 mhz will be. I'll most probe get either one of them.

 

[Junbao]

i was just at a local best buy comparing 3 of sony's new models...the 32ex400, 32ex500 and, 32bx300.....i set all 3 tvs settings so that they are the same and left motionflow "on" for the ex500......PQ was significantly better on the ex400 and ex500 compared to the bx300 at a close distance but probably negligible at further distances....contrast and black levels were also much better on the ex400/500.....comparing the ex400 and ex500 only, the ex500 from my experience had a slightly better picture quality but the motionflow technology was hard to distinguish only during some scenes....lol i was at bestbuy for like 2 hours scanning all 3 tv's back and forth and the very last ex400 i took and kept near me only to leave and purchase it online!! btw i believe all 3 TV's were getting the same signal except the bx300 was being fed a 1080i/720p demo not really sure might explain the better PQ on the 400/500

 

[Longhart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Junbao /forum/post/18418741


btw i believe all 3 TV's were getting the same signal except the bx300 was being fed a 1080i/720p demo not really sure might explain the better PQ on the 400/500

BX300 is a hd ready set thats why its receiving 1080i/720p demo

 

[yayachan]

Hi there,

I just need to know, what type of file does EX 400's USB Input support?