Home Entertainment & Technology Resource

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sony KD**X9005A 4K Owners Thread

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs' started by Geoff_D, Jul 27, 2013.

  1. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Yes, I have been crazy enough to buy one of these in the 55". There's **** all 4K content out there (YouTube videos don't count unless you've got a chunky monkey of a PC :D ) but the upscaling is exemplary, so it will function perfectly well as a '1080p' TV until such time as Sony pull their finger out and give us Britishers proper 4K goodness. Perhaps they're waiting for the PS4, perhaps they're waiting for 4K Blu-ray who knows?

    Sony have actually said that they won't leave existing 4K owners behind regarding future upgrades to the tech, but they won't be drawn on specifics which I suppose is because there are no specifics yet! So us early adopters are flying blind - 'twas ever thus - but I bought the TV for its performance with current HD and 3D content, so 4K will be the bonus to end all bonuses when it finally arrives.

    So, as to the 55" set itself, it's got the usual LCD/LED foibles. A bit of clouding here, a touch of DSE there, but in day-to-day operation it's lovely. The backlight dimming delivers rich blacks that helps to cover all but the most persistent smudge of clouding. Much has been said, mostly by yours truly, in the general 4K threads about the visible line structure of the 55" Sony owing to the passive 3D panel. I was a little worried about how it would look at home but the line structure in 2D is almost imperceptible from my maximum viewing distance of 8-and-a-half feet. Which is nice.

    3D is a different matter, however. The 2160p panel delivers passive 1080 to each eye, which is a great use of the technology, permitting full resolution images without the need for active shutter specs, so there's no issues with flicker, you can use cinema glasses, etc etc. But because the TV's only using half of its 2160 lines for each eye, the other half are effectively blank which creates a 'line doubled' kind of look with a bit of aliasing on slanted horizontal edges. Not every passive set has such issues, so I guess it depends on how far the lines are spaced out on the panel (or whatever, I'm no engineer)

    I say that because the 65" Sony 4K has no issues with line structure in 2D and has very little of the aliasing in 3D, though it's still there if you really go looking for it. And yet, I've gone and bought a 55" knowing full well about this artefact. Why? Because of the utter lack of crosstalk. I've never seen a 3D image look as incredibly immersive as this, not in a digital cinema, not in IMAX, and not on my previous 55HX823 set. It's gorgeous, and well worth the slight distraction of the aliasing because I hate crosstalk with a vengeance; it's the lesser of two weevils as far as I'm concerned.

    I've yet to properly calibrate the set but even with a quick tweak via the AVSHD709 and Spears & Munsil v2 discs it looks proper lush. In a funny way the image seems smaller than my last TV, even though the screen size itself is the same. It's probably those bloody speakers on the sides :D
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Silverblack

    Silverblack Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +434
    Sounds good any chance of some pics??:smashin:
  3. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    Geoff, did you mean to say 3D - because I can't see how you'd ever see a line structure in 2D.

    Put it this way, I own one of the old 2K models and I can't see a line structure at ANY distance when viewing 2D :confused:

    Did you simply forget to take your passive specs off :D
  4. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Nope, it's not a typo. Get close enough - within 8 ft - and I can clearly see the line structure of the panel in 2D, just like I can on the other passive 3D set (W8) in Sony's current range.
  5. zAndy1

    zAndy1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,023
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,362
    Ok I don't get this at all, the polarising filter is on the glasses isn't it or are you saying there's a polarising filter on the TV and it's visible when watching 2D as well? Must say it's all very confusing this because there was no mention of such a thing in the review of the 65" and if anything I'd expect such a thing to be more visible at the bigger screen size than it is at 55" :confused: Would love to see some pics, assume you can't watch any 4k content at all on it then even off youtube (presumably it doesn't have enough horsepower to play 4k youtube videos via the native youtube app?). Bit of a mixed bag then really, must admit I'm not hearing anything really that's making me want to rush out and spend twice as much on this as a top of the range 55" 1080p set but who knows what might happen as regards 4k content availability and if that takes off then we'll really see what this thing can do I guess, until then it must be like having a Ferrari with an accelerator pedal that sticks half way, frustrating :(
  6. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    As I said in the first post, I'm no engineer. I've no idea why (some) passive panels have this effect. The 65" doesn't show the line structure in 2D at all. But it's not me being a dumbass...there was another 55" owner who said the same thing one of the 4K threads, and there are a few people over at AVS who are reporting the same thing.

