Expired Hot Deals

London Drugs

Samsung 75-in QLED 8K Smart TV - open box ($4499.99)

  • Last Updated:
  • May 24th, 2020 10:45 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 29, 2007
4870 posts
4543 upvotes
No Bum Deals
revjoeyjohn wrote:
Lastly, I find it ironic that this deal gets downvoted like crazy when it is a *legitimate* deal on an 8K television at 40% off. On the same day, a thread is started for a $10k CPU (%14 off) and it gets upvotes. Does anyone need a 64 core AMD EPYC 7742?
People want the CPU. They do not want this TV. Perhaps your version of reality does not match the general consensus.
There are also 3 units still in online stock.
I need ammunition, not a ride.

©Zelensky 2022
Sr. Member
Dec 16, 2010
846 posts
789 upvotes
Canada
I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision over Samsung's proprietary HDR+.

Also, when it comes to that's what people said about 1080p and 4k, I'm going to have to disagree. Some people said that there was not much of a difference but many people said there was. There is a discernable difference to the human eye on 4k over 1080p. However, for a 75 inch TV and sitting 10 feet away or so, you will not see a difference.from 4k to 8k. Again, I recommend you watch the video. Samsung's ancient LCD technology does not have the contrast between pixels and therefore does not look as sharp as the OLED.

I've had three OLEDs now and have never had issues with burn in and I have three kids that left them on.

The B9 might not get as bright but there are comparisons on that as well. I have a darker room and have my brightness turned down because of how bright the B9 gets. I guess if you're in a very bright room, the Samsung may make sense, but not too many 75 inch TVs in a main room as opposed to a theatre type room? I don't have those stats to really know.

Again man, it's a nice TV, but I personally don't think it's a good deal especially as an OB. If it was new, there are many people that would be interested in the benefits of Samsung, but I think that's why you're not getting the upvotes you hoped for. I neither upvoted nor downvoted but be happy with your purchase. It's a nice TV.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
What? No, do not waste your money on this. Get a 77" OLED or a proper Sony Master Series (Z9G or Z7F) if you are spending this much.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
PannTher wrote: I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision over Samsung's proprietary HDR+.

Also, when it comes to that's what people said about 1080p and 4k, I'm going to have to disagree. Some people said that there was not much of a difference but many people said there was. There is a discernable difference to the human eye on 4k over 1080p. However, for a 75 inch TV and sitting 10 feet away or so, you will not see a difference.from 4k to 8k. Again, I recommend you watch the video. Samsung's ancient LCD technology does not have the contrast between pixels and therefore does not look as sharp as the OLED.

I've had three OLEDs now and have never had issues with burn in and I have three kids that left them on.

The B9 might not get as bright but there are comparisons on that as well. I have a darker room and have my brightness turned down because of how bright the B9 gets. I guess if you're in a very bright room, the Samsung may make sense, but not too many 75 inch TVs in a main room as opposed to a theatre type room? I don't have those stats to really know.

Again man, it's a nice TV, but I personally don't think it's a good deal especially as an OB. If it was new, there are many people that would be interested in the benefits of Samsung, but I think that's why you're not getting the upvotes you hoped for. I neither upvoted nor downvoted but be happy with your purchase. It's a nice TV.
Pssst: HDR10/HDR10+ is the open standard :). By the way, the brightness is not just about bright rooms. It's for specular highlights in HDR and colour volume. Mad Max: Fury Road HDR is mastered to something like 2,000 nits.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
31703 posts
13038 upvotes
PannTher wrote: I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision
Stop right there. B9 is garbanzo beans for HDR. Don't give a shit what else there is about OLED. B9 is garbage for HDR. End of.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
31703 posts
13038 upvotes
revjoeyjohn wrote: Thanks for the discussion. This is an early model 8K, but that doesn't equate to an entry-level. This is a premium tv with a premium price.

