42" OLED MASTER THREAD

[arestavo]

I think it has only been on the market for around 3.5 years though. I've had my 48" model since release and also no burn in. I think I have over 6000 hours on it.


If you use it, how do you feel about the Samsung smart TV stuff vs LG WebOS? WebOS has been pretty solid for me but I loathed the Samsung software on the KS7005 I had back in the day so much that I bought a Chromecast Ultra to use with it.

That's why I stated ~4 years and not 4 years ;-) (when you retire, time just doesn't hit the same).

I don't use the smart functions of the TV. The Samsung looks to be better for options, but I dislike how I have to select the PC input nearly every time that I power it on. With the LG, it was just in that mode when powered up.

 

[Happy Hopping]

I mean, there are pages and pages of them in this thread alone:

https://hardforum.com/search/7982965/?t=post&c[thread]=2016682&c[users]=Happy+Hopping&o=relevance

Pick one, lol. I'm starting to think that HH is either a bot, or the world's most indecisive consumer.

okay, let me come clean on this: if this were a 8K OLED say 48" to 55", I'll buy it in a heartbeat regardless of price.

Now w/ this being a 4K OLED, my first monitor prior to 4K is a HP 30" 2560x1600, so when I jump to a LG-Philip 4K, 40", well worth it, as there is a jump in resolution and in size (30" o 40"). That Philip dies after 4 yr.,so I am using Viewsonic 43" 4K, that's not an upgrade, it's an extended warranty replacement, so now I re-thinking what's the pt. from a 43" 4K to a 48" OLED 4K. And that's not much of an improvement, and on top of that, 1 of the above mesg. on all the tricks I need to baby seat this OLED. When I buy a tool, I use it. I don't want to spend that much time / effort to maintain. It's too much work. Now if it's a 8K, I'll baby seat it. Sharp has 70" 8K OLED out last yr. All I need is these co. to go 1 step further and get a 8K in 48 to 52" OLED

 

[kasakka]

I don't use the smart functions of the TV. The Samsung looks to be better for options, but I dislike how I have to select the PC input nearly every time that I power it on. With the LG, it was just in that mode when powered up.

Yeah it's all those little inconveniences that I dislike on Samsung TVs. Settings buried a bit too deep etc, it's like nobody ever considered the usability. Not that LG is perfect by any means, but generally at least more user friendly.

 

[kasakka]

Now w/ this being a 4K OLED, my first monitor prior to 4K is a HP 30" 2560x1600, so when I jump to a LG-Philip 4K, 40", well worth it, as there is a jump in resolution and in size (30" o 40"). That Philip dies after 4 yr.,so I am using Viewsonic 43" 4K, that's not an upgrade, it's an extended warranty replacement, so now I re-thinking what's the pt. from a 43" 4K to a 48" OLED 4K. And that's not much of an improvement, and on top of that, 1 of the above mesg. on all the tricks I need to baby seat this OLED. When I buy a tool, I use it. I don't want to spend that much time / effort to maintain. It's too much work. Now if it's a 8K, I'll baby seat it. Sharp has 70" 8K OLED out last yr. All I need is these co. to go 1 step further and get a 8K in 48 to 52" OLED

OLED owners tend to babysit their monitors when they get them, and over time just keep using them like normal. When I used the LG CX 48" as a desktop monitor, after the initial configuration (hide taskbar, disable ASBL, black background, set up screensaver etc) the only thing I ever did was turn it off via the remote if I went to lunch.

I don't think the 48" is the best size for a desktop monitor though. It's so tall vertically that I always wanted to use the bottom 3/4 for my windows and leave the top just empty. The 42" should be easier to manage. I currently use the 48" from my couch for PC gaming and it works great like that.

I think you will be waiting a long time if you want a smaller 8K display and would be better off just buying something. The 42" LG Flex prices have come down a lot so maybe that would work for you?

 

[DooLocsta]

OLED owners tend to babysit their monitors when they get them, and over time just keep using them like normal. When I used the LG CX 48" as a desktop monitor, after the initial configuration (hide taskbar, disable ASBL, black background, set up screensaver etc) the only thing I ever did was turn it off via the remote if I went to lunch.

I don't think the 48" is the best size for a desktop monitor though. It's so tall vertically that I always wanted to use the bottom 3/4 for my windows and leave the top just empty. The 42" should be easier to manage. I currently use the 48" from my couch for PC gaming and it works great like that.

