Q80a vs X94j - 65 inch

[sc1lcq]

Hi all

I’m close to buying a new tv. I’ve looked at lots of models and think the best for my needs is either the Samsung Q80a or the Sony X94J both in 65 inch.

The Samsung seems to have confusion as to whether the panel is VA or not in the uk, does anyone know for sure? The user reviews seem very good. The Sony seems to get good write ups all round on the whole.

I could get the Samsung slightly cheaper which is appealing as it’s just within budget whilst the Sony is slightly over. Also I have an old Samsung which I like but I’m not loyal and happy to change brand. I like when the image almost pops and looks 3D and nice and bright, I constantly have HDR+ mode on, on my current tv, does the Sony have a similar setting? I like the option of having Q symphony as I have a Samsung soundbar but the picture is the most important thing to me which seems to be Sony?

Any thoughts welcomed, please help me decide! It’s hard to tell in the shops! Thanks

 

[ab12]

Both are VA. Samsung offers higher brightness and more vivid colors. Sony aims for more detail in highlights and more accurate colors. Both can be found under starter HDR TVs

NEW: My best value TVs, 2021-2022 Edition

My best value TVs, 2021-2022 Edition Please read this post before posting and asking for advice. Include all the information we need to recommend you the right TV! Its also worth reading my useful links here: My links & guides (Also found in my signature, desktop view) These are my own...

www.avforums.com

 

[sc1lcq]

Thanks. The Samsung is £190 cheaper than the Sony. If they’re much of a muchness I’d be tempted to save the money but if Sony is considerably better I’d look to get that. I’ve seen some Sony’s which look dark compared to my current Samsung which I don’t like, but it could well be just the settings they were on!

 

[ab12]

Sony stays true to source especially in HDR. Samsung employs dynamic tone-mapping to make HDR look brighter, see example below. Settings can close the gap a bit, but the difference remains. Based on your current TV, your findings and their price I would get the Q80A.

Dusk time image

 

[sc1lcq]

Thanks. That does look vastly different, I much prefer the one on the right. I have an mu7000 so think any of these will be a decent upgrade

 

[sc1lcq]

In the end got the Samsung £300 less than the Sony so that decided it for certain

 

[tvdavid]

Let us know how you like it.

 

[iwb100]

Sony stays true to source especially in HDR. Samsung employs dynamic tone-mapping to make HDR look brighter, see example below. Settings can close the gap a bit, but the difference remains. Based on your current TV, your findings and their price I would get the Q80A.

Dusk time image

The image on the right is honestly horrible and you are losing so much of the detail. Why people think blowing everything out with horrible dynamic tone mapping is a good thing or even remotely attractive I’ve no idea. But basically you are losing all the details in the image and turning it into a cartoon.

I’ve only recently had a Tv with dynamic tone mapping to realise how truly awful it can be. Some implementations are better than others but turned it off on my LG as soon as I saw how much it blew the detail out. Same with this Samsung.

If you want a screen that bright why not just buy a massive whacking blue light and be done with it?

 

[sc1lcq]

Looking on my current Samsung I don’t use dynamic tone mapping. I agree some settings can completely ruin image and in all honesty I didn’t look that close at the images above but I do much prefer a brighter image and in my experience the Sony tv’s have been on the dark side. Might just be the settings of those particular Sony’s, but my current Samsung set up I like, with good brightness but still decent detail. With the £400 difference it made sense to go with that one

 

[iwb100]

Looking on my current Samsung I don’t use dynamic tone mapping. I agree some settings can completely ruin image and in all honesty I didn’t look that close at the images above but I do much prefer a brighter image and in my experience the Sony tv’s have been on the dark side. Might just be the settings of those particular Sony’s, but my current Samsung set up I like, with good brightness but still decent detail. With the £400 difference it made sense to go with that one

Samsungs I think have undefeatable tone mapping. If you look at those two images and don’t immediately conclude the one on the left is orders of
magnitude better then I don’t know what to tell you.

Why would anyone want an artificially brightened overblown image? I know people do I just do not understand it. You buy a 4K Tv only to blow all the details out and make it look like a much lower resolution feed just so your TV can be retina searingly bright? I just don’t get it. I mean daytime viewing I have an OLED with Dynamic tone mapping off and HDR is still more than bright enough.

 

[sc1lcq]

Each to their own mate I wouldn’t let it bother you so much, people like what they like all the best

 

[Dodgexander]

The image on the right is honestly horrible and you are losing so much of the detail. Why people think blowing everything out with horrible dynamic tone mapping is a good thing or even remotely attractive I’ve no idea. But basically you are losing all the details in the image and turning it into a cartoon.

I’ve only recently had a Tv with dynamic tone mapping to realise how truly awful it can be. Some implementations are better than others but turned it off on my LG as soon as I saw how much it blew the detail out. Same with this Samsung.

