|
Will mini-LED really make a significant difference to image quality?
Having more dimming zones (up to the thousands) will help reduce the size of blooming areas as each zone will cover a smaller area. Even so the zones still will never exactly match the shape of the bright highlights against a dark background.
Dont get me wrong I am a fan of FALD - I have a Sony 65ZD9 and I really like it. (Although I still get the itch to try an OLED.) I am just wondering if there is a bit too much hype around mini-LED being the ideal display with all the best of OLED and FALD LCD.
The 75ZD9 is supposed to have something like a 1,000 zones. From what I have read the extra zones of the 75ZD9 over the Sony 75XE9405 (which has the same image processor but only 250 zones) makes a rather small difference to image quality. There are other differences e.g. the 75ZD9 has a panel with a faster response times that results in better motion, that probably makes a bigger difference.
So if going from 250 zones to 1,000 makes a marginal difference would it not be similar going from 1,000 to say 4,000 or even 10,000? (To get zones of 1cm square, you would need around 15,000 zones on a 75".)
More zones may also be very expensive. The ZD9 was considerably more expensive than the 75XE9405. How much of this was down to the extra zones is difficult to say. The ZD9's official replacement the ZF9 seems to have the same number of zonesa as the 9405 but has a launch price similar to that of the 9405.
Perhaps smaller zones will mean that individual zones can go brighter, or maybe the overall efficiency will be better so that peak brightness will be higher.
However, contrast will still be dependent to a certain extent upon the native capability of the LCD panel and mini-LED wont solve issues such as screen uniformity or pixel response times.
So I see mini-LED as being a useful step forward but not the giant leap some seem to think it will be. |
|