I think you will be waiting a long time if you want a smaller 8K display and would be better off just buying something. The 42" LG Flex prices have come down a lot so maybe that would work for you?

This is exactly how I started, and I now use my 42C2.

 

[Happy Hopping]

OLED owners tend to babysit their monitors when they get them, and over time just keep using them like normal. When I used the LG CX 48" as a desktop monitor, after the initial configuration (hide taskbar, disable ASBL, black background, set up screensaver etc) the only thing I ever did was turn it off via the remote if I went to lunch.

I don't think the 48" is the best size for a desktop monitor though. It's so tall vertically that I always wanted to use the bottom 3/4 for my windows and leave the top just empty. The 42" should be easier to manage. I currently use the 48" from my couch for PC gaming and it works great like that.

I think you will be waiting a long time if you want a smaller 8K display and would be better off just buying something. The 42" LG Flex prices have come down a lot so maybe that would work for you?

the reason I like 48" is because the 42" vs. 48" is only $100 difference

 

[elvn]

There's an overlap for both 42" and 48" screens starting at around 3 feet away (36"), so either would be fine for me on their own stand. If I'm already viewing a 42inch screen at 32" view distance or more , 36" wouldn't be a big deal to me for a 48".

You really don't get down to optimal desk size until 32" to 36" 16:9 screen sizes. . maybe even a 38" screen if it was an uncommonly deep desk. (Viewing angle wise but perhaps even moreso for what you'd expect from "4k" PPD wise vs a 1400 - 1600p desktop screen).



.

 

[SH1]

This is exactly how I started, and I now use my 42C2.

I've been triggering a screen saver when I walk away from an emissive display for so many years now, it's almost subconscious.

 

[SH1]

There's an overlap for both 42" and 48" screens starting at around 3 feet away (36"), so either would be fine for me on their own stand. If I'm already viewing a 42inch screen at 32" view distance or more , 36" wouldn't be a big deal to me for a 48".

You really don't get down to optimal desk size until 32" to 36" 16:9 screen sizes. . maybe even a 38" screen if it was an uncommonly deep desk. (Viewing angle wise but perhaps even moreso for what you'd expect from "4k" PPD wise vs a 1400 - 1600p desktop screen).



.

View attachment 628627

I like the 48" on a stand immediately behind my desk. (It's also allowed me to have a retro padded desk pad set up where the previous display was, which is kind of fun.)

I do tend to favor the center of the screen for whatever task I'm working on with things like email/chat/directories in the top portion of the screen...

 

[SH1]

--------

I'm closing in on 16k hours on the CX (4 years old soon) and no noticeable burn-in, though perhaps when staring up close at solid colours, white and grey might look more dirty than they used to, hard to say, it's not like I have the original to compare with.

However I seem to be getting more and more dead pixels (few months ago I reported a single one here) near the top and bottom edge (they are black and right on the edge, so not actually noticeable unless looking for it). Probably like ~10 dead pixels total now, spread out alongside the top border, and 1 at the very bottom which I could make out with a bright taskbar. From reading around it's apparently fairly common (but so is temporary image retention and yet that never ever happened on my unit), no idea what's going on there.

Certainly still looks stellar and I have zero regrets when looking at the alternatives. Like even with what it cost me back then, I'm still 100% buying another OLED when I feel the time has come. It's not like my experience with LCD was flawless either. Most developed issues with much fewer hours than that.

Mine has some dead pixels around the edges too. I think it arrived with them. (It was NOS and had been in its box for over two years, if that makes a difference, but I think yeah such dead pixels are pretty common. I don't see them though in practice...)

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

There's an overlap for both 42" and 48" screens starting at around 3 feet away (36"), so either would be fine for me on their own stand. If I'm already viewing a 42inch screen at 32" view distance or more , 36" wouldn't be a big deal to me for a 48".

You really don't get down to optimal desk size until 32" to 36" 16:9 screen sizes. . maybe even a 38" screen if it was an uncommonly deep desk. (Viewing angle wise but perhaps even moreso for what you'd expect from "4k" PPD wise vs a 1400 - 1600p desktop screen).



.

