Demo of Sharp 32L465M..an eye opener....Sony, Samsung pale in front of it

[shanmune]

Guys, what is the point? There will be performers and there will be laggards. No company can claim superiority across all segments.

100% correct. With one more addition to make it full - It is not only that companies can claim superiority across all segments, but also a same company cannot provide the best TV always. If today Panasonic is providing the best Plasma, tomorrow it might be replaced by Samsung. If today Sony is provinding the best LED, it might be replaced by Samsung or Vizio or Sharp. If orkut was a rage some time back, it is replaced now by facebook.
The problem is - Few have extreme obsession with a particular brand and naturally they will awalys see negatives of other brands.
People do talk great about ST50/GT50, HX950, E8000 and I am not seeing anything wrong in that, but there are equally good performing models from other brands like Philips (at higher ends). The point I am making is that extreme obsession with one brand makes people blind in seeing greatness in other brands. For example, when people talk about black level performance, they never mention about Philips high LED models (9 series) which look like offering superior black levels among any LEDs (only problem is they are not marketed well like other brands). Again, let's not start any debate on this, but I am only making a subtle point where I see people becoming blind due to extreme obsession.
I think we should bring back on our focus on Sharp 32L465M review rather than debating who the best is ... Nothing wrong in having the debate, but probably that should be done in a different thread and not in this thread.

 

[adder]

Let me clarify : what I meant is that in none of the reviews did I hear from the reviewer that the PDP under review is too bad for those ambient lighting conditions. As far as my observation goes, Plasmas look a little washed out under living room conditions and not like a dark cave!

They do mention read HDtvtest.co.uk or check out hometheatre mag reviews ,if you didn't find it in the main review look at the comments section where the review has said that, or watch the VE HDTVshoot videos where they had to even paint the room and the roof black because it makes a big impact on the contrast ratio.The even mention that in theaters even those EXIT signs have a significant impact on picture quality,
The fact that you mentioned looks a little washed out means there is a significant contrast loss.

Do you mean to say these companies ordered other OEMs to manufacture their Plasma TVs? That's surprising as Philips was one of the very initial companies to manufacture Plasmas (remember the Philips ad way back in late 90s when a couple in bed watches TV stuck to the ceiling? ). And who'd have supplied them with the necessary panels?

There where many companies showing plasma tv concepts but there is no data out there which shows philips had plasma panel plant.

Keeping aside, whatever the spokespersons might have said, the truth at the background is that Plasmas actually yield lesser profits to their makers and hence were ditched for LCD TVs.

Like i said if plasma actually yields lesser profits we would have seen samsung and LG pull out of plasmas tv business since samsung lcds outsell the combined plasmas sales by a huge ratio and they also supply lcd panels to many other companies.I read some where that samsung makes more money in their plasma division then in their lcd division.
Lg was reported to have made seven straight quarterly losses in their lcd division

Most CRT TVs manufactured after 2000 were no good compared to the ones before them. My Uncle owns a pre-2004 non 'Sparkling Wega' Sony CRT model and currently its performance is worse than a deteriorated '80s CRT TV of my grandma. Sony's pic-tube quality standard has fallen so much !!! However my Panasonic Tau purchased in 2003 is a superb performer and hasn't given me any problems yet.

The Wega was that were sold till 2004 which had Made in Japan picture tube where actually quite good,some of best wega models where made during that time including some Super Fine Pitch models which used to cost more then lcds back in 05 when they where still in sale.
The ones made after that had cheap picture tubes which doesn't even resemble the older picture tube in appearance .

LCDs are superior because all companies started to neglect CRTs & focus on LCDs. Like the whole AV world knows, although response time and contrast levels have been improved in LCD TVs, black levels still remain inferior to CRT ones.

CRT tvs had poor ANSI contrast and really poor perceived contrast when ambient lights hit the screen.They had geometry issues, flicker,where not easy on the eyes.