    Most of the reviews have been about the 65", which is why there's been no mention of visible line structure in the wider press. Because there isn't any with that TV. Maybe it's nothing to do with the 3D on the 55", but then again I can see it on Sony's entire W8 range of passive 3D TVs so it must be something to do with the passive panels.
  7. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    There's a mention of this artefact in this piece by hometheater.com. It's from a couple years ago and doesn't make mention of these 1080 passive panels, but the bit about the (what I now know is called an) FPR filter is as salient as ever.

    See? I have taken my 3D glasses off and I'm not making it up :D
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    I'm extremely confused too

    This is as close I can get i.e. pixel level

    [​IMG]



    ...and yet no sign of any line structure.

    You'll see the line structure quick enough if you put the glasses ON but this is purely a discussion of watching 2D.

    How on earth is it possible that the line structure on a 1st generation 2010 2K set is invisible and yet it's visible from as far as 8' on a 2013 4K set :confused:

    How many passive sets have you viewed as mine being an LG then I'd expect all their range to use panels with similar specs ?
  9. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    That piece is basicaly correct Geoff (aside from Kane being wrong about the 1080 lines - which is easily proven with a simple test routine :D).

    But notice it only mentions the lines in 3D - nothing is said about viewing 2D
  10. Gareth10

    Gareth10 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13
    I've been to see the 55" today, and it's absolutely gorgeous. There was an upscaled BD being played, and it was 'I want one now'. I haven't decided 100% on the 65" or 55". I've been trying to find out which panel is the better of the two.
    Geoff is there any torch lighting or light bleeds from the two edges? I've got a little clouding on my 55hx923 and with local dimming on standard, it's almost perfect imo, so that doesn't bother me too much.
  11. NickInWiltshire

    NickInWiltshire Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +335
    I think maybe what you are seeing in 2D is that there has to be a (small) gap between each horizontal line so that the FPR can be aligned correctly. If each line touched then aligning the FPR would be practically impossible.

    I can definitely see a horizontal line structure on the picture that Jason posted btw. For comparison I have attached a close up picture of my set (which is active 3D) displaying a checkerboard (alternating on and off pixels) and you can see that the horizontal lines of pixels touch (because no clearance is needed.)

    Attached Files:

  12. johnnyhungus

    johnnyhungus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +99
    It is such a shame that you are reporting clouding on this set, this is one of my biggest annoyances and sad to see it is still there on a TV of this price.

    Instead of chucking out 4K sets onto the market, maybe the idiots in research should eradicate the clouding.

    Very poor indeed. Can you kill the clouding at all?
  13. zAndy1

    zAndy1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,023
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,362
    Ok I get that but why on earth would it only be visible on the 55" and not the 65", I would have thought if anything it would be more visible on the 65" surely :confused:
  14. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    I only took the shot quickly hand-held but now you mention it, compared to your image, I can also make out a black area making up each red/green/blue pixel (which at the size shown starts to show as a black line).

    However with the naked eye it simply isn't discernible (you can make out individual pixels but that's about it)

    How can something which isn't discernible with the naked eye at any distance suddenly become visible at 8' or less when using essentially the same display technology.

    There has to be something really odd going on here :confused:
  15. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    Totally agree on that point :smashin:

    There are two things I'd expect on an upgrade path:

    1. Perfect screen uniformity (zero banding or DSE)
    2. Perfect (or at least better) blacks
    Upping the display resolution would be a distinct 3rd on my list :(
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2013
  16. vaktmestern

    vaktmestern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,547
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +309
    Maybe sony uses a lg panel on the 55" ?
  17. johnnyhungus

    johnnyhungus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +99
    Agreed. I thought LG owned the tech or something.

