Direct LED vs Edge LED backlight (Sony X810C vs X850C)

[la chupacabra]

Hello All,
I’m planning to buy a new TV mainly for watching movies from PC and I narrowed my choices down to 2 models, both Sony (55”): X810C (KD55X8509C) and X850C (KD-55X8005C), that seems to be the best option in this price range.
Now my question is which backlight is better: Direct LED or Edge LED, or actually how much Edge backlight is worst comparing to Direct LED? I know that most people recommend Direct LED and if that X850C was with Direct LED I would buy it already.
Does anyone know which TV is better for watching movies, which one has better image quality?
It seems that the only advantage of X810C over X850C is Direct LED backlight. The X850C has Triluminos, Motionflow XR 1000Hz (X810C has Motionflow XR 200Hz), but Edge backlight.
So which one has better image quality?

And how much worst is Edge LED comparing to Direct LED in Sony TVs? I’ve seen that Sony make some of their models with Direct LED and some of them with Edge and I think most of their high end models like X950C or X950D have actually Edge backlight, so maybe something has changed and Edge backlight is equally good as a Direct LED?

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Direct is more uniform, typically. But it really depends. The X810C is a fantastic TV, if you don't need 3D and HDR. Think of the X850C as the X810C but with 3D and HDR.

To clarify, it depends on the TV. Even if you get 5 of the same model #, they're all going to be different. Some may have more defects than others. It's a downside to the LCD tech, nothing we can do about that I'm afraid. For that reason, it's not possible to answer your question.

 

[nukemaster]

If that direct has local dimming it could be pretty sweet. Unfortunately they do not always go into detail.

I have seen an older edgelit Sony that did VERY well(I think it was a 240hz interpolated model). The real will was surprisingly good black levels for what seems to be a IPS screen.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

i want to argue that why buy a 4k TV without HDR? That's the main selling point for the new format, not the resolution. However, HDR adds a premium, and you will need the content, so it's a tough decision to make. I was in your shoes, but then I got a projector, never looked back since. As soon as the 4k ones drop in price, I'll jump on that as well.

 

[nukemaster]

I did not require a new TV was required for high dynamic range(is that the HDR you mean?)?

Are you talking about TV's with the full 0-255 instead of 17-235 or whatever the limited range is? If so that would be nice for computer use, but lots of video simply does not take advantage of it(a shame when you think of it.).

Or am I off base here(maybe some kind of wide color that we once had then removed for srbg)?

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Yep, HDR = HDMI 2.0a

A lot of TV's came with HDMI 1.4, or HDMI 2.0 (latter via firmware update), which is a problem, because it's a hardware limitation. A lot of the early adopters got burned, because the HDR standard wasn't finalized yet. Even today, there's barely any 4k HDR content out there, but it does look incredible compared to no HDR.

Because of this "incident", manufacturers promised to offer HDR in all 4k TV's starting 2015. But yeah, I'm a projector guy, I don't like TV's due to the small size to price ratio. However, local dimming should be a feature you want OP, mainly because it improves the perceived contrast, without ruining the other parts of the image.

In layman's, Contrast = Perceived sharpness. A high contrast display is going to look sharper than a low contrast display. This is the primary reason why OLED really stands out for people, just as an example.