Samsung Will Not Revive OLED TVs

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Samsung has confirmed that it has little interest in OLED televisions: instead, it is dedicating most of its resources toward high-end MicroLED and QLED TVs. The company is reportedly working on a new technology dubbed “QD-OLED,” which combines the benefits of Quantum Dot technology (brightness, color) with OLED (self-lighting pixels, response time).

The QD-OLED screens apparently use blue OLEDs as their light source instead of the external LED backlights usually associated with Quantum Dot displays. Red and green color filters with a Quantum Dot are then placed on top of the blue OLED, resulting in an enhanced self-emitting OLED-type screen with Quantum Dots on hand to boost color reproduction.
 
Quantum-dot TVs are pretty good, I have to admit - but I decided on an OLED from LG, because the difference really is tangible, and with the recent price drops (in Europe at least) an LG OLED is comparable in price to a Samsung QLED...
 
"The QD-OLED screens apparently use blue OLEDs as their light source instead of the external LED backlights usually associated with Quantum Dot displays. Red and green color filters with a Quantum Dot are then placed on top of the blue OLED,"

Note that this is nothing particularly new. LG OLED TVs already use white OLEDS with color filters on them.
I believe the white OLEDs are blue OLEDs with phosphors on top.

Oh wait, Samsunng's will have Quantum Dots for, uhm, reasons. I guess I should try to be excited.
 
This is disturbing news . . . Ive had my all my top end plasma tv calibrated by chad b and he said the only thing that can beat a plasma in color and contrast ratios, was a LG oled , the actual numbers are crazy . . . QD-OLED is another lcd joke thats cheaper to produce . . . but that mass majority of people been watching such garbage lcds last 10 years they'll believe QD-OLED is a update. and we thought only the monitor market segment was hurting. . . cheaper low quality's tv are better for profit for these corporate company's. You have a right to vote and that's your wallet that it counts
 
the_real_7 said:
This is disturbing news . . . Ive had my all my top end plasma tv calibrated by chad b and he said the only thing that can beat a plasma in color and contrast ratios, was a LG oled , the actual numbers are crazy . . . QD-OLED is another lcd joke thats cheaper to produce . . . but that mass majority of people been watching such garbage lcds last 10 years they'll believe QD-OLED is a update. and we thought only the monitor market segment was hurting. . . cheaper low quality's tv are better for profit for these corporate company's. You have a right to vote and that's your wallet that it counts
Click to expand...
The common person doesn't care. They just want a big cheap TV.
 
polonyc2 said:
so Samsung is trying to trick customers into thinking that their QLED is really an OLED
Click to expand...
The circle has an extra dash! It's clearly superior! O -> Q

I don't have much faith in the average consumer. Samsung will probably succeed in using pricing/marketing to make the OLED go the way of plasma. LCD refuses to die.
 
Etherton said:
Bingo! Serve the masses and the rest well, you'll take what we give you...

That said, I am gonna miss my Panny Plasma when it finally dies. :(
Click to expand...
I retired mine a year and a half ago. Loved it but that 50” just wasn’t cutting it for my rooms set up. Went to a 65” Sony and for being LED it’s still pretty damn impressive. I plan on setting up the plasma in a different room one day though. Never getting rid of it until it truly dies.
 
I replaced my Pioneer plasma with an LG B6 OLED. The OLED is simply superior in every respect. There is finally something better than plasma for a reasonable price.

Now bring on the 4K 120Hz OLED monitors.

Correction: It's an LG B7, not B6.
 
Last edited:
jfreund said:
I replaced my Pioneer plasma with an LG B6 OLED. The OLED is simply superior in every respect. There is finally something better than plasma for a reasonable price.

Now bring on the 4K 120Hz OLED monitors.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out why there aren't reasonably priced OLED monitors. With a super high refresh rate, low lag, and excellent black level contrast, they would be a gamers wet dream, and certainly cheaper to produce that big TVs. So what gives charging $3000 for them and non being released?
 