    Would have made sense to use full array as on the HX923 which had great backlighting IMHO (shame about the crease).

    Very poor show Sony, shame on you.
  18. Gareth10

    Gareth10 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13
    Not to go off topic, but funny you mention those creases on the hx923, mine have now gone almost after 2 years of use....
  19. NickInWiltshire

    NickInWiltshire Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +335
    I don't know so this is only a guess. But if the clearance between lines is a fixed amount, then as the screen gets bigger and the height of the pixels increases, then the ratio of the clearance gap to the pixel height reduces and is less apparent.

    If the pixels are the same size as the gaps at 55" then they would be about 30% bigger than the gaps on 65".
  20. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    I haven't seen these sets in the flesh but it doesn't sound like a proportionate issue to me. I get the impression you can't see the lines at all on the 65" but they're very visible on the 55" (to be seen at 8' they must be very visible).

    Viewing a 4K 55" @ 8' equates to viewing a 2K 47" at 13' 8"

    That's an insane distance since you only need sit at 8' on a 2K 47" passive in order NOT to see the polariser when watching in 3D :eek:

    I'm beginning to wonder if this 'line' issue has anything to do with the polariser at all - after all technology isn't normally regressive :(
  21. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Jason, you really should get a look at the 55" and see for yourself. It's not enough to keep saying "it's not possible to see the lines because they shouldn't be there" or whatever, because I have one of these sets in front of me and I'm not making this **** up. Nor are the other people who have reported seeing the lines.

    johnny: I wouldn't say that the clouding is dealbreakingly bad, not least because the dimming backlight kills most of it, but the backlighting certainly isn't as uniform as the 55HX823 it has replaced. There's less DSE though, so it's a bit of a trade-off.
  22. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +163
    Geoff, It wasn't my intention in anyway to denigrate your new set (in fact I genuinely thought you must have made a typo).

    It's true I haven't seen this set so I don't really know what you're seeing but I can tell you emphatically I don't see any lines whatsoever on my 2K passive whilst watching 2D (and I can't believe mine can be unique).

    I guess if you're happy anyway then it doesn't make any difference but just thought you might want to investigate to see what's going on.
  23. johnnyhungus

    johnnyhungus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +99
    I had an 823 and thought the clouding was horrific, so if that is the case that it isn't as good as that awful set, then I am lost for words!

    I would send it back in a flash!
  24. Johnjay1969

    Johnjay1969 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +90
    This topic has been going on since LCD became market friendly. It always seems to boil down to the same thing: Some sets have it, some dont. Some have it worse than others. I have been one of the lucky ones on a number of occasions. As clouding was reported in the W3000-4500-5500 HX800/823. These are the Sony TVs ive owned & zero or very slight clouding to be bothered about.

    Funny my 1st Bravia was a P2530 & uniformity was excellent-no clouding. I think the more they push the contrast amount the more this problem is reported & all TV manufacturers are guilty of it.(panasonic,i don't know) But it seems to be a very small percentage in total that are affected,which must relate to a few thousand per model.

    If anyone is unlucky enough to get it so bad that it distracts the viewing enjoyment either replace it & hope you get a less affected model or get a plasma,but then that tech. has its own demons too. Some day TVs will be clear of it but until OLED appears it seems its here to stay, wether largely or slightly affecting TVs
  25. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Listen, if anyone's gonna denigrate my set then it's gonna be me! :D

    One thing about the lines that's just come to mind, and may well be why I can see lines on passive sets and others can't: I'm a glasses wearer and my lenses have an anti-scratch coating. They may be having some sort of polarising effect. Trouble is, I can't take my glasses off to check for lines from any sort of reasonable distance because I'm pretty short-sighted, all I'd see is a big blur! I can get a look from about 10 inches.

