Even a chance for OLED monitors?

sh4dow said:
@ Chippy

They are? Well... I would love to see some actual numbers about that. Including what type of projection was used.

Because I was indeed very displeased when I e.g. watched Inception at the IMAX in Toronto because of the awful gray mess I was confronted with (and paid quite a lot for). But I'm pretty sure I never saw anything like it at a small, local arthouse theater in Austria.

Also - isn't THX really rather meaningless? It seems to me they just love to put their logo on ever other product out there. I mean... 5.1 speakers for 200 bucks or so THX certified? I'm sure that's great quality right there...
Click to expand...

I don't have any specific data to hand, although I could probably find some with a bit of googling. My comment was certainly based on personal experience though.

I know that black levels through film (i.e. celluloid) are not spectacular - unsurprising really bearing in mind the technology involved. I am sure I have seen data about that.

And with more modern projection equipment, it's all DLP gear which doesn't achieve class leading black levels in domestic environments (irrespective of price) so I would not expect it to do so at the movies.

And then you have to factor in the fact that the screen is white (or silver) and the only way you get black on a white screen is in a pitch black room, which the theatre is not. The emergency exit signs and other such lighting produce enough ambient light to spoil the effect. And that assumes there are no other "gross" errors - which there often are - like the projectionist leaving the lights on in the projection room or some idiot usher leaving a back door open and the sunlight streaming in (don't laugh - I sat though an IMAX matinee feature ruined by that!)
 
StaticSurge said:
Directors intent would depend on the director. I've never heard a director say that he wanted his movies to look washed out. Most cinemas these days are just cash cows and use outdated projectors.

I've seen the difference between a 800:1 display and a 30 000:1 display I have a lot of trouble believing what a director would want you to see was the first one.
Click to expand...

You'd think the above would all be true wouldn't you? I find it hard to argue with any of that.

But then you watch a movie like "Unbreakable" and see the abysmal grey "black" levels throughout the movie and wonder what on earth the Director and production people were playing at.
 
Whoisthisreally said:
It has only seen about 8 hours of video and I haven't observed any temporary IR nor burn-in. The software dims the set if a static image is left on. To test it I'd need a moving image with a fixed lit area, a colorimeter, and a good reason to again prove that emissive displays can be abused.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't regular computer use do the trick? There's always something moving, while things are still static a lot of the time.
Or playing any video game, really...
 
Chippy said:
I know that black levels through film (i.e. celluloid) are not spectacular - unsurprising really bearing in mind the technology involved.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true. Though I seem to remember having read at some point that big CRT projectors, especially the Barco high-end models were actually intended for small movie theaters, not home theater use. So... could that maybe explain good black levels at small theaters?

And then you have to factor in the fact that the screen is white (or silver) and the only way you get black on a white screen is in a pitch black room, which the theatre is not.
Click to expand...

Depends on very factors though, IMO - like the country and even just the theater you're in. I found e.g. emergency signs to be a lot brighter in Toronto than in Austrian theaters. And I did find it very annoying. It's not like it serves any practical use either. Because it's not like you wouldn't see the damn sign if it was only half as bright.

don't laugh - I sat though an IMAX matinee feature ruined by that!
Click to expand...

I won't... I will however ask why you didn't either walk out or at least complain about it ;)
 
sh4dow said:
I won't... I will however ask why you didn't either walk out or at least complain about it ;)
Click to expand...

I did complain to be fair, but it took them 30 minutes to fix it by which time the film was completely ruined.
 
Ahh... Well. Then I have a follow-up ;)
Why didn't you just ask for a refund after about 5 minutes and go see it another time? ;)
 
Last edited:
I bought an EODIS3. Pricy, but I was wasting my time trying to match it to my Eizo. I'll put up some measurements when I receive it.
 
Pricey is relative... If you consider its accuracy in comparison to other colorimeters on the market and their price... I actually find it surprisingly cheap. I mean... you have often wildly inaccurate colorimeters with prices ranging from about 70-150€ and then you have the powerhouse that is the basiccolor DISCUS for 800€. Considering its performance, I would've seen the price point of the i1Display Pro closer to the DISCUS than the "cheap" crap. (I put cheap in quotes because at least the experiences I've collected with a Spyder2 myself and the calibration with a Spyder3 I have seen recently were all so damn bad (although the fault may often have been the software in these cases too) that I think it is awful that these things are being sold at all. It seems mostly like just taking advantage of people's gullibility and the placebo effect - the image HAS to be better after calibration after all, right? -_- )

I'm not complaining though, I wouldn't have been able to afford it at a higher price (and considering the software limitations due to licensing BS and the allegedly poor performance of the X-Rite software (I never bothered to even install it), the lower price is a bit justified because of those things...). But just to explain why I think the price is actually pretty damn good :)
 
Last edited:
sh4dow said:
(and considering the software limitations due to licensing BS and the allegedly poor performance of the X-Rite software, the lower price is a bit justified because of those things...). But just to explain why I think the price is actually pretty damn good :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. Part of the of what convinced me to buy it was compatibility with software based on ArgyllCMS: HCFR and Dispcalgui should I need it. It would be nice to have an i1 Pro to provide a correction because WOLED is uncharted territory for all colorimeter packages.
 