It does have some nice features that the Sony X950G doesn't -- like native HDMI 2.1 support. Sony isn't going to release an official update to support it, even though the hardware is capable. If they were, Sony wouldn't be moving to block "vulnerabilities" of firmware that let people put 950H firmware on the tv. Anyone who wants is gaming is going to want VRR, which is a likely feature of the PS5 and Xbox Series X.
Dunno how Sony got into this lol. But this is an 8K TV--as you said yourself a 4K doesn't compare to this. Have to compare to Z9G or newer/better. Q900R has its merits, it's an 8K display, there's no denying that. It's worth the $4.5k but at this point in time it's gonna just come back to bite you like it did with ppl that bought the first 1080p sets, that bought the first 4K sets. Doesn't really make any sense IMO. Just like microLED seems amazing right now but unless you're rich forget about it. We don't even know the real trade-offs of microLED TBH. OLED was supposed to be "the one to rule them all" yet it was not even close to that; same can be said for microLED until it proves otherwise.

Anyway if you want an amazing TV and budget is not really a concern...here you go! Q900R...the criticisms are like water off a duck's back!
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
ES_Revenge wrote: Dunno how Sony got into this lol. But this is an 8K TV--as you said yourself a 4K doesn't compare to this. Have to compare to Z9G or newer/better. Q900R has its merits, it's an 8K display, there's no denying that. It's worth the $4.5k but at this point in time it's gonna just come back to bite you like it did with ppl that bought the first 1080p sets, that bought the first 4K sets. Doesn't really make any sense IMO. Just like microLED seems amazing right now but unless you're rich forget about it. We don't even know the real trade-offs of microLED TBH. OLED was supposed to be "the one to rule them all" yet it was not even close to that; same can be said for microLED until it proves otherwise.

Anyway if you want an amazing TV and budget is not really a concern...here you go! Q900R...the criticisms are like water off a duck's back!
I would still go with a 77" OLED or Z9G if you have that much to spend. The extra resolution isn't going to matter with existing content (even with upscaling) unless you are sitting insanely close. Might as well get a 77" Panasonic HZ1000/HZ2000 for ultimate contrast, colour accuracy and motion handling or the Z9G for stomping all over any other TV for HDR content.
Last edited by unshavenyak on May 23rd, 2020 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Jun 11, 2016
3727 posts
4616 upvotes
UnderKitten wrote: Kind of early for 8k. There isnt even much of 4k out there.
Forget 8k or 4k...am still on 720p (full disclosure the Sony Bravia bought in 2007 refuses to die...)
Last edited by KravenHead on May 23rd, 2020 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Feb 17, 2011
514 posts
286 upvotes
Calgary
I took a look at this in store. Up close, I can see a difference in pixel size between a 75" 4k and this 8k. A few feet back and with upscaled store NASCAR loops, the quality looks much the same as the 4k sets.

It's a seriously nice tv, though.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
KravenHead wrote: Forget 8k...am still on 720p
Don't worry. That resolution is a waste right now at distances most people view. I had an 8k TV in my hotel room in Tokyo and we had to sit almost right in front of the cabinet to notice the added resolution.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Feb 17, 2011
514 posts
286 upvotes
Calgary
I would take a Sony Z9G over this one.

The Z9G is also $11, 999.99 (on sale).
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
revjoeyjohn wrote: I would take a Sony Z9G over this one.

The Z9G is also $11, 999.99 (on sale).
You can get it even cheaper if you take a display model. Best money I have ever spent.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 4, 2004
4254 posts
1412 upvotes
Vancouver
You are overpaying for the privilege of being an early adopter for a technology that doesn't have enough objective indicators of being any better than a high-end 4K TV, aside from more pixels. Did we not learn anything with early adoption of 4K TVs? Standards were all over the place and early adopters who purchased massively overpriced TVs still ended up behind because their TVs never received updates when we saw more and more HDR adoption outside of HDR10 with Dolby Vision, etc.

