SONY BRAVIA 3 vs Samsung S85F (WOLED)

Bravia 3 does not hide the fact that it belongs to the group of televisions that are rather modest in terms of brightness. Our measurements showed around 370 nits, which is a value balancing on the borderline where one can still speak of any HDR effect. For some, this is an acceptable level; for others, it is rather typical for SDR materials, where spectacular highlights or vivid contrasts are not expected. The impression is that this is not a television for those focused on the highest image quality in demanding film content. However, this does not mean that we won't find any advantages here. Compared to its predecessor, the X75WL, Bravia 3 has gained an additional PFS filter, functioning similarly to solutions known from QLED technology. Thanks to this, the DCI-P3 color gamut has been significantly expanded and reaches over 91 percent, which in practice provides more saturated colors and a more pleasant image texture. As a result, even everyday content looks a bit livelier, and movies and series can surprise with their colorful presentations, despite the limitations in brightness itself.

For most of the time, let's say in 90% of film scenes, viewers won't see practically any difference between the S85F versions. When small but very strong light points appear on the screen – a lantern in a dark alley, a gunshot, the sun breaking through the clouds – this WOLED panel (like the smaller S85F) performs wonderfully. Our measurements showed peak brightness at around 750 nits. We can confidently state: this is an excellent result that guarantees fantastic HDR effects. The problem arises in a very specific, uncomfortable situation for any OLED. We're talking about the moment when the entire screen has to shine at full power brightly. Examples include a slide with a white background, a ski jump scene, or our test sequences (5) from the movie The Meg. And here, unfortunately, the results diverge quite significantly to the detriment of the WOLED panel variant. Our measurement equipment was able to measure a maximum of about 250 to 300 nits of brightness in such conditions. Just to be clear: the same model on a QD-OLED panel in the same test is almost twice as bright. The second issue: colors. And here we also have to be honest – QD-OLED has a design advantage. Why? It’s simple. QD-OLED creates colors from three components (red, green, and blue) and does not need an additional white subpixel. The WOLED panel we are testing uses this white subpixel mainly to boost overall brightness. The effect is that QD-OLED is able to show a slightly wider color palette, and the colors are a bit "cleaner." But let’s be clear: it’s not that the colors on this WOLED panel are bad! On the contrary, they are actually very good. Coverage of the DCI-P3 film palette at 97% and 71% for the wider BT.2020 palette is still a high standard. We just have to honestly admit that this few percent advantage in color coverage is on the side of QD-OLED technology and may be noticeable in very specific moments.

We primarily tested the Sony Bravia 3 in movie mode, which immediately proved to be the best choice among the factory settings. The picture is not perfect, but compared to the eco mode that the TV suggests right out of the box, the difference is significant and for the better. In movie mode, one can notice a certain problem—the image seems too warm, which results from a lack of blue in the white balance. Despite this, in SDR content, the final effect can still be considered quite decent and satisfying for everyday viewing. Much more serious errors occur in HDR materials. The Color Checker analysis showed significant deviations, and poor brightness management combined with limited color gamut coverage further exposes the shortcomings of the image in this mode. All of this makes HDR on the Bravia 3 look unconvincing and can spoil the impression left by the quite decent SDR content settings. Fortunately, this is not a situation without a solution. Various errors can be somewhat mitigated, and some can even be completely corrected through professional calibration. Therefore, we decided to check how the TV would perform after such adjustments.

When it comes to factory color reproduction, our test sample in SDR mode suffered from a slight deficiency in red and yellow color. This resulted in a subtle yellowish tint visible in the shades of white. However, this is not the biggest problem with the S85F. Similar to the QD-OLED panel variant, the biggest issue with this model is the way it presents HDR content. When we look at the EOTF curve graph, it is easy to see that the television has quite significant problems with overly brightening the image. This causes the final picture in many scenes to become very unnatural.

The calibration allowed us to extract significantly more from ChooseTV 3 than we could have expected at the beginning. First and foremost, we managed to address the shortage of blue color, which previously caused a noticeable warming of the image. After a slight adjustment in white balance, most of the errors in Color Checker measurements for SDR content practically disappeared. The shades of white gained a natural quality, and brightness management in gamma stabilized to a level that is nearly perfect, not exceeding the threshold of human eye perception. Therefore, it can be confidently said that in SDR content, after a few tweaks in settings, ChooseTV 3 performs really excellently. HDR content, however, fares much worse, although it is still definitely better than before calibration. The white balance has been corrected, but the limitations of the IPS panel are insurmountable. The lack of local dimming means that even the smallest elements can be overexposed, which immediately stands out. Color-wise, the effect has also improved, although it is far from ideal—many errors still exceed the threshold of four or even five delta E units, meaning they remain visible to the human eye. It was already clear before that ChooseTV 3 is not a television designed to amaze with HDR quality. Nonetheless, it is gratifying that in SDR content, after calibration, the image can look really great, and in this category, the television pleasantly surprised us.