I just want to be able to not have to buy 3 displays at once to play the does this one not have bleed or dead pixels loot box game.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
I can't figure out why there aren't reasonably priced OLED monitors. With a super high refresh rate, low lag, and excellent black level contrast, they would be a gamers wet dream, and certainly cheaper to produce that big TVs. So what gives charging $3000 for them and non being released?
Click to expand...

Burn-in. OLEDs have real issues of burn in happening from static, bright, images and you get that on a computer. Things like the buttons on the taskbar, game HUDs and so on. People will get real angry if their super expensive monitor is unusable in a few years because of burn-in from normal use. If they can figure out a solution then maybe (it doesn't have to be a complete solution, but right now they have a bigger burning problem than CRTs).

Also price can be an issue as well. People are very cheap when it comes to monitors for gaming. I see $800 144Hz IPS monitors called "very expensive" all the time. So a multi-thousand OLED could be a complete non-starter.
 
Sycraft said:
Burn-in. OLEDs have real issues of burn in happening from static, bright, images and you get that on a computer. Things like the buttons on the taskbar, game HUDs and so on. People will get real angry if their super expensive monitor is unusable in a few years because of burn-in from normal use. If they can figure out a solution then maybe (it doesn't have to be a complete solution, but right now they have a bigger burning problem than CRTs).

Also price can be an issue as well. People are very cheap when it comes to monitors for gaming. I see $800 144Hz IPS monitors called "very expensive" all the time. So a multi-thousand OLED could be a complete non-starter.
Click to expand...

Half life on a OLED is now at 40K hours. And if you track the on time of each subpixel, you can dynamically adjust the top end of the rest of the pixels so burn in doesn't appear to exist. (Sort of how like your car tracks oil life) At 40,000 hours your monitor will be half as bright, but still pretty good. That's at least 5 years at 16 hours/day 5 days a week.
 
And they will spy on you too. Just like those TV's in 1984. And no I seldom connect mine to the internet anyway. I'll stick with my OLED for now it seems. I'm up to 5711 hours and it just ran it's second wear leveling routine. The interesting thing is I did have one stuck red pixel at the top of the screen, only noticeable if you are really close with a totally black screen, and now it seems to be unstuck (or maybe it was killed to off/black). At this rate this display should last another six years at least...hopefully by the time it needs replacing something better will be out...or at least the replacement will be half what I paid a year ago.
 
jfreund said:
The OLED is simply superior in every respect.
Click to expand...

What about black level and motion blur? I have not kept up with OLED or the likes. No need yet since I have been happy with my current one. If they are better I'm glad because this one's getting a bit of age on it now.
 
I hope my lg plasma lasts a little longer. Going on maybe 8 years....only 720p, but I’ll be dammed if it doesn’t look better that the shitty 1080p led TVs I’ve come across in the wild. I was hoping Oled would benits successor.
 
staknhalo said:
I really am not comfortable with OLED anything until screen burn-in is nonexistent. Not 'highly unlikely', not 'barely noticeable'. Nonexistent.
Click to expand...
I only use my 65" 4K OLED for watching movies and very occasionally TV, for maybe 3 hours a day.
So I'm pretty sure I won't see any burn in before something substantially better replaces it.

And it's better than any LCD TV, and better than going to a theater.
I saw "Black Panther" in a high-end theater, and every time they did a pan, my eyes bled from the jerkiness.
 
If they have the near infinite contrast of an OLED and the viewing angles and fixes the issues of OLED . I'm game.
 
vegeta535 said:
The common person doesn't care. They just want a big cheap TV.
Click to expand...

This.

Give the average consumer a choice between the perfectly calibrated high end screen and a uncalibrated one, and guess which one most will pick?
The uncalibrated one, because the screen is brighter and the colors pop more.
It's like asking a cave man to give you a review of Picasso painting.

These are the same people who buy those cheap laptops with 1366 x 768 screens and single channel wireless chips.
 
Bad rumor was bad. http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20180222011300320&site=0200000000

Use translater for this one: https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20180223/1302377/

Because they can make 5-6 inch OLED screens for phones, doesn't mean they have the printing capacity for 55 inch and up. They tried OLED, stopped, and moved on to microLED. Which after seeing the Samsung "Wall", is going to be the better option with scaling being whatever size you want. Seemless tiles.