    johnny: my old set was a 55" 823 and the clouding was excellent, which highlights how much of a lottery this whole process is. This new one has a large-ish patch in the left-middle of the screen, and after having spent a bit more time with it whenever the camera moves up or down I can see horizontal pinches of light at the extreme edges of the screen, as if it's got a CCFL backlight or something. Whether that's standard for this 55" panel or unique to my one I don't know, though I don't remember seeing it on the one in the shop, and I'm debating whether to send it back for another as it'd be a major arseache to organise.
  26. johnnyhungus

    johnnyhungus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +99
    Well it is a hell of a lot of money Geoff, I would send it back in a heartbeat. :smashin:
  27. VEGACORTEZ

    VEGACORTEZ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +187
    As the review of the 65" states the panel can achieve 0.03 black levels with local dimming off and is a possible MVA panel i guess why that one looks to be the better one to have. As other people have mentioned it seems that the 55" is perhaps using an LG panel which is perhaps why the 55" seems inferior. I believe the Sony W8 series are using LG panels as well.
    Regards
  28. Mr-Bananas

    Mr-Bananas Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,263
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +212
    There is already a way to totally eliminate clouding...........full array local dimming...............which Sony seem to have dropped from their range. :confused:

    Why why why Sony, local dimming (full array, not edge lit) is the best tech for an LCD panel, at the very least it should be available on the flagship model.

    Crazy.
  29. vaktmestern

    vaktmestern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,547
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +309
    no full array led has eleminated cloading :lesson: to few led zones behind the panels
  30. Geoff_D

    Geoff_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,098
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    I know, it's just sorting out transport to take it back. Looks like a mate can help me, so in a few days time I should be able to get this resolved one way or another.

    I just checked the 3D on the passive 55W8 and it's got the exact same aliasing on horizontal edges as the 55X9. I got my mate to check both so I know it's not just me! Obviously the 55X9 is higher resolution, but it can't get around the 'missing lines' artefact of this particular passive tech.

    There's an excellent way to check this with the bit in Prometheus where the ship approaches a Saturn-esque planet. The ring around the planet is smoothly graduated in 2D, but it's a stair-stepped mess in Sony passive 3D. Incidentally, the same scene on the 65X9 looks a heck of a lot better. As I said at the top, it's still slightly aliased if you really look for it but it's nowhere near as blatant as Sony's passive 55" (and below) models.

    I can soften the aliasing slightly by putting the sharpness down to near zero, but that softens the picture to an unnacceptable degree. In case you were wondering, I'm not normally over-sharpening the picture either, because I've set it using the test patterns on the Spears & Munsil v2 Blu-ray. (Steve Withers' AVF review of the 65X9 recommends a setting of 50, which is the same conclusion I reached with the 55X9.)

    Bottom line: if you're thinking about getting one of these, avoid the 55X9 and go for its bigger brother. I can't because I don't have the space and £6K is a heck of a chunk of dough. £4K for the 55" ain't cheap either but I can stretch to that, and if I can get one with a reasonable panel then I'll be happy.

    Why would I still stick with the 55"? Well, I was watching a few demo scenes from a few 2D Blu-ray movies (Se7en, Django, Hunger Games) last night and the PQ is mesmerising. The blacks are gorgeous, shadow detail is superb, the colour (post-calibration) is spot on and the detail is crisp and sharp without being overcooked. Again, I can't emphasise enough how amazing the upscaling is on this TV. It's not true 4K, not by a long shot, but there's a sense of clarity and density to the picture that's gobsmackingly good.

    The built-in sound is excellent too. Even though I've got a terrific 5.1 system, I can't have it blaring out every second of every day (bloody neighbours) so the TV's sound has to do a job - and it does. As a little bonus, there's no need to fire up my surround system for a 192kbps DD1.0 track because the TV's speakers are more than capable of reproducing it faithfully. It makes watching mono movies that much more cinematic as well, because the sound comes directly from the screen.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2013

Share This Page