I didn't mean Sony stopped buying panels from Samsung, i only meant they withdrew from the S-LCD JV. Regardless of however last Sony's alliances lasted for, what I mean to say is that the earlier Trinitron-tube manufacturer has probably lost quality ground to Samsung because Sony bought panels from Samsung / Sharp instead of making its *own* panels. You see, Sony has now joined hands with Panasonic to manufacture OLED TVs.

Yes when a company buy panels from another company the profit margins are low to non existent.Samsung really pulled the lead when they started the LED ad campaign .

It's an established fact that BRAVIAa are great in image processing and color reproduction. My only gripe is that on close observation the image on Bravias looks artificially beautiful to me than the real image which can be found on LG, Samsung or Panasonic TVs, thereby rendering it unrealistic, atleast to my eyes.

May be you need to re look the tv you saw with optimum picture settings it can be much better.

As far as I have read, reviews held XS1 in high regard but never stated that it did outperform Samsung (or Sony) LCDs! After all, with Sharp's 'inferior than Sony/Samsung/Panasonic' image processing, how could they be better at all?

Very few review sites reviewed this tv,while it may lack in the image processing department and the native inferior viewing angles of their panel ,it surely had great contrast and really wide color gamut.

 

[royalanalog]

They do mention read HDtvtest.co.uk or check out hometheatre mag reviews ,if you didn't find it in the main review look at the comments section where the review has said that, or watch the VE HDTVshoot videos where they had to even paint the room and the roof black because it makes a big impact on the contrast ratio.The even mention that in theaters even those EXIT signs have a significant impact on picture quality,

Those reviewers you talk about might have painted their walls for testing or reviewing a Plasma TV, but I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone literally painting the walls to review a TV. I'd never turn my living room into a cave by painting its walls in black color after all to watch a TV. Come on ... I don't think anyone else would paint their walls in black color unless the person had a lot of black color paint left unused ! :lol:

The fact that you mentioned looks a little washed out means there is a significant contrast loss.

The washed out model was a 40" Pan Plasma i saw way back in 2007 or 2008. Since then, plasma TVs underwent considerable improvement in this department (just like LCD TVs today having 2ms response time today compared to 8ms or 10ms response time way back when they'd just arrived). Today, all Plasmas of different brands look very good in several shops I've been to such as like Reliance Digital, CROMA, Panasonic Brand Shops ... a few to say. Of course they aren't as vivid as LCD or LED TVs, but they definitely need not be watched in black rooms. Contrast ratio figures thrown by companies aside, how the image appears to a person is the most important.

There where many companies showing plasma tv concepts but there is no data out there which shows philips had plasma panel plant.

I'm not talking about 'concepts' but about real Plasma TVs made and released by several companies including Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NEC, Philips and even HP in the international market.
OLED TVs have been launched officially but not commercially by companies incl LG, Samsung & Sony but there is no 'OLED panel plant' (such as Kameyama or S-LCD) yet. During the initial stage, any company launching a product makes a limited no.of panels just for testing or display purposes. In a similar manner, there's good chance that atleast one company made such limited no.of Plasma panels then.

Like i said if plasma actually yields lesser profits we would have seen samsung and LG pull out of plasmas tv business since samsung lcds outsell the combined plasmas sales by a huge ratio and they also supply lcd panels to many other companies.

Plasma TVs' sales have declined sharply across the world in 2012 arising doubts if Panasonic will ever continue making Plasmas hereon. In spite of this, if these Korean companies have made profits like you say, it has to be out of one obvious reason: low production cost in Korean soil. This is also the reason why the Korean brands today position their TV sets in the market at lower prices than other established brand like Sony.

The Wega was that were sold till 2004 which had Made in Japan picture tube where actually quite good,some of best wega models where made during that time including some Super Fine Pitch models which used to cost more then lcds back in 05 when they where still in sale.
The ones made after that had cheap picture tubes which doesn't even resemble the older picture tube in appearance .