And being a projector guy, this WILL be the death of the crappy 4K, eshift 4K, double to quad shifting DLP chip, and can't do HDR or Dolby Vision worth a shit or affordable projector market. I hope to god this is affordable by 2020 for all, to end this BULLSHIT I have been through trying to get a decent picture in 4K HDR on a 100 inch screen. Really hard when you have a freakin LG 65 inch E6 in the house to compare to! WE NEED BIGGER DISPLAYS!

I honestly thought about dropping a kidney or testicle at this point to get the smaller 77" OLED just because the quality of picture is phenomenal. If they had an 85-88" OLED now, I would be done regardless of the price.
 
Last edited:
Etherton said:
Bingo! Serve the masses and the rest well, you'll take what we give you...

That said, I am gonna miss my Panny Plasma when it finally dies. :(
Click to expand...
My Panasonic plasma was great - but it died a few months out of warranty. I replaced it with a cheap Vizio tv - pictures quality nowhere near as nice, blacks are more of a "grey", etc.
Sad part - the estimated repair cost was going to be as much or more than the Vizio I bought to replace it. My Panasonic was a 50", Vizio TV is a 42". Money was tight at the time so I lived with the downgrade. Now, waiting on my Vizio to give up the ghost but not sure what I'll replace it with. I don't watch much TV anyway, so cheap might win the day (but I do want something a bit nicer than what I currently have)
 
Etherton said:
What about black level and motion blur? I have not kept up with OLED or the likes. No need yet since I have been happy with my current one. If they are better I'm glad because this one's getting a bit of age on it now.
Click to expand...

Black level is better than plasma. Even with my Pioneer, you can still tell the TV is on with a completely blank screen. The LG OLED is just black. Give it a blank signal and the screen looks exactly like it's off. "How much more black could it be? The answer is none. None more black."

I have seen no motion blur on OLED. I did have to turn off the frame interpolation "soap opera effect". I've gamed at 4K 60HZ and 1080P 120HZ and it looks fantastic.

And on the subject of burn-in, my plasma was my primary TV for 9 years. I also had/have a PC connected for video and music playback and gaming. Zero burn in for all these years. I have no concern about OLED burn-in because I know not to put a static image onscreen for hours on end.
 
Guh..... *sigh*

We've gotten a ton of '4k remaster' ultra blu-rays that look like they just upscaled the 1080p Blu and slapped a 'remaster' label on it, most '4k' content comes @ a premium and is either upscaled 1080p or barely 2k, 4K tvs still cant settle on a format for HDR, nor can blu-ray players or AVs... and they've already started the push for 8k tvs :facepalm:

Think ima sit this round of 'Keeping up with the Joneses' out... maybe wait a year or 2.. SO fed up with all the nitch bullshit. And for the folks bitching because the industry stopped supporting 3D...

HA HA....
 
Samsung marketing is always ridiculous. I am interested to see where micro-LED goes, though. I know OLED burn-in is nearly always non-permanent, but it can happen and that makes me very hesitant to spend the $$$. MicroLED sounds like my holy Grail - no down-side I know of as long as prices are reasonable.
 
I just bought C7, went and looked at QLED vs OLED in the showroom. I didn't wait for the 2018 series - most of the improvements looked to be software (AI on my TV... ok), ~probably~ a similar quality screen, and no HDMI 2.1, so no point in waiting.

Colors popped a bit more on the QLED, but yeah, realize that was in a showroom with crazy settings. OLED black and darks crushed it. I'm not too worried about retention - it could be a problem, if it does become a problem, I'll deal with it then. Just like I would any problem with any other set you would buy - nothing is perfect. In the mean time, I'll enjoy my C7.

I can't see QLED being terribly competitive in the long run, but with a big name like Samsung behind it, crappier tech has won out in the past. It blows my mind that right now you can get OLED for less than QLED though.

MicroLED could be a thing though. But I'm afraid it will be like OLED has been for monitors - always on the tip of everyone's tongue, but never any real traction. I know a lot of people here would kill for a smaller 30-42" OLED monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top