Do you despise prizes for televisions? So do we. That's why we created our own 😉!

We have introduced our rewards system and nominated this year's televisions for it. If you pay attention to awards when shopping, you’re in the right place. And if you despise any prizes awarded by editorial teams... welcome to the club. In that case, you should definitely read to the end. In this article, we will explain what our new badges mean: the brown Daily Hero, the silver Solid Choice, and the gold Exemplary Quality. We will also present the awarded televisions and immediately answer the key question:

How much did the producers pay for our prizes?

The answer is: 0 złoty.

Our awards are not for sale. As you will soon see, no specific manufacturer has received them; only those models whose screens truly rank highly. Because that's how it is: one company can have both brilliant televisions and complete rubbish. We are not afraid to praise one and criticise the other. But the most interesting is yet to come. We will show how televisions are tested in some reviews and why – in our opinion – such methods are not optimal. You often ask how it is possible that a certain screen received an average rating from us while others sing its praises. We will expose some uncomfortable truths. We will not try to convince you forcefully – you will just see the facts and draw your own conclusions.

Test board versus real film. Why do “standard” tests mislead?

At ChooseTV from the beginning we had a clear vision: our site is to be a benchmark. If someone wants to find out how really a certain model performs, they will find a reliable answer here. That’s why our tests reflect real-world usage. No laboratory tricks, just what you will actually see when you turn on a film or a game. We know, it sounds like a cliché that anyone could say. The thing is... we will soon show that many reviews focus on something completely different.

Let’s take HDR measurements as an example. The standard procedure involves displaying a test pattern, e.g. 10% of the screen area, and measuring how many nits of brightness the television will generate. What’s the problem with this? Well, let’s think… Have you ever watched test patterns for enjoyment? Of course not. We watch films, series, and play on consoles. It is only then that it becomes evident how much the numbers from the patterns can diverge from reality.

An example? Hisense U8Q can achieve almost 4000 nits on a small pattern. Impressive, right? But in real cinematic scenes, that brightness drops to a range of 400 - 2200 nits. Comparing on patterns has very little correlation to reality. MiniLEDs tend to diverge significantly, while cheaper QLEDs or OLEDs hardly diverge at all. The value from the pattern tells us nothing.

Another example is the naturalness of the image. Classic measurements show that the television performs exceptionally well. Such results were achieved, for instance, by TCL C8K on two platforms with massive reach. However, when we compared the same film scenes with a reference monitor, it turned out that the image on the television is noticeably enhanced. This isn’t visible on the patterns because the television knows it is being tested and simply enchants reality.

This is where our methodology comes into play: we use our own patterns hidden within film scenes. The television treats the signal like a regular film and reveals its true behaviour.

How televisions "cheat" in tests and why our motion test makes sense

The same goes for motion. Many tests rely on "motion resolution" from a test pattern – a method from several decades ago that means nothing today. We use the UFO test at various resolutions. There, you can immediately see how the object trails and whether the screen actually provides an advantage in games. Because what good is 144 Hz if there's a blur behind the objects?

In the end, digital processing. Others focus on the perfect 4K Blu-ray signal. We check that too, but additionally we fire up YouTube, poor-quality DVDs, or terrestrial television. After all, you don’t buy a TV just for perfect films. And here, there is often a huge discrepancy between the advertisements about "incredible AI features" and what you can actually see on the screen.

Our philosophy: 50+ tested models in a year is the minimum

Note one more thing: how many screens the portal that you see the award from has actually tested. The vast majority of manufacturers have only a few, maybe a dozen models each year. And these are mostly from companies that had a marketing budget! Reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from this. This article is being written only after more than 120 screens from the 2025 and 2024 models have passed through our laboratory. Only then can we actually determine which television stands out in the market. Since our ranking clearly shows how the models perform, we decided to take a step further and highlight those that are exceptionally versatile and which we ourselves would consider buying.

What our awards mean and why some did not receive them

Basis: we award prizes within technology and price ranges (we evaluate OLEDs differently than MiniLEDs). Secondly: versatility matters. It is not enough for a TV to excel in one category. It must work as a whole. The only thing we can overlook is the sound – anyone who wants quality will buy external speakers or a soundbar anyway. But the operating system and smart features are crucial.

That’s why the prize was not awarded to, for example, Panasonic Z95B. The picture has moments of brilliance, but the operating system is so underdeveloped that it is hard to consider it a complete product. Similarly, Philips OLED910 – here the system is fine, but the image at lower quality showed posterisation, and the infrared remote and only 2 HDMI 2.1 inputs spoil the effect. Both are also absurdly expensive. The distinction is my answer to the question: “what would I buy for myself?”. And I am not orthodox. If there is an option to sacrifice 5% of quality, saving 40% of the price and getting a more convenient system – it is definitely worth it. Technology changes too quickly.

Daily Hero (Bronze)

Solid Choice (Silver)

Exemplary Quality (Gold)

The list of winners is not final as we have not completed all the tests for this year. I will wait until the transfers from the producers come in… 😉 Alright, that's not even funny, so let's not go for such jokes.

We will wait until we complete the publication of all the tests and we will issue the final verdicts before the end of October.