The WEGA that I'm talking about is also one that houses a 'Made In Japan' pic tube. The expensive WEGA models that you're talking about incorporated the DRC technology and had several features like 100Hz, Digital Scan, DRC etc. They were launched as a competition to Pixel Plus technology by Philips. They were great TVs on paper but I was never impressed by the former when I saw them.

CRT tvs had poor ANSI contrast and really poor perceived contrast when ambient lights hit the screen.

CRT TVs remained and probably still remain the reference standard with which LCD and Plasma TVs are always compared. India never saw too many CRT TVs with 1080p technology unlike in the US. If such TVs were ever launched our users would have definitely known their worth. Although what you say might be technically correct, it is little surprising to hear that CRTs have poor perceived or ANSI contrast ratio under living room lighting condition (incidence of sunlight directly is an exception).

 

[adder]

The washed out model was a 40" Pan Plasma i saw way back in 2007 or 2008. Since then, plasma TVs underwent considerable improvement in this department (just like LCD TVs today having 2ms response time today compared to 8ms or 10ms response time way back when they'd just arrived). Today, all Plasmas of different brands look very good in several shops I've been to such as like Reliance Digital, CROMA, Panasonic Brand Shops ... a few to say. Of course they aren't as vivid as LCD or LED TVs, but they definitely need not be watched in black rooms. Contrast ratio figures thrown by companies aside, how the image appears to a person is the most important.

Yes the plasmas have certainly improved in that ambient light department but if look at some base HD models, they are just as bad as they where some time ago.Not only that ,there is also the brightness issue .If you take my living room for example which has windows facing East and West ,even a matte lcd will loose quite bit of contrast under the ambient light but i can say with 100% confidence that a plasma or CRT tv will be last i will consider based on my living rooms ambient light since no matter how good plasmas have improved a lcd just doesn't wash out as much as plasmas and they are also bright enough to defeat glare.

I'm not talking about 'concepts' but about real Plasma TVs made and released by several companies including Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NEC, Philips and even HP in the international market.
OLED TVs have been launched officially but not commercially by companies incl LG, Samsung & Sony but there is no 'OLED panel plant' (such as Kameyama or S-LCD) yet. During the initial stage, any company launching a product makes a limited no.of panels just for testing or display purposes. In a similar manner, there's good chance that atleast one company made such limited no.of Plasma panels then.

Plasma TVs' sales have declined sharply across the world in 2012 arising doubts if Panasonic will ever continue making Plasmas hereon. In spite of this, if these Korean companies have made profits like you say, it has to be out of one obvious reason: low production cost in Korean soil. This is also the reason why the Korean brands today position their TV sets in the market at lower prices than other established brand like Sony.

We can only speculate about their future .For companies like Panasonic their tvs sales mainly consists of plasma,so i am not sure they would pull out of it that soon,unless the new samsung plasmas turn out to be better then theirs. But once large screen lcd tvs starts to match the price of plasmas ,we might definitely see some companies pulling the plug on plasma production.

The WEGA that I'm talking about is also one that houses a 'Made In Japan' pic tube. The expensive WEGA models that you're talking about incorporated the DRC technology and had several features like 100Hz, Digital Scan, DRC etc. They were launched as a competition to Pixel Plus technology by Philips. They were great TVs on paper but I was never impressed by the former when I saw them

The old DRC models where just so good even a 34" version had more contrast then a 29" normal WEGA .The first DRC tv that i saw with my eyes was in bangalore ICE expo in 1999 and i still have the catalog.Even the chief minister SM krishna was so excited by that tv ,there was photo of him in the newspaper looking at that DRC 29" which used to cost around 70k in 1999.
In 2004 when i was checking both philips and Sony models ,the Sony just showed so much more details then the philips ,the higher contrast of the Sony was clearly evident in both DRC and normal WEGA models ,there was 20k difference between the philips 29" pixel plus and Sony DRC 29".
After that there where several new DRC and normal models which had a different picture tube and they where just no better then other competing tvs.