Last edited:
I for one can't wait for your measurements :)

As for HCFR - Don't necessarily bet on it. I tried to use mine with HCFR and it's not being recognized. I already asked in the "official unofficial support thread" at the AVS forums but they only thought my device may be faulty or not properly installed. Which is not the case. But I gave up pursuing it because I don't need HCFR for my purposes right now anyway and maybe it'll work in a year or so, should I want to do some specific measurements again.
 
At 600-700 bucks, I'm decently interested in buying one of those LG 15" OLED displays, and I was hoping you could help answer a couple questions for me. I'm still using a Trinitron CRT for a veriety of reasons, and OLED screens are currently the only non-CRT replacement that'd be acceptable for me...

1. What are the video inputs? (supposedly it's just HDMI & antenna)
2. Are there any audio outputs? (like a headphone jack and stuff)
3. What is the width and height of the screen, not counting the bezel? (my math says it's 13" x 7.33")
4. How much does it weigh? (just put it on a bathroom scale or something)
5. Does it look like using the power-brick on a 110v would be possible?
6. Supposedly motion blur still exists vs CRT, is this true? (supposedly better than LCD though)
7. How's input lag? (supposedly it's around 30ms, which I find to be a bit high for me...)
 
Last edited:
I'll buy oled monitors once they get a curved super wide layout, something like this but more extreme
flexible-oled-display-screen.jpg
 
25" and full HD! Now that's what I'm talking about!
I wonder how much this thing is. Anybody here working in the medical field or willing to pretend to be to figure out the price? ;)

Although... I suppose it's probably about the same as the BVM-F250 (broadcast monitor) - around $13000, apparently...
 
Probably the same 25" 1920x1080 OLED panel listed locally: Sony PVM-2541.

5135 usd/£3299. ouch. There's also a 17" 1920x1080 screen, Sony PVM-1741 at 3750 usd/£2408.
 
The input lag that guy reports is horrible.
He writes that without any "display improvement features", he measures 34ms 80% of the time. Sometimes up to 50.
I thought OLED displays were supposed to not only have no ghosting but also no input lag?
 
sh4dow said:
The input lag that guy reports is horrible.
He writes that without any "display improvement features", he measures 34ms 80% of the time. Sometimes up to 50.
I thought OLED displays were supposed to not only have no ghosting but also no input lag?
Click to expand...
This is what I'm concerned about as well. Heck that's what caused me to type up that post with a bajillion question - I got paranoid. :p
 
sh4dow said:
The input lag that guy reports is horrible.
He writes that without any "display improvement features", he measures 34ms 80% of the time. Sometimes up to 50.
I thought OLED displays were supposed to not only have no ghosting but also no input lag?
Click to expand...

That's mostly due to the TFT matrix driving the OLED emitters. With each generation of OLED the drive voltages becomes lower and the emitters easier and faster to switch. First generation OLED required very high drive voltages, which also caused the rapid luminance degradation.
 
Input lag feels high. Higher than my EV2333W. Each attempt at calibration ends up with a yellow tint. I may have to eyeball the white point and "linearize" it in HCFR. The panel is excellent but the OSD image controls are tiresome. It forgets the gamut mode I'm using when I cycle power which I guess must be a bug.

It would be a joke to charge $8000 for the 55" version if it came with a similar setup: It would need to be factory calibrated in order for there to be any sort of premium.

Bottom line I wish there was a Spectraview version of this right now.
 
If input lag truly is that high, then just ignore my list of questions. I'm not going to buy a monitor I can only use for videos. :p
 
Last edited:
Hopefully any early kinks in this technology will be iron out by the time I get one, especailly for computer monitors, high ppi large displays should be in harmony with Oleds come that time as well :)
 
sh4dow said:
The input lag that guy reports is horrible.
He writes that without any "display improvement features", he measures 34ms 80% of the time. Sometimes up to 50.
I thought OLED displays were supposed to not only have no ghosting but also no input lag?
Click to expand...

Elledan said:
That's mostly due to the TFT matrix driving the OLED emitters. With each generation of OLED the drive voltages becomes lower and the emitters easier and faster to switch. First generation OLED required very high drive voltages, which also caused the rapid luminance degradation.
Click to expand...

The input lag has nothing to do with the display tech nor does it have to do with the "TFT matrix"

It's all in the controller board for the monitor itself. (The OSD, image processing, scaling, input processing.)

Any technology that has low input lag for an LCD will apply to OLED.

If an OLED monitor has high input lag, it's because it's designed poorly, not because it's OLED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top