News: displays and their technologies

[I DO BLU]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Calibrators like D-Nice and Classy Tech preferred the Samsung S95F over the Sony.

This result was predictable and somewhat of a robbery.

The funny part of this is that tvs that used other company’s panels Sony and Panasonic were better then the company that produced it
Lg needs to go back to the drawing board because Panasonic clearly was better in all categories Panasonic burned some bridges though by leaving the us and is not widely available as the others Panasonic and Sony are the best tvs imho

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by I DO BLU

The funny part of this is that tvs that used other company’s panels Sony and Panasonic were better then the company that produced it
Lg needs to go back to the drawing board because Panasonic clearly was better in all categories Panasonic burned some bridges though by leaving the us and is not widely available as the others Panasonic and Sony are the best tvs imho

I do agree with you on the LG G5; all of the calibrators and judges kind of crushed the LG G5. Classy Tech and D-Nice liked the G4 better.

[Vilya]

I will not buy a TV that does not support Dolby Vision, so all Samsungs are automatically out of consideration with me.

All of the other TV manufacturers offer it and there is no good reason why Samsung can not do the same; it's not as if their TVs are more affordable for not paying the Dolby licensing fee. They are not passing the savings to the consumer. Seeing as Samsung charges as much, or more, than their competitors they should offer the same HDR support.

I realize that my TVs do not support HDR10+, but as very few 4K discs even offer it, and many that do also have Dolby Vision, I have not seen any pressing need for it. I feel that all 4K TVs should support both, but seeing as vastly more 4K discs feature Dolby Vision I insist that my TVs support it.

List of UHDs that contain HDR10+ (The OP's post was last updated on 7-18-2025):

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=300877

It's a very short list and many of the titles on it also have Dolby Vision.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I will not buy a TV that does not support Dolby Vision, so all Samsungs are automatically out of consideration with me.

All of the other TV manufacturers offer it and there is no good reason why Samsung can not do the same; it's not as if their TVs are more affordable for not paying the Dolby licensing fee. They are not passing the savings to the consumer. Seeing as Samsung charges as much, or more, than their competitors they should offer the same HDR support.

I realize that my TVs do not support HDR10+, but as very few 4K discs even offer it, and many that do also have Dolby Vision, I have not seen any pressing need for it. I feel that all 4K TVs should support both, but seeing as vastly more 4K discs feature Dolby Vision I insist that my TVs support it.

List of UHDs that contain HDR10+ (The OP's post was last updated on 7-18-2025):

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=300877

It's a very short list and many of the titles on it also have Dolby Vision.

Lots of the folks that cover displays will argue that a TV like the Samsung doesn't need Dolby Vision and that Dolby Vision is no better than HDR 10 on a TV like the S95F. D-Nice (who calibrated all of the TVs for the shootout) preferred the S95F over the other displays; he had Panasonic second. Classy Tech (who's a calibrator) also preferred the S95F over the other displays. They are well aware that Samsung lacks support for Dolby Vision. Some even say that Dolby Vision is poorly implemented on displays, such as the Sony QD-OLEDs.

[Jay Mammoth]

Well im definitely glad i didnt wait for the G5 like i was going to and went with the G4 instead.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Lots of the folks that cover displays will argue that a TV like the Samsung doesn't need Dolby Vision

I agree with Geoff D, oddbox83, and Penton-Man when they said:

Originally Posted by Geoff D

it could well be the best TV ever but no DV would make it a hard sell, and again that's just for the compression fixes of DV discs.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

The simple fact is I’ve got many discs in my collection where the DV layer improves the compression. The HDR10 layer should never have been encoded so bad in the first place of course, but wanting to keep DV for quality reasons is certainly a valid one because of it.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And then Samsung TVs are deal breakers for some, rightfully so IMO, because they don’t offer Dolby Vision.

I have heard the same thing about my Sony Bravia 9 not really needing Dolby Vision due to the HDR brightness that it can attain or somesuch.

A large percentage of my 4K discs feature Dolby Vision and I want my TVs to support it even if the benefits from it are at times modest.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I will not buy a TV that does not support Dolby Vision, so all Samsungs are automatically out of consideration with me.

