42" OLED MASTER THREAD

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,668
"45" WQHD (3440 x 1440) 21:9 Curved (800R) OLED Display"

Oh lord. 1440p on 45" and 800R. Kill it with fire :nailbiting:

45" 3440 x 1440 at the 32" view distance = 52 PPD

32" view distance is where you are at the 800mm radius or focal point of the curve, where all points on the screen surface are equidistant from you.

That's a poor PPD imo. Anything under 60PPD and aggressive AA and massaged/alternative text sub-sampling methods won't be able to compensate enough anymore vs text fringing (esp. WOLED), graphics aliasing. There is no AA on the desktop for desktop graphics and imagery either so the aliasing will be even worse there.

. . .

45" 3440 x 1440 at 32" view = 52 PPD

Some people try to do this with 42" OLEDs though:

42" 4k screen at 24" view distance is 52 PPD.

So they are essentially getting the same PPD as this:

27" screen 2688 x 1512 rez at 24" view distance = 52 PPD



And while you might say you still get more desktop real-estate even at 52 PPD on a 4k screen, some people are also scaling their text up (for the aforementioned sub-60 PPD reasons) - so the end result is less desktop real estate due to larger elements by windows scaling.

The 24" view crowd are in a way using a 42" 4k like a (27" based PPD) 1500p screen and exacerbating off axis viewing angle issues instead of getting 4k fine pixel PQ. 😝


. . . . . . .

769575_tJWvzHy.png
 
Last edited:

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,915
I am fine with it, my eyes are getting old :). I have to use my glasses with the C2 42" now at about 24-32", scaling is at 125%
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,668
I am fine with it, my eyes are getting old :). I have to use my glasses with the C2 42" now at about 24-32", scaling is at 125%

I saw someone's reply recently in thread saying they got a set of glasses with a prescription specifically for their desk setup and display which seems to work out better for them. I use my regular daily driver glasses and have no prob with 60PPD - 80 PPD at default text sizes but considering the amount of time I'm at my desk I wouldn't be opposed to doing a specific prescription pair for my setup. My laptop is 16" so around 15.5" at 2560x1600. That's around 64 PPD at 18" and a little higher if nearer and I use it at 100% scaling. I'm farsighted so I need glasses for seeing nearer. Pointing out the laptop because I can see over 60PPD at default text sizes at 18" or nearer as well as my 48" cx at 38 - 40".

The point in my previous reply was that I feel the criticism of 1440p 45" is warranted but that a 42" 4k at 24" view distance is comparable to a 1500p screen's density and more fringed PQ - and if upscaling text/interface then in the desktop real-estate aspect as well, but at the near distance the viewing angle additionally making more of the sides of the screen off axis creating a larger "eye fatigue zone" and color shift gradient zone on each side. Sitting at the radius or focal point of a curved screen and the whole screen surface would be equidistant from you and not off-axis. So it's not as simple to compare that 45" 1440p (negatively) to 4k PQ and real estate imo unless you are using the full PQ a 4k screen is capable of. Otherwise it's more like 1400p with uniform viewing angles vs 1500p with off axis viewing problems.
 
Last edited:

hhkb

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
147
Just ordered one of these, and wondering if the stock stand will be good enough. My only concern is it will be sitting pretty low - top of the panel will be slightly above eye level for me. Anyone w/ the stock stand happy with how low it sits? I know ergonomics theory is to have the top of a monitor at about eye level, but I'm not sure it applies to such large screens.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,107
Just ordered one of these, and wondering if the stock stand will be good enough. My only concern is it will be sitting pretty low - top of the panel will be slightly above eye level for me. Anyone w/ the stock stand happy with how low it sits? I know ergonomics theory is to have the top of a monitor at about eye level, but I'm not sure it applies to such large screens.
You probably want it about eye level 2/3rds up depending how close you sit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hhkb
like this

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,762
Just ordered one of these, and wondering if the stock stand will be good enough. My only concern is it will be sitting pretty low - top of the panel will be slightly above eye level for me. Anyone w/ the stock stand happy with how low it sits? I know ergonomics theory is to have the top of a monitor at about eye level, but I'm not sure it applies to such large screens.
Depends on your desk height. I cut 2 pieces of 2x4 to the exact length of the stand and painted them black. Adds a little over an inch and a half height which was perfect for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: hhkb
like this

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,915
I saw someone's reply recently in thread saying they got a set of glasses with a prescription specifically for their desk setup and display which seems to work out better for them. I use my regular daily driver glasses and have no prob with 60PPD - 80 PPD at default text sizes but considering the amount of time I'm at my desk I wouldn't be opposed to doing a specific prescription pair for my setup. My laptop is 16" so around 15.5" at 2560x1600. That's around 64 PPD at 18" and a little higher if nearer and I use it at 100% scaling. I'm farsighted so I need glasses for seeing nearer. Pointing out the laptop because I can see over 60PPD at default text sizes at 18" or nearer as well as my 48" cx at 38 - 40".