After calibrating in Filmmaker mode, we managed to eliminate most of the unwanted effects. In SDR content, the television performs exemplary, and its color reproduction errors do not exceed a value of 2, which is an excellent result. A bit worse, although still very good, are the HDR quality contents. While we were able to eliminate a significant unnaturalness in the image caused by too high a positioning of the EOTF curve, the most discerning observers may notice that it is not perfectly aligned. It runs slightly below the reference curve, which would suggest that the S85F has slight issues showing all the details in the image. We must point out right away that it is highly unlikely that an average viewer would notice any shortcomings in the image. The final effect after calibration is rated as exemplary.

Bravia 3 brings something more to the Sony television family than just a common name. It stands out primarily for its ability to improve the quality of weaker materials thanks to the applied processor. Of course, we won't find the advanced XR chip known from more expensive models here, but it must be acknowledged that the image at a lower resolution looked surprisingly good. Scaling worked effectively, and most parts of the screen were free from the typical excessive jagged edges found in budget constructions.

The feature that enhances the fluidity of tonal transitions is also worth noting. In the high setting, it works really well, effectively masking the imperfections of gradation without significant loss of detail. It does happen that the algorithm overly smooths elements that should remain sharp – for example, faces – however, in overall terms, the effect is beneficial. The best results were achieved precisely at the highest setting, and this option could be recommended to those watching lower-quality content.

The processing of tonal transitions (gradients) in the S85F is at a high level. The television effectively handles posterization (the "stepping" effect of colors), even with heavily compressed materials, such as from streaming services. However, using this feature requires making a certain compromise. We noticed that the noise reduction algorithm is quite aggressive – even at the lowest setting, it can eliminate natural film grain, which for many viewers is part of the film's aesthetics. The "Standard" setting seems to be the golden mean, not causing visible loss of important details, so we can recommend it. However, we advise against using the "High" level, which removes not only noise but also desired details, such as texture or structure of objects on the screen.

The scaling (upscaling) process of lower resolution content works very well in the S85F. The image is sharp and clear. The only minor imperfection we observed is occasional, slight aliasing on the edges. The television also still exhibits characteristics typical of this manufacturer, such as active "overscan" (slight magnification of the image). This should be kept in mind, especially when watching older materials, as it may result in a minimal cropping of the original frame.

The fluidity of motion has never been a strong point of TVs equipped with 60 Hz panels, and the Bravia 3 is no exception. Nevertheless, Sony has added something that might appeal to those who are more sensitive to the way images are displayed. We are talking about the proprietary Motion Flow motion smoother, which offers users a lot of adjustment options. Thanks to it, one can make the image smoother, even theatrical, or stick to a more cinematic style with the characteristic stuttering that many simply associate with the film atmosphere. These features work with content at lower frame rates, such as movies and series recorded at 24 or 30 frames per second, which are the materials we encounter on a daily basis. It is precisely in this area that the motion smoother proves to be one of the most important features in everyday use of the television, and here the Bravia 3 performs really well.

The S85F is a model with impressive speed. The use of a 120 Hz OLED panel ensures that dynamic scenes, both in games and during sports broadcasts, meet expectations: smoothly, sharply, and without loss of clarity. A key role here is played by the instantaneous pixel response time, which is a natural advantage of OLED technology. Transitions between frames are instantaneous, and the image remains clear even during the fastest camera movements. Moving objects, like a ball on the field or a car in a chase scene, are clear and devoid of the characteristic motion blur typical of LCD panels (the so-called "tail").

Bravia 3 is not a device for e-sports enthusiasts or fans of late-night marathons with a controller in hand. The lack of 120 Hz refresh rate and HDMI 2.1 ports wraps up the topic before it can even develop. This is a TV for casual gamers who, after work, want to fire up FIFA or racing games, not for someone who measures every frame in a spreadsheet. Nevertheless, Sony has added a few nice extras so it’s not too barren. ALLM works as it should, automatically switching the TV to game mode (low latency). We even find a simple Game Bar here that is clear. However, the biggest curiosity is the PlayStation Portal app. With it, you can launch games from PS5 wirelessly and immediately see them on the TV screen. It sounds great, but it only takes a few minutes to feel significant delays. In our opinion, it’s more of a showcase of capabilities than something usable on a daily basis. If someone really wants to play, it’s better to connect the console with an HDMI cable right away and forget about wireless problems.