Sony Z9F TV

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by E6AtmosVuduDV

mzupeman

The photo with the Sky Diver is that from a smartphone?

Did you make any camera settings changes? Change exposure, brightness etc.

I gather thats from Netllix. What movie or program.

Nice TV AV stand.

They’re all taken from my smart phone and I wasn’t going for accuracy as much as just showing the television. You can tell where there’s light bar bleed and where there’s not in those pics which was my main intent.

The pics aren’t representative of anything as it’s stuff in motion and, yes, overexposed. It was necessary to show what I see in a dark room.

The source was the new 4K disc of Hook. No Netflix or streaming.

[mzupeman]

Here was another one which shows just how bad small lit objects near the cinema bar ‘frame’ can make the light bar bleed:

[E6AtmosVuduDV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT7b...ature=youtu.be

[tommyboy81]

Either getting my tv tomorrow or Fri afternoon. Did get my settings


CUSTOM PRO DARK


CUSTOM PRO BRIGHT



HDR DARK

[E6AtmosVuduDV]

Z9F
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/z9f

[dominica]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

Either getting my tv tomorrow or Fri afternoon. Did get my settings

Enjoy The new TV!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

Either getting my tv tomorrow or Fri afternoon. Did get my settings

Strange that they have sharpness set to minimum, unless something's changed with the 2018 Sony sets (50 is the default to add neither sharpening nor softening). It's no wonder they feel the need to activate the Reality Creation. Hmmm.

Incidentally, when I did a quick recal of my HDR white balance on the ZD9 the other day (I like to double-check it every so often) I started from scratch and noticed that the uncalibrated colour balance did almost exactly what the uncalibrated ZF9 measured as in your calibrator's images. From 80% upwards the red is too strong and the blue too weak.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Strange that they have sharpness set to minimum, unless something's changed with the 2018 Sony sets (50 is the default to add neither sharpening nor softening). It's no wonder they feel the need to activate the Reality Creation. Hmmm.

Incidentally, when I did a quick recal of my HDR white balance on the ZD9 the other day (I like to double-check it every so often) I started from scratch and noticed that the uncalibrated colour balance did almost exactly what the uncalibrated ZF9 measured as in your calibrator's images. From 80% upwards the red is too strong and the blue too weak.

I also find it odd that while 2.2 seems to be the gamma Rtings calibrated for at a gamma setting of 2, they opted to instead go for a -2 gamma but bump brightness up to a 7 for a dark setting. I mean I know nothing about calibration but Rtings settings look quite good on my tv.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I also find it odd that while 2.2 seems to be the gamma Rtings calibrated for at a gamma setting of 2, they opted to instead go for a -2 gamma but bump brightness up to a 7 for a dark setting. I mean I know nothing about calibration but Rtings settings look quite good on my tv.

FWIW, me having a different TV and all, my calibrated SDR is at -1 for gamma and brightness at 7, this delivers about 140 nits peak and a measured gamma of 2.3 (which I prefer as 2.2 is too light and 2.4 too dark for my tastes). Gamma set to -2 gives me a gamma of 2.4.

Gamma at +2 is straight up weird tho in them rtings settings. But still, different TV is different. That said, they also recommend sharpness at 50 (noting that it neither adds nor detracts, as I said) unlike what Tommy's calibrator has recommended.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

FWIW, me having a different TV and all, my calibrated SDR is at -1 for gamma and brightness at 7, this delivers about 140 nits peak and a measured gamma of 2.3 (which I prefer as 2.2 is too light and 2.4 too dark for my tastes). Gamma set to -2 gives me a gamma of 2.4.

Gamma at +2 is straight up weird tho in them rtings settings. But still, different TV is different. That said, they also recommend sharpness at 50 (noting that it neither adds nor detracts, as I said) unlike what Tommy's calibrator has recommended.

What I really need to do is have an evening where Im willing to just experiment with all these variations. Im waiting for other metered calibrations to show up online though.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

Either getting my tv tomorrow or Fri afternoon. Did get my settings


CUSTOM PRO DARK


CUSTOM PRO BRIGHT



HDR DARK

I don’t see the dynamic x-tended range setting here. What are those set at?

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I don’t see the dynamic x-tended range setting here. What are those set at?

idk. Guess I'll find out when I get the set. Where can you find that at?

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

idk. Guess I'll find out when I get the set. Where can you find that at?

Itll be on the same menu page as the local dimming.