The point in my previous reply was that I feel the criticism of 1440p 45" is warranted but that a 42" 4k at 24" view distance is comparable to a 1500p screen's density and more fringed PQ - and if upscaling text/interface then in the desktop real-estate aspect as well, but at the near distance the viewing angle additionally making more of the sides of the screen off axis creating a larger "eye fatigue zone" and color shift gradient zone on each side. Sitting at the radius or focal point of a curved screen and the whole screen surface would be equidistant from you and not off-axis. So it's not as simple to compare that 45" 1440p (negatively) to 4k PQ and real estate imo unless you are using the full PQ a 4k screen is capable of. Otherwise it's more like 1400p with uniform viewing angles vs 1500p with off axis viewing problems.

Realistically, I only ever use my monitor sitting Infront of it, and I prefer curved, even with the 42" at 3 feet away I feel like the edges are bent outwards (I know they're not) but my eyes are picky now that they have been spoiled with a curved display. I would probably be happy with the 42" in a curved format, but that is $2500+ now. I get the PPD issue, and while I would prefer higher PPD I am just not seeing anything yet that fits what I am looking for better than that 45" (apart from cost, which will come down eventually)
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,691
Has anyone here purchased a 42” C2 OLED with good screen uniformity? no tint in the corners or middle?
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,668
Realistically, I only ever use my monitor sitting Infront of it, and I prefer curved, even with the 42" at 3 feet away I feel like the edges are bent outwards (I know they're not) but my eyes are picky now that they have been spoiled with a curved display. I would probably be happy with the 42" in a curved format, but that is $2500+ now. I get the PPD issue, and while I would prefer higher PPD I am just not seeing anything yet that fits what I am looking for better than that 45" (apart from cost, which will come down eventually)

. . .

I feel like the edges are bent outwards (I know they're not) but my eyes are picky now that they have been spoiled with a curved display.

They are definitely off axis which isn't optimal and it also makes uniformity issues a larger area and more obvious on VA and OLED screens. The edges of the screen are off axis as much as if you were viewing the screen from an equivalent distance outside of it.

human-viewpoint_distortion-edges.png



Made even larger when sitting at sub-optimal nearer view distances. Larger the nearer you sit, as the degrees of area beyond the middle 50 to 60 degrees grows since your viewing angle is larger in degrees. It's also a larger area outside of your viewpoint so results in a lot more eye darting and to larger distances ~ larger "eye fatigue zone".

human-viewpoint_distortion-edges_closer_1.png




With curved screens, at least when sitting at the R value distance (e.g. 1000R = 1000mm= ~ 39.5" view distance), you'll be equidistant from every point on the screen surface with them angled directly at you like the focal point of a lens.

hP8cuXr.png



human-viewpoint_1000R-thru-4000R.and.flat-screen_1.jpg




human-viewpoint_50.to-60.deg_55inch.1000R.CURVED.SCREEN.png
 
Last edited:

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,143
PG42UQ firmware update that was promised mid November is now available.

It only took them 3 months to fix the power LED.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,915
. . .



They are definitely off axis which isn't optimal and it also makes uniformity issues a larger area and more obvious on VA and OLED screens. The edges of the screen are off axis as much as if you were viewing the screen from an equivalent distance outside of it.

View attachment 530230


Made even larger when sitting at sub-optimal nearer view distances. Larger the nearer you sit, as the degrees of area beyond the middle 50 to 60 degrees grows since your viewing angle is larger in degrees. It's also a larger area outside of your viewpoint so results in a lot more eye darting and to larger distances ~ larger "eye fatigue zone".

View attachment 530243



With curved screens, at least when sitting at the R value distance (e.g. 1000R = 1000mm= ~ 39.5" view distance), you'll be equidistant from every point on the screen surface with them angled directly at you like the focal point of a lens.

View attachment 530239


View attachment 530235



View attachment 530234

I need me a curved 42" :D
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,649
. . .