View attachment 628627

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, this is a weird picture. If I'm staring dead on at the monitor, I'm probably around 25-26" away from it but I can easily see corner to corner with both eyes (if I close one and then close the other to test, I mean). Well, the lower right/left is occasionally blocked by my oversized slavic nose, but other than that: 42" definitely doesn't require 32" worth of distance. I really do wish, again, that it was curved. I had a good friend come over and try it out and he said he really liked the colors on it, but that otherwise it did just sort of feel like a normal display. And I get that. It just doesn't start feeling very immersive until either you get a strong curve or you have a 170" display like my projector provides (which comes with its own tradeoffs).

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't put this thing any further, though. IMO it loses a lot of immersion when you start getting it further away. It starts becoming even more of a "just another normal display" at that point.

OLED owners tend to babysit their monitors when they get them, and over time just keep using them like normal. When I used the LG CX 48" as a desktop monitor, after the initial configuration (hide taskbar, disable ASBL, black background, set up screensaver etc) the only thing I ever did was turn it off via the remote if I went to lunch.

I don't think the 48" is the best size for a desktop monitor though. It's so tall vertically that I always wanted to use the bottom 3/4 for my windows and leave the top just empty. The 42" should be easier to manage. I currently use the 48" from my couch for PC gaming and it works great like that.

I think you will be waiting a long time if you want a smaller 8K display and would be better off just buying something. The 42" LG Flex prices have come down a lot so maybe that would work for you?

I've already gotten to that point tbh. I just leave all of the "care" stuff on and other than that idgaf. Of course, I'm probably going to replace this particular unit due to its dead pixel, soon.

 

[Happy Hopping]

Elvn, I measure my 43" 4K just for you: it's 20 " from the screen to my chest. It's been like that since members here bought that Philip LG 4K. So 4 yr. on my Philip, and a few yr. on my Viewsonic

 

[elvn]

Unless I'm misunderstanding it, this is a weird picture. If I'm staring dead on at the monitor, I'm probably around 25-26" away from it but I can easily see corner to corner with both eyes (if I close one and then close the other to test, I mean). Well, the lower right/left is occasionally blocked by my oversized slavic nose, but other than that: 42" definitely doesn't require 32" worth of distance. I really do wish, again, that it was curved. I had a good friend come over and try it out and he said he really liked the colors on it, but that otherwise it did just sort of feel like a normal display. And I get that. It just doesn't start feeling very immersive until either you get a strong curve or you have a 170" display like my projector provides (which comes with its own tradeoffs).

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't put this thing any further, though. IMO it loses a lot of immersion when you start getting it further away. It starts becoming even more of a "just another normal display" at that point.


I've already gotten to that point tbh. I just leave all of the "care" stuff on and other than that idgaf. Of course, I'm probably going to replace this particular unit due to its dead pixel, soon.

I suspect most people are or were shoe-horning larger gaming tvs onto a desk just because it was the best quality screen for the buck with the feature set and screen technology (e.g. hdmi 2.1, VRR, 4k 120hz+, OLED, HDR, glossy) and there aren't or weren't any similar spec'd, priced, and well-reviewed screens available in sizes more suited to being mounted directly onto a desk. Up until very recently you couldn't get a 120hz VRR 4k OLED in under 42" or originally 48 size, and the price for the gaming TVs was a really great value so a lot of people were willing compromises on 48" and 42" oleds being oversized for being mounted on desk (that or some people decoupled them from the desk and mounted them separately somewhat farther away).

The people cramming 42" and 48" gaming tvs onto their desks often complained about the text quality thinking it was only because the pixel layout wasn't rgb, but it was made a lot worse because they were sitting so close and thus seeing much larger pixel sizes. So some people upscaled the text which then reduced their desktop/app real-estate estate in addition to the larger perceived pixel sizes.

. .

Any 4k screen of any size, when viewed at 60 to 50 degrees gets 64 to 77 PPD which is pretty tight. Even 64 degrees will at least get you 60PPD. On a 42" screen 64 deg, 60PPD is at a 29 inch view distance.

Sitting a big 4k screen up close in front of you is going to lower the picture quality compared to viewing it at a more optimal viewing angle with the finer perceived pixel sizes you'd expect from a 4k resolution, instead making a larger wall of 1400 - 1500p desktop monitor sized pixels perceptually and with the screen pushed outside of your human central view.