All of the other TV manufacturers offer it and there is no good reason why Samsung can not do the same; it's not as if their TVs are more affordable for not paying the Dolby licensing fee. They are not passing the savings to the consumer. Seeing as Samsung charges as much, or more, than their competitors they should offer the same HDR support.

I realize that my TVs do not support HDR10+, but as very few 4K discs even offer it, and many that do also have Dolby Vision, I have not seen any pressing need for it. I feel that all 4K TVs should support both, but seeing as vastly more 4K discs feature Dolby Vision I insist that my TVs support it.

List of UHDs that contain HDR10+ (The OP's post was last updated on 7-18-2025):

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=300877

It's a very short list and many of the titles on it also have Dolby Vision.

Samsung is focused on streaming and that is what dictates their lack of DV support, as DV is not widely used in streaming, while HDR10/HDR10+ and HLG are. To a lesser degree, they are also focused on digital broadcast, to which the same lack of DV use also applies.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

Samsung is focused on streaming and that is what dictates their lack of DV support, as DV is not widely used in streaming, while HDR10/HDR10+ and HLG are. To a lesser degree, they are also focused on digital broadcast, to which the same lack of DV use also applies.

The irony being that streaming quality is so poor to mediocre that if that is what I preferred to watch I would not need a flagship tv in the first place. Why spend a premium to own a TV that is capable of much higher quality than the source material that you plan to watch on it? Top tier and flagship TVs should have features that make the best of all available sources and thereby appeal to the cinephiles and videophiles amongst us. That necessitates the inclusion of Dolby Vision, in my opinion.

In short, I did not spend $5200 for a TV just to stream Netflix on it.

[Vilya]

I feel that all top tier TVs should support all HDR formats such as Dolby Vision and HDR10+. I also believe that all such TVs should have all of their HDMI inputs of the same type, namely HDMI 2.1; no more of this half HDMI 2.0 and half HDMI 2.1 crap- looking at you here, Sony.

I further think that these TVs should have T1000 ethernet ports. Many of us have internet connections that far exceed 100 Mbps and we should be able to have a hardwire internet connection to our TVs that support up to 1 Gbps. I know that there are USB port workarounds for this, but we should not have to do that.

Seeing as Sony in particular has a streaming service, Sony Pictures Core, that recommends download speeds of 115 Mbps it would be nice if their Bravia TVs at least could support that speed via their own ethernet port.

Having all of these features would not appreciably add to the cost of top tier TVs. I strongly believe that my $5200 85" Sony Bravia 9 TV could easily incorporate 4 HDMI 2.1 inputs, a T1000 ethernet port, and offer HDR10+ and still be a wildly profitable TV.

[LexInHD]

Ethernet was dropped from many 4K TVs due to the consumer preference for WiFi, but the widespread implementation of AV1 for 4K streaming made it logical to put Ethernet back in, but to keep it at 100Mbps, instead of using Gigabit. Android TVs can take a USB Ethernet adapter for Gigabit, but the additional performance is usually not worth the minor expense, unless you have a TV with a USB 3.0 port, though a USB 2.0 port can give you just enough to make use of Sony's Bravia Core streaming service.

As for HDMI 2.1, there are issues with implementing it, which is why so many of the products using it have compromised performance or only offer 1-2 ports, with the rest being HDMI 2.0 ports.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I agree with Geoff D, oddbox83, and Penton-Man when they said:







I have heard the same thing about my Sony Bravia 9 not really needing Dolby Vision due to the HDR brightness that it can attain or somesuch.

A large percentage of my 4K discs feature Dolby Vision and I want my TVs to support it even if the benefits from it are at times modest.

Again, if professional calibrators like D-Nice and Classy Tech are telling us that the Samsung S95F, non DV tv, had the best picture, we should at least take note of that.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Again, if professional calibrators like D-Nice and Classy Tech are telling us that the Samsung S95F, non DV tv, had the best picture, we should at least take note of that.

I have taken note of its results in the TV Shootout and I would even look at it if I saw one on display, but what I would not do is buy it due its lack of Dolby Vision support.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

Ethernet was dropped from many 4K TVs due to the consumer preference for WiFi, but the widespread implementation of AV1 for 4K streaming made it logical to put Ethernet back in, but to keep it at 100Mbps, instead of using Gigabit. Android TVs can take a USB Ethernet adapter for Gigabit, but the additional performance is usually not worth the minor expense, unless you have a TV with a USB 3.0 port, though a USB 2.0 port can give you just enough to make use of Sony's Bravia Core streaming service.