They are definitely off axis which isn't optimal and it also makes uniformity issues a larger area and more obvious on VA and OLED screens. The edges of the screen are off axis as much as if you were viewing the screen from an equivalent distance outside of it.

View attachment 530230


Made even larger when sitting at sub-optimal nearer view distances. Larger the nearer you sit, as the degrees of area beyond the middle 50 to 60 degrees grows since your viewing angle is larger in degrees. It's also a larger area outside of your viewpoint so results in a lot more eye darting and to larger distances ~ larger "eye fatigue zone".

View attachment 530243



With curved screens, at least when sitting at the R value distance (e.g. 1000R = 1000mm= ~ 39.5" view distance), you'll be equidistant from every point on the screen surface with them angled directly at you like the focal point of a lens.

View attachment 530239


View attachment 530235



View attachment 530234
While true, this comes with the downsides of also requiring a specific optimized distance that if you don't meet means a far greater image area will look incorrect (distorted and likely suffering greatly from "off axis" viewing). If "bendable" displays existed in the consumer market and you could control the curve as you note in the various "R curve" chart, then viewing distances could be interchangeable. A flat display will never have these problems.

And this is of course not discussing any of the other obvious problems such as things like straight lines for those of us that work in visual mediums and not just "gaming" or "productivity". Given the tradeoffs and the fact that I edit photo and video, I doubt I'll ever move to a curved display other than if I have the disposable income for a "gaming only" display. And even then, because the distance has to be so controlled, I'd have to be VERY convinced that the size, curve, and distance, were all optimal before pulling the trigger (not to mention other important specs like refresh rate, display tech, etc).
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,668
While true, this comes with the downsides of also requiring a specific optimized distance that if you don't meet means a far greater image area will look incorrect (distorted and likely suffering greatly from "off axis" viewing). If "bendable" displays existed in the consumer market and you could control the curve as you note in the various "R curve" chart, then viewing distances could be interchangeable. A flat display will never have these problems.

And this is of course not discussing any of the other obvious problems such as things like straight lines for those of us that work in visual mediums and not just "gaming" or "productivity". Given the tradeoffs and the fact that I edit photo and video, I doubt I'll ever move to a curved display other than if I have the disposable income for a "gaming only" display. And even then, because the distance has to be so controlled, I'd have to be VERY convinced that the size, curve, and distance, were all optimal before pulling the trigger (not to mention other important specs like refresh rate, display tech, etc).


Both flat and curved screens have optimal viewing ranges or viewpoint. The curved ones restrict you more obviously to the optimal view distance like you said, being that the radius or focal point of the curve is fixed on most of them. Or at least you'd think so - people can still sit too close to curved screens and cut the sides off and misalign the curve focal point wise so to speak. If you think their R distances as a focal view distance are too far at 1000R and less, at least on large screens, you may be viewing your large flat screen from a sub-optimal (too short) view distance and suffering off axis viewing angles at the sides, which on an oled not only puts the larger amounts of the sides of the screen in the eye-darting range but also makes the non-uniform color issue on the sides of the screen larger. It also lowers the PPD, which below 60PPD means AA and text sub sampling won't be able to compensate enough anymore (and there is no AA for 2d desktop graphics and imagery either so worse there).

the downsides of also requiring a specific optimized distance

The viewpoint for a flat screen is within a 50 to 60 deg viewing angle. Yes you can use one at worse angles and get away with it but it won't be full PQ, including both viewing angle but also PPD for 4k (rather than 8k) screens.


human-viewpoint_50.to-60.deg_42in.and.48.inch.png


When you sit closer, you end up with something like this along with lower PPD:

771504_human-viewpoint_distortion-edges_closer_1.png




Regarding flat lines, productivity, video and photo editing - there is probably a reason most reference monitors are 32" - 35" (flat) screens.
However it's all about PPD and viewing angle:


42" 4k screen at 50 deg viewing angle is at 39" view distance and gets 77 PPD
42" 4k screen at 60 deg viewing angle is at 32" view distance and gets 64 PPD

40" 4k screen at 50 deg viewing angle at 37.5" and gets 77PPD.
40" 4k screen at 60 deg viewing angle is at ~ 30" view distance and gets ~ 64 PPD.