Some people like that and it's what suits their personal usage and personal taste/likes but it is a downgrade in picture quality from what the screen is capable of: downgrade in pixel density and a downgrade in viewing ergonomics (how much you have to dart your eyes/head/neck around), and exacerbates off-axis pixel issues too depending how wide of a viewing angle.

Perceived pixel size is relative. Below 60PPD imo is going back to well beneath what the upgrade to 4k pixel density represents.


View: https://imgur.com/ThKfS27



View: https://imgur.com/Q75tCdO


Central Viewing Angle:


View: https://i.imgur.com/TiMTkhi.png


More detailed breakdown of human viewing angles:


View: https://i.imgur.com/xe7QB1M.png


Optimal viewing angle for flat screen, with the majority of the screen within your central viewing angle. Also the least uniformity issues and distortion at the sides. It's the most visual-ergonomic vs eye/neck bending into your periperal too.



View: https://i.imgur.com/XvKRu9t.png


What happens when you sit nearer:


View: https://i.imgur.com/RUdpoK8.png


*In both of those two previous viewing angle examples, the central viewer is seeing the side pixels off-axis just as much as the person viewing the sides from outside of the screen.


60 PPD+ and within human central viewing angle or nearly so (plus one example of a screen stationed up closer with ~51 PPD) :


View: https://i.imgur.com/tJWvzHy.png

. . . . . . . . .

It's not the fine pixel grid you'd expect and should really be getting from a 4k screen when you are instead sitting too close to a larger 4k screen. The viewing angles will push the sides of the screen outside of your central human viewing angle too which can be annoying and even eye fatiguing seeking wise in dynamic action games and with far spaced hud elements, notifications, pointers, chat, maps etc. Plus it will make the non-uniform color issue a larger area on each side in solid bright fields of color (both OLED and VA have non uniformity issues off axis).


The biggest downgrade is the PPD though.

42" 4k screen at 24" view distance = **52 PPD**

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

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

. . .

Any 4k screen size at the human central 60 to 50 degree viewing angle is 64 to 77 PPD which is a lot sharper than getting esstially a larger field of 1500p desktop screen at ~ 52 PPD (or worse in some even nearer setups or with larger (48", 55", 4k screens mounted right onto desks).

 

[elvn]

I'd say the max to stay in the optimal viewing angles (and PPD for 4k) for a screen mounted inside of a desk surface's depth would be 32inch to 36" size. Maybe 38" if it's an uncommonly deep desk.38" 4k is a pretty good fit if it's a considerably deep enough desk but that's asking a lot distance wise screen surface to eyeballs.

38" 4k screen at

26.5 inch view distance = **60 PPD** = 64 deg viewing angle

24 inch view distance = 55 PPD = 69 deg viewing angle <--- below 60 PPD not that great

36" 4k at 60 deg viewing angle would be at 27 inch view distance. So 36 inch and 38 inch 4k screens would be pretty similar range.

You can get 64PPD to 70 PPD at a healthy 60 deg to 55 deg viewing angle on a 32" 16:9 screen at 24 inch to 27 inch view distance, respectively. So it's a much easier fit for optimal viewing at a desk, especially desks that aren't extraordinarily deep.

Any bigger than those and you are better off decoupling the screen from the desk entirely using a simple thin spine'd floor tv stand with a flat foot or caster wheels (or wall mounting but that's much less modular and less adjustable) and moving the desk farther back from the screen.


. . . . . . . .

That's in regard to full screen media and game viewing though, not the similar to a "multi monitor setup w/o bezels" desktop real-estate scenario where you might move your eyes and head around more to different app/window/"screen" spaces separately rather that viewing a full field show or game. Having parts of the screen space outside of your central viewing angle wouldn't be a big problem there, within reason, (but I have no interest in viewing a "4k" screen with pixel density less than 60PPD like a 1400 - 1500p screen's pixel sizes .. 8k would be better suited for that).

You don't move your head around as frequently in that scenario as you are focusing on one app at a time typically. In media or a game you are following the bouncing ball so to speak, or like watching a tennis match from the midline.