As for HDMI 2.1, there are issues with implementing it, which is why so many of the products using it have compromised performance or only offer 1-2 ports, with the rest being HDMI 2.0 ports.

I agree with you especially with Sony UHD 4KTV they should put Gigabit Ethernet Ports. The Bitrates are going up so we need more Bandwidth that is Hardwired!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I agree with you especially with Sony UHD 4KTV they should put Gigabit Ethernet Ports. The Bitrates are going up so we need more Bandwidth that is Hardwired!

With the exception of Sony's Picture Core streaming service, streaming bitrates have been stagnant and have even decreased with Netflix. Even so, TVs should have T1000 ethernet ports just in case streaming services ever do decide to follow Sony's lead and offer higher bitrates. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but it is in the realm of possibilities.

The cost of a T1000 ethernet port can not be much more expensive than a T100 ethernet port. I am sure that these pricey top tier TVs would remain very profitable with this simple and inexpensive upgrade.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

Ethernet was dropped from many 4K TVs due to the consumer preference for WiFi, but the widespread implementation of AV1 for 4K streaming made it logical to put Ethernet back in, but to keep it at 100Mbps, instead of using Gigabit. Android TVs can take a USB Ethernet adapter for Gigabit, but the additional performance is usually not worth the minor expense, unless you have a TV with a USB 3.0 port, though a USB 2.0 port can give you just enough to make use of Sony's Bravia Core streaming service.

As for HDMI 2.1, there are issues with implementing it, which is why so many of the products using it have compromised performance or only offer 1-2 ports, with the rest being HDMI 2.0 ports.

I have noticed that most TVs, even the more affordable models, still include T100 ethernet ports, so the interest in having them is still there even if that interest is among the minority of customers.

Top tier TVs should have the best of everything and especially when it is so inexpensive to offer it. Adding a T1000 ethernet port to at least the premium TV models would not adversely impact their profitability. Wifi is the most popular way to connect, but those buying premium TVs are not looking merely for the most popular method, they quite often want the best method. Premium features are expected on premium TVs.

Almost every TV manufacturer, except for Sony, offers all of their HDMI ports as 2.1. There is no good reason that I know of for Sony to be the lone holdout here.

I am not aware of any implementation issues with HDMI 2.1; most TVs, even the basic models, use them exclusively now and even late to the party Sony uses them for half of their HDMI ports.

[Auditor55]

Almost every TV manufacturer, except for Sony, offers all of their HDMI ports as 2.1. There is no good reason that I know of for Sony to be the lone holdout here.

And as long as you keep drinking the Sony Kool-Aid, they will never add them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

And as long as you keep drinking the Sony Kool-Aid, they will never add them.

If you're going to quote me, include my screen name.

The Sony Bravia 9 is far too good of TV to forego just because it only has two 2.1 HDMI inputs. Personally, I do not play video games on my TV, so I do not have any need for 2.1 HDMI ports, but Sony should still offer four of them like everyone else does.

Overall, I am extremely pleased with my choice of TV, but that does not mean that there is not room for improvement.

[I DO BLU]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

And as long as you keep drinking the Sony Kool-Aid, they will never add them.

And more proof of your hate for Sony hdmi 2.1 is only for games does nothing else so it useless if you don’t play games

[LexInHD]

In a mildly surprising bit of news, Samsung has quietly re-entered the HDTV market with two basic FHD models, at 32 and 40-inches, completely replacing their previous generation (late 2010's) of HDTV offerings which had 32, 40, and very briefly, 43-inch screens. Upgraded specs for this new gen bring HDR10+, object audio, and eARC, along with Bixby AI Voice assist.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by I DO BLU

And more proof of your hate for Sony hdmi 2.1 is only for games does nothing else so it useless if you don’t play games

I don't hate Sony displays; I just hate greedy companies. I don't care about gaming, I'm a boomer. Sony TVs are made for boomers like me, so the lack of four2.1's doesn't bother me. However, some game and place a higher value on gaming than watching movies on their TVs.