32" 4k screen at 50 deg viewing angle is at 30" view distance and gets ~ 77 PPD
32" 4k screen at 60 deg viewing angle is at ~ 24" view distance and gets ~64 PPD

Those ranges are more what you are talking about for a direct view of flat screens and straight lines. A 40" - 42" flat screen at 38" to 39" away, 50 deg angle at 77 PPD for more direct view and finer perceived pixel density (including uncompensated-for 2d desktop graphics and imagery) isn't that far from the ~39.5" view focal point of a 1000R curve however if critiquing distances. Some of the newer curved screens can do up to 800R though which is 31.5" radius or focal point. So a 42" curved 4k at 800R, ~32" view, would be around 64PPD for reference.

Personally I'd like a 48" to 55" 1000R 8k screen someday, being able to run 32:10 rez or 21:10 rez, or even 4k or so rez on one on part of the screen when I chose to. It would be a multimedia and gaming screen primarily though, especially if OLED. I'd have other screen(s) for static desktop/app usage. I've used 2 or more screens since at least 2006 due to tradeoffs in display types. While things have changed tech wise on a lot of fronts there are still tradeoffs between different screen technologies and usage scenarios.

In the meantime I'd prefer a 4k gaming screen with a curve that allows for nearer to 70PPD+ at the focal point if i can get one in the next few years. The 55" ark missed the mark on a lot of things (tech wise + price wise) to begin with, but at the focal point it was only about ~ 62 PPD which while over 60PPD isn't as high as I'd prefer. I think a 48" 1000R OLED would be great as a multimedia and gaming display. It'd get higher PPD (~69 to 70 PPD) but wouldn't lose too much immersion size-wise for full screen gaming. Again a 42" flat at 50 deg and 39" view is 77PPD so wouldn't be a bad combo with 1000R ~ 39.5" focal point but a 48" to 55" screen would span to 60 deg or more so would be a little more immersive at that 1000R distance/radius. 42" screen at 60 deg (64 PPD) would be more like 800R (31.5 inch) distance wise so I'd say 900R (35.4") to 1000R (39.5") would be better all around for a curved 42" with PPD considered. That goes against the reason a lot of people buy 42" OLEDs though which is the smallest desktop OLED they can shoehorn in to a shorter desk setup. Still a square peg into round hole though imo in a lot of setups but mostly due to the fact that there are no 30" to 35" similar OLEDs.
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465

Drags

Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
1,003
so it's really a generic brand. It's like saying is AOC a brand? nothing but the cheapest quality components out there.
Well it doesn’t seem so if you look at the products on offer. Their 42” OLED seems pretty decent, robustly built, metal enclosure, decent stand etc. not cheap and tacky really
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465
I need at least 10 yr. of track record for me to consider buying a given brand, this brand just pop out of a rock
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,401
I need at least 10 yr. of track record for me to consider buying a given brand, this brand just pop out of a rock

If you read the article then you should know that the brand didn't just "pop out of a rock" but has been around since 1995. They are just barely starting to expand into different markets that's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drags
like this

celwin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,441
If you read the article then you should know that the brand didn't just "pop out of a rock" but has been around since 1995. They are just barely starting to expand into different markets that's all.
Fair or not, a substantial number of Americans will not buy a brand that is entirely Chinese. Especially if that brand is not well known outside of China. For the record I am not one of those.
 

Drags

Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
1,003
People used to buy Yamakasi Catleaps and not complain.
very true. and all new brands start somewhere. i mean we've seen Gigabyte, Corsair, Asrock and Cooler Master all release monitors in recent years and none of them were in this space until recently. Even "big" monitor brands like Asus and Acer haven;t been around that long relative to Dell, Samsung, LG and the likes
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,714
Would my system in sig handle playing games @ 4k 120hz?

- i9 13900k
- Z790 motherboard
- 32GB DDR5-5600mhz
- RTX-3080

I mostly play World of Warcraft, done Halo Infinite, might get New World MMO and for sure will play Diablo IV
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,401
They were Korean not Chinese. Korean products have a better reputation than Chinese ones.

I don't think he's referring to that. Pretty sure he's referring to the complaints about uniformity on the LG C2 and then mentioning how people bought Catleaps which used lower grade IPS panels that were rejected by Apple and never complained about such issues. And both LG and Yamakasi are Korean so this has nothing to do with Korean vs Chinese products.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,691
Would my system in sig handle playing games @ 4k 120hz?

- i9 13900k
- Z790 motherboard
- 32GB DDR5-5600mhz
- RTX-3080

I mostly play World of Warcraft, done Halo Infinite, might get New World MMO and for sure will play Diablo IV
No to 120FPS reliably at 4K. Some titles yes. All titles no. But it’ll be good enough with the VRR that you won’t have any issues with that setup. I have a very similar setup and some of my games run 70-80FPS at 4K with maxed out settings and DLSS set to quality.