 

[Happy Hopping]

speaking of burn-in, see how thoughtful this woman is, she actually tell you that "burn in doesn't mean your monitor is on fire", I knew there are good reason we need women in this industry


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7V_OOu6B8

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Some people like that and it's what suits their personal usage and personal taste/likes but it is a downgrade in picture quality from what the screen is capable of: downgrade in pixel density and a downgrade in viewing ergonomics (how much you have to dart your eyes/head/neck around), and exacerbates off-axis pixel issues too depending how wide of a viewing angle.

Late, but "downgrade" in picture quality is completely subjective. I prefer things being closer and bigger. It definitely helps with immersion a lot, and I can see text much easier. Finer image is finer image, but bigger image is bigger image. Neither is better than the other. I far prefer to be able to see everything on my screen without having to squint at all, to having a finer image. It's much easier on the eyes.

Though, the subpixel layout issues, with relation to text, are unfortunate.

I'm still waffling on doing my exchange for the dead subpixel. God, I've been through this shit so many times, where you just keep exchanging and exchanging, and all of them have (a) dead pixel(s) somewhere. Ugh. Then again it's Costco. I might try one or two. Hopefully they don't do the "Amazon shit" where they view 2-3 exchanges as "well obviously you wouldn't be satisfied with any of them" (direct quote from customer support). No, I'd be quite fucking satisfied if these manufacturers could just get their shit together with quality control, thanks. Ugh.

 

[elvn]

It's more like 1500p pixel screen at 24" away, just a large field of it, when sitting up close mounted on a desk. That's a downgrade compared to what 4k can do. If you prefer that it's fine, or not fine really - pun intended. Text-ss and in-game aa are trying mask how large the pixel structures are already, and they do an ok job for what they can do. The 2d desktop's apps and imagery however typically get no such masking so will benefit even more from higher PPD. Non-standard pixel layout vs text just makes it even worse to use at ~ 1500p desktop screen sized pixels perceptually. OLED and VA's also have uniformity issues to the extreme periphery of the screen, esp. noticeable on solid fields of bright color, and that will grow larger/worse the more off-axis the pixels are from sitting nearer.

It is a downgrade in picture quality from what the screen is capable of: downgrade in pixel density and a downgrade in viewing ergonomics (how much you have to dart your eyes/head/neck around), and exacerbates off-axis pixel issues (non-unifomity of color, distortion) too depending how wide of a viewing angle.

42" 4k screen at 24" view distance, 75 deg angle = 52 PPD

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

32" 4k screen at 24" view distance, 60 deg viewing angle = 64 PPD
42" 4k screen at 29" view distance, 64 deg viewing angle = 60 PPD
42" 4k screen at 32" view distance, 60 deg viewing angle = 64 PPD

If you are squinting you might need corrective lenses. Nothing wrong with that. A 4k at 60 deg viewing angle doesn't cause me to squint at all at default text size. 60 degree viewing angle on any 4k would be the same as viewing a 32" 4k at 24" inch view distance. Even if you personally had to scale text to upsize it slightly 125%, though you'd lose a little desktop/app real-estate, it would still have higher, more expected 4k monitor pixel density for images, interfaces, games, etc. than if you had the screen closer where it had ~1500p desktop screen sized pixels to your perspective. I've had a 2560x1400p 32" screen on a desk, the pixel density of 24" view: 42PPD to 30" view: 51PPD at desk distances is a downgrade compared to 60 PPD+ on a 4k, even with the 32" screen having RGB pixel layout.

Mounting a gaming tv on a stand and setting the desk back a bit isn't hard to do. With a 42" you are only talking about dropping it back 6 to 8 inches (insert dirty joke here) to get 60PPD+ at 29 to 32 inch view distance.
(Maybe back +15" to 39 inch view distance if you wanted 50 deg viewing angle for competitive shooters though).

 

[improwise]

Is there still no way to disable ASBL like previous versions for the C3? I know there are workarounds with factory mode etc but they seem to come with drawbacks that in reality makes them useless in the long run.

 

[SH1]

Is there still no way to disable ASBL like previous versions for the C3? I know there are workarounds with factory mode etc but they seem to come with drawbacks that in reality makes them useless in the long run.

Not familiar with new workarounds, but looks like this fellow has found navigation to something similar to what the earlier models have:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhunCUzlDOQ

 

[improwise]

Not familiar with new workarounds, but looks like this fellow has found navigation to something similar to what the earlier models have:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhunCUzlDOQ

Thats is what I am refering to in my post, seems only to work until you shutdown/restart TV/PC.