TV broadcasts are still delivered in 720P/1080i. This hasn't changed in ages. You'd expect we'd at least have moved to 1080P in the decade+ since the introduction of HD to households.

There's still very little true 4K content in the wild. The majority of Hollywood films are still being mastered using 2K digital intermediates because of the complexity and cost of moving production to 4K and the processing power and storage required for creating 4K renders.

We also now live in the age of streaming where low bitrates reign supreme. Pop in a 1080P movie on blu-ray and compare it with perhaps a 4K version on a streaming site. There's a very strong chance the 1080P version comes out ahead. I've watched Planet Earth II on Netflix for fun when it was released and own it on UHD-BD... it's dramatically worse on Netflix.

All I'm doing it trying to illustrate that we can barely make 4K content look good on a 4K TV. We're no-where close to needing 8K. Spend the money for a higher-end 4K TV, one that either gets really bright or really dark, and one that supports the widest color gamut you can find. Your eyes and wallet will thank you.
Last edited by lhsonic on May 23rd, 2020 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Removed external link in signature.
Deal Addict
Aug 16, 2015
1131 posts
637 upvotes
Toronto, ON
unshavenyak wrote: I would still go with a 77" OLED or Z9G if you have that much to spend. The extra resolution isn't going to matter with existing content (even with upscaling) unless you are sitting insanely close. Might as well get a 77" Panasonic HZ1000/HZ2000 for ultimate contrast, colour accuracy and motion handling or the Z9G for stomping all over any other TV for HDR content.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good deal at all and remember reading somewhere that the q80r stomps the 900r at less than half this price, but can you get a Z9G or Panny hz2000 for $4500?
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2005
6471 posts
3108 upvotes
Germany
georgep wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good deal at all and remember reading somewhere that the q80r stomps the 900r at less than half this price, but can you get a Z9G or Panny hz2000 for $4500?
No, but you can get a 77" OLED right now for $6k or under.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 28, 2001
2457 posts
225 upvotes
lhsonic wrote: You are overpaying for the privilege of being an early adopter for a technology that doesn't have enough objective indicators of being any better than a high-end 4K TV, aside from more pixels. Did we not learn anything with early adoption of 4K TVs? Standards were all over the place and early adopters who purchased massively overpriced TVs still ended up behind because their TVs never received updates when we saw more and more HDR adoption outside of HDR10 with Dolby Vision, etc.

TV broadcasts are still delivered in 720P/1080i. This hasn't changed in ages. You'd expect we'd at least have moved to 1080P in the decade+ since the introduction of HD to households.

There's still very little true 4K content in the wild. The majority of Hollywood films are still being mastered using 2K digital intermediates because of the complexity and cost of moving production to 4K and the processing power and storage required for creating 4K renders.

We also now live in the age of streaming where low bitrates reign supreme. Pop in a 1080P movie on blu-ray and compare it with perhaps a 4K version on a streaming site. There's a very strong chance the 1080P version comes out ahead. I've watched Planet Earth II on Netflix for fun when it was released and own it on UHD-BD... it's dramatically worse on Netflix.

All I'm doing it trying to illustrate that we can barely make 4K content look good on a 4K TV. We're no-where close to needing 8K. Spend the money for a higher-end 4K TV, one that either gets really bright or really dark, and one that supports the widest color gamut you can find. Your eyes and wallet will thank you.
I have this TV. I agree with what you said. If I were to buy again I’d go for the 82 Q90R 4K.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 22, 2007
7260 posts
7054 upvotes
Calgary
KravenHead wrote: Forget 8k or 4k...am still on 720p (full disclosure the Sony Bravia bought in 2007 refuses to die...)
Yup, my Kuro 720 plasma is not going anywhere.
Sr. Member
Dec 16, 2010
846 posts
789 upvotes
Canada
ES_Revenge wrote: Stop right there. B9 is garbanzo beans for HDR. Don't give a shit what else there is about OLED. B9 is garbage for HDR. End of.
To each their own my friend. I've had the Samsungs, Panasonic's, Sony's and LGs... I'm very picky and I love this B9. I've even had the C9.