CRT TVs remained and probably still remain the reference standard with which LCD and Plasma TVs are always compared. India never saw too many CRT TVs with 1080p technology unlike in the US. If such TVs were ever launched our users would have definitely known their worth. Although what you say might be technically correct, it is little surprising to hear that CRTs have poor perceived or ANSI contrast ratio under living room lighting condition (incidence of sunlight directly is an exception).

Even the 1080i super fine Pitch Sony tested by CHAD B which remained his reference CRT tv had poor ANSI contrast by todays standards.

 

[just4kix]

@royalanalog & adder, you have completely hijacked the thread.

I request the moderators to separate the discussion into another thread because this discussion is also interesting.

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2

 

[royalanalog]

My dad got two wega tvs- one is normal one and another is sparkling wega..both were purchased almost 8 yrs ago..and pic quality are still the same as it were 8 yrs ago.
I have seen various companies' tvs in our relatives houses...even they concluded that sony crt's pic quality are way superior than others...I won't say they are experts.

Your Dad must thank God his TVs didn't deteriorate the way mine and my Uncle's did. My relatives too hailed SONY CRT TVs as the superstar of CRT TVs and that's why i purchased one the moment I heard that the brand's about to pull the CRT plug. Although it is superior, it has serious flaws (like flicker, cheap tube quality, supernatural contrast and brightness) and falls short of the legendary 'Made In Japan' standard of the 70s & 80s.

As per your understanding if sharp make best panels they are supposed to make best phones as well...if Marvell makes best video post processing chip they are supposed to make best bluray players...it's stupid to think that way.

When did I say that if SHARP makes all products great ? I've only mentioned about their LCD TVs .. something they invented.

I still don't get the joke of higher brightness/contrast settings of bravia..I mean there is three controls- backlight, picture, brightness in Normal pic settings..as well in advanced pic settings- black corrector, Advanced contrast enhancer, gamma, auto light emitter and clear white. We should know how to use this settings rather than just judging a tv is overly bright and produce unnatural color.
As well there are various "Scene" selection settings which also can be used to alter those options.

I don't own a Bravia and have seen them only in several showrooms and have observed unique things in them multiple times.

Examples:

a) A white color image looks white on all TVs like Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Philips etc. The same white color looks a lot more luminant(i mean vivid) with a certain 'bluish' tone to it on Sony Bravia 32" model. Doesn't matter how much the sales guy toned town the diff parameters that you mentioned, the image was still bluish and vivid. However the images were a lot sharper than on most other brands. In my CRT model too, the same problem persists : When the color tone is set to Neutral (out of 3 options viz Neutral, Cool and Warm), the image looks too 'bluish' coupled with bright whites. So I always keep the color tone to 'Warm' to bring the image to reduce the bluishness and also reduce the contrast to 35-40/100 to make the image watchable. I think this is something found in Bravia TVs too.

b) On the same Bravia TV, in almost all scenes of Home Alone 3 the images looked very blocky. In fact, in many scenes I could observe images being very patchy. Whereas on Toshiba (which was placed next to Sony), a not-so-good brand unlike the legendary Sony, everything looked normal. Don't say the showroom guys did something to Sony to make Toshiba look better and sell more. All other TVs too looked simple and normal like Toshiba. I just didn't like this artificial kind of picture on Sony.

It seemed to me like Sony TV uses excessively high amount of processing on the picture thereby spoiling it. I'd say it's like applying too much make-up upon a girl's face in order to beautify her. With excessive make-up her face might look like it's been painted and not beautiful.

I hope you understand my explanation and not consider this a joke too!

 

[royalanalog]

@royalanalog & adder, you have completely hijacked the thread.

I request the moderators to separate the discussion into another thread because this discussion is also interesting.