 

[improwise]

Sadly, also owning a 42" C2 it is very obvious that the 42" C3 is much worse as a PC monitor unless there is a way to disable ASBL on it, it is like I was comparing the C2 to something like a C7 or similar, it just looks dated for desktop/productivity use.

 

[SH1]

Sorry to hear. If you've purchased a C3 and there's no way to defeat that dimming I'd suggest returning it if you can.

Supposedly the out of box behavior was improved since, but for the CX turning it off is essential for monitor use. (And maybe for all uses as that dimming algorithm is messed up...)

 

[Happy Hopping]

Sorry to hear. If you've purchased a C3 and there's no way to defeat that dimming I'd suggest returning it if you can.

Supposedly the out of box behavior was improved since, but for the CX turning it off is essential for monitor use. (And maybe for all uses as that dimming algorithm is messed up...)

what about the C4? can you turn it off?

 

[SH1]

what about the C4? can you turn it off?

Guess we'll find out.

 

[jarablue]

I have a C2 and can still disable it via the settings.

 

[GoldenTiger]

what about the C4? can you turn it off?

I too am a time traveler.

 

[Gatecrasher3000]

Guy does his best to compare the C series with the new qd-oled monitors:


View: https://youtu.be/VaX_dEvO1FA?si=kTGKby_fHV8mQBNt

 

[tongshadow]

The Alien is an upgrade in every way, unless you dont care about sound quality, screen size and TV features. 120hz isnt enough for shooters, 240hz is a noticeable upgrade in my experience.

 

[elvn]

The Alien is an upgrade in every way, unless you dont care about sound quality, screen size and TV features. 120hz isnt enough for shooters, 240hz is a noticeable upgrade in my experience.

- Sound? if you are using built in speakers you prob don't care about sound quality much

-Size and PPD for a desk is definitely improvement for people mounting monitors on a desk = Pro if not able to adjust for size, otherwise = Same
(he says "higher pixel density", but they are equal on pixel size ratio to screen size. If you can change viewing distance they'd both be capable of the same PPD and the same exact viewing angles).

- Somewhat brighter (1000nit in 10% window) = pro , and though I haven't seen any numbers it prob has some higher, improved 25% and 50% of the screen brightness levels for different durations. . but the alienware has worse (brighter) black depths


- Matte "semi gloss" Layer. The alienware has an ag abraded outer layer that "activates", diffusing light back at you. That will be a sheen/texture or granularity thing (sometimes called dirty screen effect 'DSC'), and when "activated" by high enough ambient lighting, or direct lighting, it lifts the black depths to grey-blacks (unless you are in a dim enough to dark viewing environment but the layer looking effect may still be there).
reviewer in that video just posted: "You guys are probably saying, wow that alienware looks like junk with the lights on - and that is true to a certain extent"

SS From Incredible - Alienware AW3225QF 4K 240Hz Glossy QD OLED Review - The Display Guy

-QD OLED may also have inherently worse black levels by default due to (ambient light hitting?) the the QD layer.



- the alienware currently has a bug with dolby vision apparently activating on HDR content that isn't dolby vision sometimes. (prob be a fw update eventually)

- alienware isn't W RGB, so no white subpixel throwing off color space accuracy/calibration = Pro

edit: The alienware AW3225QF isn't standard RGB layout so doesn't play well with text sub-sampling. The alienware QD OLED is still using pentile ~ triangle layout of R - G - B - pixels so it will technically have text fringing. However, the fact that it is 32 inches means that compared to a 42inch+ gaming tv shoe-horned onto a desk, the 32 inch screen will have a higher PPD so the text fringing should be shrunken enough by the smaller perceived pixel size. Similarly, a 42"+ LG OLED gaming tv decoupled from a desk and viewed at the same viewing angle will have the same PPD so this = Same as long as you are able to control/adjust your viewing distance accordingly on larger 4k screens.
.. 32" 4k at 24inch to 27 inch view distance: 64 PPD to 70 PPD
.. 42" 4k at 32 inch to 35 inch view distance: 64 PPD to 70 PPD