[mzupeman]

Last night I tried some of the professionally calibrated settings (outside of white and color calibration) just to see the results they’d yield on my set. So, that means for SDR I used -2 for the gamma, put brightness at 7, and went under the assumption that X-Tended Dynamic Range had likely been turned off during calibration (this was strangely left off the calibration settings sheet the Z9F owner had been provided with). The results were… interesting.

SDR looked… well, SDR. There was nothing substantial about it. I had seen some SDR content in the last couple of weeks with this television, but with X-Tended Dynamic Range turned on high, gamma at 2 and brightness at 2. But SDR was looking good under those settings… brighter than you’d probably expect for SDR, but nothing looked out of whack. Black levels were good, everything seemed to have the appropriate perceptible contrast, etc. But using the professionally calibrated settings, SDR looked fine but much more flat in comparison. I feel like I’d probably get used to these settings in a hurry if I just gave it a little bit of time, but my initial impression is that while it looks fine, it’s a bit too flat to my liking.

Using the professionally calibrated main menu settings (again, without white or color calibration settings as the vary panel to panel) for HDR, it was a similar sort of experience. Like, the early moments in 1999’s The Mummy, where there’s a battle being waged during the day… it’s normally an immediate reminder of just how good HDR has been implemented across the board for that particular film. The sun is shining and the sand reflects that beautifully as well. However, without X-Tended Dynamic Range on, the image, again while arguably more accurate overall, felt more flat all around. There was literally no eye strain going on in my pitch black viewing environment though, and HDR seemed to compliment the image more than leap out at me as it’s been doing.

Personally, I’m not sure I like the trade-off. The daylit scenes appearing almost overcast in comparison gave me great pause, so I went back to my initial settings that I had borrowed from RTINGS, at least for now. I remain open minded though, certainly. It’s always a journey when you get a new TV and begin to experiment, and it’ll continue to be so.

I’ll tell you one thing though, having the X-Tended Dynamic Range turned off yields better results in black bar and even blooming performance. That makes sense though, because extended that dynamic range overall through the television’s processing means all the highlights are going to be brighter and punchier, so of course the lights are going to be more noticeable under those viewing conditions. But is that how HDR should really be viewed? The luminance levels directly correlate with how color gets perceived in HDR as well right? Of course, maybe the person’s television has X-Tended Dynamic Range turned on and these tests were all for nothing.

But, hey, it’s fun to experiment with new toys!

I’m anxiously awaiting to hear other calibration efforts in the future, and to hear from the owner of that Z9F what their television’s X-Tended Dynamic Range settings are at.

[alexanderg823]

Had a chance to check out the Z9F the other day. I've been super busy so I didn't have a chance to write anything about it. Keep in mind these impressions are from someone that's spent time with the JS9500, the Vizio P, the EF9500, the B6, the E6, the B7, the E7, the Z9D, the Q9FN, and the C8.

I went in with low expectations but hoped to be pleasantly surprised based on the scoring from the shootout. To be frank I was totally disappointed. The TV, by 2018 standards, is garbage.

Bright scene HDR was fantastic, which is what one can expect from an LCD - Even the Vizio P looks pretty decent in bright scene HDR. However, the one thing the Z9F has over the Vizio P is that it has almost 3x as much brightness and can resolve much more detail in the highlights before blowing out. HOWEVER, so can the Z9D and the Q9FN, so in this respect if you've seen those TVs, it's quite frankly nothing new. Colors were on par with the Z9D as one would expect since it uses the same phosphor coated backlight achieve the same color gamut. In bright scenes it essentially looks the same as a Z9D, perhaps a little better.

In dark scenes we're also greeted with a "nothing new" here as well. But in a much different way. This is nothing new in the sense that there's unbelievably atrocious blooming that reminded me of the 150 zone JS9500 I had years ago, the first TV I ever owned that produced HDR. I mean the blooming is foul, disgraceful even. The Vizio P never bloomed anywhere near as much as it would dim highlights to prevent atrocious blooming, but the Z9F doesn't seem to do this, at least not as aggressively. The result is constantly seeing cinema bars light up in dark scenes with highlights and it's an unbelievable step backwards for HDR on LCD. As someone that's spent alot of time recently with OLEDs and seen the price on those drop to ridiculous levels, I just can't shake how awful the Z9F looked in comparison.

I think the problem is that alot of the positive reviews or comments we're seeing are from users that are upgrading from either extremely low end or very old units that are "wow"ed by the Z9F and haven't seen what other top end HDR LCDs can achieve. To be blunt the Q9FN is much more impressive (even if less accurate), and the Z9D just simply mops the floor with it. To say the Z9F is an embarrassment after what the Z9D achieved for LCD is blunt, but perhaps even an understatement.