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2

Alright then .. let me write a few last words in this tangentially going SONY vs SHARP debate

 

[lake1988]

Your Dad must thank God his TVs didn't deteriorate the way mine and my Uncle's did. My relatives too hailed SONY CRT TVs as the superstar of CRT TVs and that's why i purchased one the moment I heard that the brand's about to pull the CRT plug. Although it is superior, it has serious flaws (like flicker, cheap tube quality, supernatural contrast and brightness) and falls short of the legendary 'Made In Japan' standard of the 70s & 80s.

We use brightness@60 and contrast@60 with sharpness@50 and color@30. Not sure why super-natural contrast and brightness questions pop.
Flicker..again seen by some..not noticed by some.
We generally watch them in well-lit rooms that's why maybe we don't perceive its supernatural brightness.
Not gonna comment about picture tube quality..on what basis are we judging they are cheap.

When did I say that if SHARP makes all products great ? I've only mentioned about their LCD TVs .. something they invented.

If sharp is so good at making LCD panel where is the market share now?
Samsung makes best NAND chips..I have seen them used in various consumer electronics products of sony,apple,samsung,panasonic etc. Samsung now captured a lot of market share in various domain.
As of 2012 Samsung being the top consumer of semiconductor devices..while Sony is in fifth place after apple,hp and dell...I am unable to see sharp anywhere near.

I don't own a Bravia and have seen them only in several showrooms and have observed unique things in them multiple times.

Examples:

a) A white color image looks white on all TVs like Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Philips etc. The same white color looks a lot more luminant(i mean vivid) with a certain 'bluish' tone to it on Sony Bravia 32" model. Doesn't matter how much the sales guy toned town the diff parameters that you mentioned, the image was still bluish and vivid. However the images were a lot sharper than on most other brands. In my CRT model too, the same problem persists : When the color tone is set to Neutral (out of 3 options viz Neutral, Cool and Warm), the image looks too 'bluish' coupled with bright whites. So I always keep the color tone to 'Warm' to bring the image to reduce the bluishness and also reduce the contrast to 35-40/100 to make the image watchable. I think this is something found in Bravia TVs too.

b) On the same Bravia TV, in almost all scenes of Home Alone 3 the images looked very blocky. In fact, in many scenes I could observe images being very patchy. Whereas on Toshiba (which was placed next to Sony), a not-so-good brand unlike the legendary Sony, everything looked normal. Don't say the showroom guys did something to Sony to make Toshiba look better and sell more. All other TVs too looked simple and normal like Toshiba. I just didn't like this artificial kind of picture on Sony.

It seemed to me like Sony TV uses excessively high amount of processing on the picture thereby spoiling it. I'd say it's like applying too much make-up upon a girl's face in order to beautify her. With excessive make-up her face might look like it's been painted and not beautiful.

I hope you understand my explanation and not consider this a joke too!

If you want to know sony have two mode when you factory reset your tv..Showroom usage and home usage....in showroom mode it cranks up everything and so it might look a bit over-processed.
I would suggest do a calibration by downloading various calibration clip from avs forum and try to calibrate it as you like..if you use showroom settings in your home ypu obviously won't like it.

You said Toshiba sell more than Sony in India..go check the market share of Sony and Toshiba..you will come to know the truth.

 

[royalanalog]

The old DRC models where just so good even a 34" version had more contrast then a 29" normal WEGA .The first DRC tv that i saw with my eyes was in bangalore ICE expo in 1999 and i still have the catalog.Even the chief minister SM krishna was so excited by that tv ,there was photo of him in the newspaper looking at that DRC 29" which used to cost around 70k in 1999.

I remember seeing the initial units of those metallic color Sony WEGA Trinitrons when they were launched way back in 1999-2000. From my opinion, their picture quality was not on par with the then common black colored Kirara Basso vertically flat pic tube equipped J-series Trinitrons. For example, what appeared as reds on the latter looked a little more orange on WEGA...I just wasn't impressed with their color performance. And later, you know how much WEGA tubes declined in their quality. Also, I've never heard of WEGA with DRC way back in 2000!