- alienware is 240Hz , but there are a bunch of 240hz-at-4k screens due out. Not that big of a big deal unless your game is capable of running over 120fps with VRR - (but I'm looking forward to a 240hz gaming tv eventually all the same ).
. . Also, online gaming is limited by the way online server's/MP game code and latency resolve so the competitive advantage is largely overblown outside of lan/local gameplay (yet highly marketed as a 1:1 relationship to online gameplay).
. . 240fpsHz will cut the FoV movement blur by half compared to 120fpsHz though, so if you can achieve those kinds of framerates it'll definitely look better (but will still blur, just half as smearingy as compared to 120fpsHz).
. . Motion definition, more dots per dotted line curve, more unique animation pages in a flip book that is flipping faster -> prob has diminishing returns somewhere after 200fpsHz or so but 240fpsHz is still an appreciable improvement in that facet over 120fpsHz

- it has an active cooling fan
. . which is probably not modularly capable of being replaced easily w/o some DiY/opening the housing if ever needed someday vs fan bearing noise, clicking, or failure.
. . still not a huge con and prob helps avoid burning the screen down as quickly for an OLED screen, QD OLED, meant for static desktop/app use part of the time, plus pushing 240fpsHz at times, but worth mentioning that it has a fan.


A few other minor complaints I've seen posted:

- No DP 2.1

- No DLDSR, No way to disable DSC
. . . That might be one of the reasons why displays like the samsung Q95NC 57" 7680x2160 240hz screen has a 120hz mode option in the OSD. The 120hz mode might alllow you to run without DSC for devices and features that are incompatible with DSC.
. . . per the user manual for the monitor, there is no DSR support (Page # 16)

- apparently integer scaling is also disabled because you can't turn off DSC.
. . the samsung 8k gaming tvs are probably the same way since you can't run 1:1 pixel resolutions on those (e.g, 4k, 5k, 6k and various uw resolutions letterboxed at higher fps ), due to DSC always being on with the 8k gaming tvs. The 8k gaming tvs will automatically scale everything to the full field 8k of the screen and that's probably due to the fact that you can't turn DSC off.

- No Brightness/Contrast controls in HDR mode from some reports

- some reports of a gamma adjustment bug

- pixel shift can push the screen too far?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Every screen has it's pros and cons though. There are a few in there that are pretty big cons and would be deal-breakers or big trade-offs for me, but not every single one mentioned is.

 

[jarablue]

To me the C2 and C3s are great values and great performance for pc displays in comparison to what is out there. No wonder people talk about them so often, they're very well worth it.

 

[tongshadow]

- Sound? if you are using built in speakers you prob don't care about sound quality much

But you can't deny the C2 has superior speakers to any monitor, and even to some TVs.

 

[kasakka]

But you can't deny the C2 has superior speakers to any monitor, and even to some TVs.

It's not much of a brag though, even good TV speakers tend to be terrible when put against any half-decent speaker system. TV speakers are a convenience so you can get some sound, but unless space is at an absolute premium, why not just get some old hifi speakers and a stereo amp or AV receiver for little money? Mine are over 10 years old and still kicking.

 

[MistaSparkul]

To me the C2 and C3s are great values and great performance for pc displays in comparison to what is out there. No wonder people talk about them so often, they're very well worth it.

If you can find them for ~$799 yeah absolutely they are killer value. I'm just disappointed by the fact that the C series has gotten zero major improvements over the last 2 years, but I think that's going to change now that we finally have some kind of competition in the smaller sized OLED space with the 32" 240Hz QD OLEDs. Yeah yeah I know they aren't really direct competitors since one is a monitor while the other is a TV and there is a huge size difference between the two but still, this is the first time any smaller sized 4K high refresh OLED has come out so even it's not direct competition, it's still some form of competition to the C series and I really hope LG gets their lunch money taken by these new QD OLEDs so they can finally stop sitting on their asses and give the C series some big upgrades.

 

[chameleoneel]

- pixel shift can push the screen too far?

Pretty sure all of the panels have extra pixels, to avoid this exact issue. Maybe its only LG panels, though. If I think about, I've only heard about it with LG panel monitors.

 

[tongshadow]

TV speakers are a convenience so you can get some sound, but unless space is at an absolute premium.

Afraid this is the case here. I have 2 more 42" displays on each side for extended desktop and other systems, one of which already has a speaker system.