The thing is, the Z9F is a decent LCD in certain scenarios. But for a video enthusiast, this TV is just awful for something that costs damn near $3500. I would purchase a Vizio PQ over this in a heart beat, without even seeing the PQ as this level of performance for $3500 just immediately makes me say "no thanks" without question. There's no way this is almost TWO THOUSAND dollars better, given how much of a step back over the Z9D it is.

I can't wait for Vincent Teoh's review, I think he'll be pretty brutal to this unit. It's really not a flagship. I think this is a unit made to drop in price quick and succeed the 900F as the mid range unit for 2019 and perhaps get bugs worked out for the X1E ultimate chip. But as someone that's been fortunate enough to experience so many good units over the past few years, it's really difficult to find anything new here to be impressed about (aside from the viewing angles, but they are not that important to me, as OLED has good viewing angles too)

The only thing I could think of was how much this reminded me of the JS9500, which was a flagship from 2015. It really would have dominated back then, but it's just disappointing today.

[mzupeman]

I do expect Vincent to tear it apart. But again, it’s a pick your poison scenario. I didn’t personally want to run Vizio’s panel lottery because DSE really sucks, and Samsung’s black crush is a deal breaker for me. But as you noted, I upgraded from a 2016 M series Vizio.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I do expect Vincent to tear it apart. But again, it’s a pick your poison scenario. I didn’t personally want to run Vizio’s panel lottery because DSE really sucks, and Samsung’s black crush is a deal breaker for me. But as you noted, I upgraded from a 2016 M series Vizio.

The issue isn't that it's pick your poison, the issue is that there's just much better options available at the price bracket, especially if you can still score a Z9D. I see no point in the Z9F even existing to be honest.

And before you say it, FWIW, screen burn on OLED seems to be largely nonsense. I just had a procedure done and was out of work for the better part of last week and put in almost 70 hours non stop of Assassins Creed Odyssey in HDR on a C8.

There's absolutely zero image retention from it.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

The issue isn't that it's pick your poison, the issue is that there's just much better options available at the price bracket, especially if you can still score a Z9D. I see no point in the Z9F even existing to be honest.

And before you say it, FWIW, screen burn on OLED seems to be largely nonsense. I just had a procedure done and was out of work for the better part of last week and put in almost 70 hours non stop of Assassins Creed Odyssey in HDR on a C8.

There's absolutely zero image retention from it.

Hey, to each their own. I’m certainly not going to argue any of these points. I, personally, am happy with my choice. In the end that’s what truly matters.

[E6AtmosVuduDV]

Sony needs to add more Dimming Zones to the Z9F.
If its to replace the Z9D as its LCD Flagship.

We may see it CES 2019 in January.

[E6AtmosVuduDV]

mzupeman posted above...

A moderator has stepped into this thread to let us know that it’s the most widely reported thread on the forum currently. And why is it? Posts like this. And yet, you’re still going!!!

You keep going back to that Value Electronics video as if it can show ANY resemblance to real world performance…. Why?

Say it with me: You. Can. Not. Form. Opinions. Based. On. Pictures. Or. Videos. Period.

This is a dark environment with a camera that’s attempting to capture multiple televisions at once, some OLED, some LED. The televisions on the right look blown out and appear to have ’50 to 70 percent loss in detail’ as you put it, because they’re far brighter than the OLED’s so of COURSE they’re going to appear that way.

The Z9F IS a light cannon, yes. But in no way, shape, or form does this television EVER look like that under even the brightest scenes. Ever. How do I know this? Because I own the television.*

You really need to stop posting impressions over a stupid YouTube video as gospel. Seriously. The fact that this even needs to be mentioned means you clearly have no idea what you’re looking at or talking about.

mzupeman.
Its actually published.

4,000 Nit Tone Mapping - For this section, a shot from Pan was paused on all four TVs with an image of the sky and the sun partially covered by some clouds. The sequence was graded to 4,000 nits and the highlights actually clipped on the Reference Monitor. With that in mind, we were supposed to judge how well the displays maintained detail and luminance in the sun. I actually thought the LG E8 OLED did the best job of offering specular luminance while maintaining the best detail, allowing one to make out the complete shape of the sun and the nuances in the surrounding clouds. The Samsung Q9 LCD also did a very good job in this regard. In contrast, I thought a little more detail in the clouds and white of the sun were clipped away on the Sony A9F OLED, and a lot of the detail was clipped away on the Sony Z9F LCD, causing the sun to look more overexposed while making some of the clouds disappear.

https://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...shootout/42642

Thats not Youtube impressions on Z9F.
Its from a expert shootout judge.