In 2004 when i was checking both philips and Sony models ,the Sony just showed so much more details then the philips ,the higher contrast of the Sony was clearly evident in both DRC and normal WEGA models ,there was 20k difference between the philips 29" pixel plus and Sony DRC 29".
After that there where several new DRC and normal models which had a different picture tube and they where just no better then other competing tvs.

During CRT era, Sony TVs showed more details than any other TV since they patented and used only aperture grille architectured picture tubes. So, Philips with a shadow mask tube not showing as much details as SONY isn't really the mistake or inferiority of Philips, I'd say.

 

[royalanalog]

If sharp is so good at making LCD panel where is the market share now?

Every good company need not have a good market share : companies like JVC, Pioneer and Hitachi once ruled the TV market but now are gone. Not because they were not good companies. All Japanese companies' shares are going down and Koreans' gaining momentum. Not all companies make all products : SHARP is not a mass 'semiconductor devices' manufacturing company, but a company that makes solar panels and LCD panels.

If you want to know sony have two mode when you factory reset your tv..Showroom usage and home usage....in showroom mode it cranks up everything and so it might look a bit over-processed.
I would suggest do a calibration by downloading various calibration clip from avs forum and try to calibrate it as you like..if you use showroom settings in your home ypu obviously won't like it.

No, thanks .... one Sony(WEGA) is enough for me.

You said Toshiba sell more than Sony in India..go check the market share of Sony and Toshiba..you will come to know the truth.

I only compared Sony's picture with Toshiba and not their market shares!

 

[royalanalog]

We use brightness@60 and contrast@60 with sharpness@50 and color@30. Not sure why super-natural contrast and brightness questions pop.
Flicker..again seen by some..not noticed by some.
We generally watch them in well-lit rooms that's why maybe we don't perceive its supernatural brightness.

Yours isn't Sparkling WEGA, but mine is. So, If I set the contrast to 60, my TV might become sort of a 60 Watt bulb hyeah:

Not gonna comment about picture tube quality..on what basis are we judging they are cheap.

Your TV's pic tube doesn't seem to be cheap since you say it lasted for 8 years without any decline in clarity. Enjoy it.

 

[lake1988]

In previous post itself I mentioned we got two wegas..one is normal and another is sparkling.

 

[adder]

a) A white color image looks white on all TVs like Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Philips etc. The same white color looks a lot more luminant(i mean vivid) with a certain 'bluish' tone to it on Sony Bravia 32" model. Doesn't matter how much the sales guy toned town the diff parameters that you mentioned, the image was still bluish and vivid. However the images were a lot sharper than on most other brands. In my CRT model too, the same problem persists : When the color tone is set to Neutral (out of 3 options viz Neutral, Cool and Warm), the image looks too 'bluish' coupled with bright whites. So I always keep the color tone to 'Warm' to bring the image to reduce the bluishness and also reduce the contrast to 35-40/100 to make the image watchable. I think this is something found in Bravia TVs too.

In all Sony bravia its recommended to change the color to either warm1 or warm 2(every review site which has tested a Sony lcd do this).You also need to disable other options like clear white and black corrector and all other unwanted processing located in advanced settings.Also the backlight needs to be lowered.Once all these are done the chances of seeing a bluish tone are slim to non existent. But some cheap base models like the 42EX410 which has a lg ips panel does have a cooler color edge led the blacks looked to have a bluish tone this tv is also a oem design.

On the same Bravia TV, in almost all scenes of Home Alone 3 the images looked very blocky. In fact, in many scenes I could observe images being very patchy. Whereas on Toshiba (which was placed next to Sony), a not-so-good brand unlike the legendary Sony, everything looked normal. Don't say the showroom guys did something to Sony to make Toshiba look better and sell more. All other TVs too looked simple and normal like Toshiba. I just didn't like this artificial kind of picture on Sony.