For true 120FPS at 4K you need a 4090
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,714
No to 120FPS reliably at 4K. Some titles yes. All titles no. But it’ll be good enough with the VRR that you won’t have any issues with that setup. I have a very similar setup and some of my games run 70-80FPS at 4K with maxed out settings and DLSS set to quality.

For true 120FPS at 4K you need a 4090

Yeah a 4080 is minimum to play at 4k ultra settings in newer games, I just refuse to pay the $1200+ tax price on that thing.

I'll just stick with my 38" Ultrawide for now
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
972
Would my system in sig handle playing games @ 4k 120hz?

- i9 13900k
- Z790 motherboard
- 32GB DDR5-5600mhz
- RTX-3080

I mostly play World of Warcraft, done Halo Infinite, might get New World MMO and for sure will play Diablo IV
For less demanding games like WoW and possibly Diablo IV, you should be fine for 4K120. For more demanding titles, not a chance. If you're willing to run DLSS or FSR on some newer titles, you will be fine.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,108
I don't think he's referring to that. Pretty sure he's referring to the complaints about uniformity on the LG C2 and then mentioning how people bought Catleaps which used lower grade IPS panels that were rejected by Apple and never complained about such issues. And both LG and Yamakasi are Korean so this has nothing to do with Korean vs Chinese products.
Yes thank you. I was referring to the whole quality of the Yamakasi Catleap monitors - even the max refresh rate wasn't guaranteed, while coming from the same region as the LG panels. Well, originated from, given the location of the company headquarters. Many would just brake within months of use. Mine for example went from 106hz max down to 101hz max, if I remember correctly now, within a year or smth... And so, people from US wouldn't mind that at all.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,668
No to 120FPS reliably at 4K. Some titles yes. All titles no. But it’ll be good enough with the VRR that you won’t have any issues with that setup. I have a very similar setup and some of my games run 70-80FPS at 4K with maxed out settings and DLSS set to quality.

For true 120FPS at 4K you need a 4090




Yeah a 4080 is minimum to play at 4k ultra settings in newer games, I just refuse to pay the $1200+ tax price on that thing.

I'll just stick with my 38" Ultrawide for now

You could also run 3840 x 1600 uw rez on a 4k OLED to get slightly higher frame rates. 42" and 48' screens result in a decent sized 21:10 ultrawide for gaming.

The viewable height on a 48" 16:9 in 21:10 uw rez of 3840x1600 ends up having about a 17.5" tall viewable screen resolution.

A 42" 16:9 is around 36.7" wide so maybe 36" viewable width (not diagonal). At 21:9 it would be ~ 15.5 inch viewable height and ~39.x " diagonal. .
so at 21:10 a 42" diagonal 16:9 screen in 3840x1600 uw resolution might be more like ~ 39.5" uw diagonal with a ~ 16" tall viewable.

The black bars on oleds are the emitters off entirely so it's ultra/"infinite" black and down the pixel display area wise so no glow/dim halos on the edges. If you put some black soundproofing tiles or tapestry behind there (don't let tapestries hang so low that they are over electric plugs and power units though) - then you'd be black on black. Also just in general if you are viewing in dim to dark theater like viewing conditions for HDR, the ambient lighting would be quite dark. You won't really be noticing the inf black bars and you'd be getting a much larger uw viewable screen compared to some of the shorter height models. Even viewing material with ultra black oled bars and not taking any other steps with the area behind the screen - it's not a big deal on OLEDS imo, for example on a big OLED tv in a living room running a movie with some letterboxing. Also you can swap back to 4k 16:9 for videos and certain games that might benefit from 16:9 more like rts overhead maps and maybe some platformers and other overhead games.




For true 120FPS at 4K you need a 4090

or a 5000 series ;)


calendar-flying.gif
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,465
They were Korean not Chinese. Korean products have a better reputation than Chinese ones.
Korean made, such as Samsung has higher than failure than stuff made in Taiwan. I had 2 x Samsung 30", they failed 5 times in 2 yr. under warranty. Especially Samsung, their hard drive, their cellular phone, never buy anything from them again
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,059
I know this is a 42" OLED thread, but I just purchased the Samsung S95B 55" QD-OLED and my god, god tier gaming display if you have the room. Brightness and colors absolutely destroy LG OLEDs, and 144 Hz 4K too.
 
Top