I'll take the professional reviews over your thoughts. Not that I don't dismiss it but to my eyes, the HDR on the B9 is great.

I guess that's what matters. Spend your hard earned cash on what you like. 77 OLED is truly impressive compared to any LCD I've seen.

:)
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
23124 posts
28642 upvotes
UnderKitten wrote: Kind of early for 8k. There isnt even much of 4k out there.
8K? 16K Wall TVs are dropping in 2025.

Keep up.
.
Sr. Member
Dec 16, 2010
846 posts
789 upvotes
Canada
unshavenyak wrote: Pssst: HDR10/HDR10+ is the open standard :). By the way, the brightness is not just about bright rooms. It's for specular highlights in HDR and colour volume. Mad Max: Fury Road HDR is mastered to something like 2,000 nits.
Yes you're right... I guess I like the theory of DV.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision

And yes... The brightness of your room makes a big difference.

Playing something at 2000 nits in a dark room is crazy. And very very few movies will need that. This article is pretty informative. It is important to look into the statements of manufacturers and see where they are coming from.

https://www.lifewire.com/understanding- ... ss-4125499

"Even though the official optimum HDR standard for LED/LCD TVs is the ability to display at least 1,000 Nits, the official HDR standard for OLED TVs is only 540 Nits. However, remember, the standard applies to the maximum Nits output, not average Nits output. Although you will notice that a 1,000 Nit capable LED/LCD TV will look brighter than an OLED TV when, say, both are displaying the Sun or very bright sky, the OLED TV will do a better job at displaying the darkest portions of that same image, so the overall Dynamic Range (the point distance between maximum white and maximum black may be similar)"

"Although a 600 Nit OLED TV and 1,000 Nit LED/LCD TV can both look impressive, the 1,000 Nit LED/LCD TV will still produce a much more dramatic result, especially in a well-lit room. As mentioned previously, 2,000 Nits is currently the highest light output level that may be found on a TV, but that may result in displayed images that are too intense for some viewers."

Although the LCD may get brighter the contrast makes a huge difference. IMO and I'm not expett, contrast and colours make the TV for me and I've never been blown away by an LCD. I had an 85 Sony 900F. Great TV but this B9 absolutely blows it away.

This was taken from Rting's review of the B9 if you're looking for stats:

"Different picture modes and color temperatures will produce different results. We measured the 2% window at 767 cd/m² in the default 'Vivid' (HDR) Picture Mode."

For the Q900, the HDR rating is actually quite a bit worse than the B9 according to Ratings (some people say these stats don't matter, but I may disagree because what I see with my eyes is explained by these stats).

"We performed our measurements without any calibration, picture mode set to ‘Movie,’ local dimming set to ‘High,’ and Auto Motion Plus set to 'off,' which are also our recommended settings. However, when the TV is in the 'Dynamic' picture mode, it is able to reach a maximum of 1940 cd/m2 but has much worse picture accuracy."

Way higher brightness but as the article says.
Image degradation and contrast don't make it much better.

Again, the Q900 is a nice TV. But for me 8K performance isn't there based in the video I shared earlier, HDR performance isn't better despite the fact that it can get brighter. I've had no burn in issues and the contract literally makes my jaw drop everytime. The side viewing angles on the Q900 are quite bad compared to an OLED and I have people sit to the side so that's important for me. For a deal at probably $300 more for a larger TV and brand new on an OLED... That's why it's a no brainer for me.

Just sharing my extensive research on the matter. But as someone will undoubtedly point out... I could very well just be an idiot consumer. I don't feel I am however. Haha

But... The Q900 is a nice TV! As someone said earlier, I would definitely take a Q90 over a Q900.

Cheers

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)