It could be ,the base models in particular the BE3 models are OEM models(as per press release by Sony and Foxconn base models are designed by Foxconn) and also have a different UI,they also can play all or most formats via USB.But the more expensive X-reality models designed by Sony have a much better image processing and plays only limited formats via USB.Do not mistake the BE3 of old days with the current BE3 even though both are advertised the same the present one is just not as good as the old ones.Just for eg back in 2009 there was EX400 and BX400 bother where adverized as BE3 but you don't need eagle eyes to spot the obvious difference the EX400 was just vastly superior,where as the BX400 was just grainy and blotchy in motion.

It seemed to me like Sony TV uses excessively high amount of processing on the picture thereby spoiling it.

This i agree for the newer WEGA models.

I remember seeing the initial units of those metallic color Sony WEGA Trinitrons when they were launched way back in 1999-2000. From my opinion, their picture quality was not on par with the then common black colored Kirara Basso vertically flat pic tube equipped J-series Trinitrons. For example, what appeared as reds on the latter looked a little more orange on WEGA...I just wasn't impressed with their color performance. And later, you know how much WEGA tubes declined in their quality. Also, I've never heard of WEGA with DRC way back in 2000!

I also happened to owned the 1995 to 1996 vertically flat Hi-Black trinitron and later a Kiara Basso one ,the color of the Kiara was certainly different then both the Hi-black Trinitron and WEGA of 1999 but colors are subjective and unless one knows how the source color was we can't tell for sure which one is more accurate.But i do note that there was a difference in color after all the main talking point of the Kiara tvs were their colors.But i can say that the 99' -00' DRC model will just eat the other Sony's crt for lunch(except the super fine pitch models),the picture quality was just too good.

 

[Saket]

If only My old Sony Trinitron (Hi-black) bought in 1995 was even as big as my humble Sony Bravia 32", I would have still preferred to watch it daily. Even now, the picture quality of the 21" Sony Trinitron is unmatchable and if picture clarity is the only criteria, then I will prefer the Trinitron any day!

Regards.

 

[shefeeqonline]

As per cnet review itself even the mighty hx 850 tends to blue color

I myself demoed hx 850 and found it to be true
The blacks were very good though.

But the blue tone spoiled the tv viewing to some extend

 

[shefeeqonline]

CNET review referred and trusted by most

the "only" LED TV enlisted in Top 5 HDTV 2012 by CNET is sharp

May its the Bugatti LED TVs

 

[Dirac]

CNET review referred and trusted by most

the "only" LED TV enlisted in Top 5 HDTV 2012 by CNET is sharp

May its the Bugatti LED TVs

Whether it is a bugatti or lamborghini, a good driver is the key, when it is not a well prepared and predictable racing circuit.

The situation becomes even tricky when it comes to picture processing as the sources is not always a smooth 1080p so that the only work of a TV will be one to one mapping of image to pixels.

 

[rsangawat]

i went for demo and liked videocon more than sony

It's a joke videocon has the worst picture quality. I noticed the picture quality from Tatasky rendering at my Mamaji's place who bought videocon..it has lots of grays and noise which u can notice even in HD channel.

I own a Sony EX650 and till now happy with the picture quality but I do think I paid premium to buy Sony brand. Now I want to buy second tv but would be looking for at both Price, quality if get at lower price.

Samsung LCD are best but you cannot trust the logic board and IC panel to be as competent as Sony. Need to investigate more on LG and Sharp.

 

[lake1988]

Please don't waste your time replying such comments..it's known to everyone that videocon is no match with sony..

 

[royalanalog]

@royalanalog & adder, you have completely hijacked the thread.

I request the moderators to separate the discussion into another thread because this discussion is also interesting.

Nobody seems to listen to you, just4kix