If you want a screen that bright why not just buy a massive whacking blue light and be done with it?

Haven't you missed the point with HDR? It's supposed to be bright. If it's not bright then you lose detail, not gain it. The problem with the X90J is that its too dim to be considered a proper HDR TV. The Q80A isn't that much brighter but having just a little extra really helps push it over the line.

For the record, Samsung do over-bright their HDR images a little, but not by much compared to some brands. You can argue on TVs that don't have high peak brightness its more of a necessary than a negative.

Sony choose accuracy above everything else, but the X90J is very dim, so you have no detail whatsoever above its rated nits.

If you compared the same photo on a brighter TV like the Samsung QN95A or Sony X95J the Q80A would look a lot closer to both than the X90J.

 

[grogi]

Haven't you missed the point with HDR? It's supposed to be bright.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic here - but simply being bright is not how it is supposed to be.

The HDR picture is supposed to be bright, but only in certain areas of the picture.
In the sample picture above, only the inside the lamp has the potential to be above 300 nits.

If you compared the same photo on a brighter TV like the Samsung QN95A or Sony X95J the Q80A would look a lot closer to both than the X90J.

If the sets are calibrated, the scene should look almost identical on any TV these days. This isn't overly bright frame and shouldn't be a challenge to any set to be fair. Between low-end and high-end you should see differences only in highlights: the brightest parts of the picture.

Samsung is the VW in the TV world. When it detects it is being measured with 10% window, it tracks the brightness perfectly. Change the window size to anything non-standard, it starts to massively overbright the picture.

 

[Dodgexander]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic here - but simply being bright is not how it is supposed to be.

The HDR picture is supposed to be bright, but only in certain areas of the picture.
In the sample picture above, only the inside the lamp has the potential to be above 300 nits.



If the sets are calibrated, the scene should look almost identical on any TV these days. This isn't overly bright frame and shouldn't be a challenge to any set to be fair. Between low-end and high-end you should see differences only in highlights: the brightest parts of the picture.

Samsung is the VW in the TV world. When it detects it is being measured with 10% window, it tracks the brightness perfectly. Change the window size to anything non-standard, it starts to massively overbright the picture.

I still think you are missing the point, being darker does not equate to more detail. More dynamic range is what brings more detail with HDR.
Providing the display correctly tracks EOTF correctly and has the potential to put out high brightness with more colour volume HDR will be a lot better on brighter displays.

On displays that are too dim you get exactly what you describe, a loss of detail. Bright parts of the image are cut off, or even worse, the TV tries to tone map meaning there's a lot of crushed detail throughout the entire picture.

I think the Sony X90J does a good job considering, but it must not be compared to higher end LCD models that have higher brightness or OLEDs with better detail in darker areas of the picture.

Remember, a display capable of being bright can still decide to preserve detail. But a display that can't get bright enough cannot physically create detail that's beyond its specifications.

 

[grogi]

I still think you are missing the point, being darker does not equate to more detail. More dynamic range is what brings more detail with HDR.
Providing the display correctly tracks EOTF correctly and has the potential to put out high brightness with more colour volume HDR will be a lot better on brighter displays.

On displays that are too dim you get exactly what you describe, a loss of detail. Bright parts of the image are cut off, or even worse, the TV tries to tone map meaning there's a lot of crushed detail throughout the entire picture.

I think the Sony X90J does a good job considering, but it must not be compared to higher end LCD models that have higher brightness or OLEDs with better detail in darker areas of the picture.

Remember, a display capable of being bright can still decide to preserve detail. But a display that can't get bright enough cannot physically create detail that's beyond its specifications.

Dynamic range is directly related to contrast of particular set. 1000:1 results in around 10 steps of dynamic range, while 6000:1 will give 12.5 steps.

Now, if you have two sets with same contrast, both are capable of similar dynamic range. The brighter one will simply crush detail in the darks.

 

[Dodgexander]

Dynamic range is directly related to contrast of particular set. 1000:1 results in around 10 steps of dynamic range, while 6000:1 will give 12.5 steps.

Now, if you have two sets with same contrast, both are capable of similar dynamic range. The brighter one will simply crush detail in the darks.

No, because if setup correctly the brighter TV will not over-brighten content. It will map the content exactly as it meant too.

Some TVs will artificially over-bright content, but this doesn't have anything to do with the peak brightness of the TV, only the algorithm used.

TVs follow a EOTF curve with HDR. The content 'tells' the TV it wants it to display x number of nits. If the content tells a TV that can display 2000 nits it wants it to display just 600, it will.

The other way around, if the content 'tells' a TV that can't get bright enough to display 1000 nits, it won't and detail beyond its nit count will be lost.

The contrast figures you see TVs tested at today are based on SDR ANSI test patterns and have no relevance at all really for HDR. HDR pushes the contrast of TVs a lot higher if they can get brighter.