 

[elvn]

Pretty sure all of the panels have extra pixels, to avoid this exact issue. Maybe its only LG panels, though. If I think about, I've only heard about it with LG panel monitors.

I was just parroting a complaint I heard in one of the owner threads in the interest of showing as many pros/cons as I could in that reply. I wasn't complaining that pixel shift technology exists in oleds.

Here is the way it happens, (on the left and on the right eventually) on the alienware from some user reports. Could be considered a problem or trade-off for some desktop/app usages.


View: https://streamable.com/j90b57

 

[chameleoneel]

I was just parroting a complaint I heard in one of the owner threads in the interest of showing as many pros/cons as I could in that reply. I wasn't complaining that pixel shift technology exists in oleds.

Here is the way it happens, (on the left and on the right eventually) on the alienware from some user reports. Could be considered a problem or trade-off for some desktop/app usages.


View: https://streamable.com/j90b57

Right. It seems at least that panel doesn't have extra pixels.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Some people like that and it's what suits their personal usage and personal taste/likes but it is a downgrade in picture quality from what the screen is capable of: downgrade in pixel density and a downgrade in viewing ergonomics (how much you have to dart your eyes/head/neck around), and exacerbates off-axis pixel issues too depending how wide of a viewing angle.

What any TV/monitor is "capable of" is static. It has a certain amount of pixels spread out across a certain surface area, with a certain AG coating and a certain pixel type and structure (and depending on curve/flat, shape). What you're saying is the equivalent of, "well you can just get a 32 inch screen and put it closer and it's just as good." Not exactly, because your brain can detect how close a picture is along with what it's displaying, but close enough. This sounds like yet another "but muh PPI" argument that I've seen from people trashing the 45" curved 3440x1440 OLEDs (very likely without ever having given them an honest try themselves). These are all just numbers. You can't let that decide your subjective experience. I like my images closer up because it's more immersive for gaming. The pixel density doesn't change, just the perceived pixel density. There are tradeoffs to both of the things you're talking about. And pixel density isn't the end all be all. Almost every comment that I read that has tried the aforementioned 45" display has loved it, despite its objectively lower PPI. Speaking about one or the other like it's just objectively better is complete bullshit. You can claim "this number is higher", but that's all. Like half of your post is just numbers, it's equivalent to someone taking the Harman Curve as the word of god for all headphones. It's not. It's just a numerical suggestion based on some observations. It can and will not fit all ears and people.

If I could get a less intrusive version of the matte coating on the 45" ultrawide from LG/Acer/Corsair, I would have very likely kept it over this 42" TV, despite its much lower PPI. If you have this display far enough back as you're talking about... well, my friend that came over and looked at it while hanging out over the weekend said it best, "The colors pop and it looks great, but it looks like any other display to me overall." There's nothing special about it. There's no curve for more immersion, and its refresh rate isn't nearly as high. It's just an OLED with a great picture and thankfully a great glossy coating (which is my main reason for choosing it, along with the price), especially if you have it at normal distance. But while we were playing Forza, I could tell that he could "feel" the speed of the vehicle with it that close. I think the ideal distance to me is where, given a picture, it fills up most or the entirety of my main vision. As far as desktop use, I actually appreciate it making me change my neck position while looking around. It's a good way to keep from getting a stiff neck. As long as I can't see individual pixels during regular use, then to me it's perfectly fine. Comics and shows are also much more immersive at this distance.

As soon as I can get a better 45" ultrawide to replace this thing with, I might be doing that. Well, maybe not immediately, if it's over $2k USD, which it probably will be (and will probably be a 5k display, so good luck running it even on a 4090...). This will then be relegated to my exercise room.

If you are squinting you might need corrective lenses. Nothing wrong with that. A 4k at 60 deg viewing angle doesn't cause me to squint at all at default text size. 60 degree viewing angle on any 4k would be the same as viewing a 32" 4k at 24" inch view distance. Even if you personally had to scale text to upsize it slightly 125%, though you'd lose a little desktop/app real-estate, it would still have higher, more expected 4k monitor pixel density for images, interfaces, games, etc. than if you had the screen closer where it had ~1500p desktop screen sized pixels to your perspective. I've had a 2560x1400p 32" screen on a desk, the pixel density of 24" view: 42PPD to 30" view: 51PPD at desk distances is a downgrade compared to 60 PPD+ on a 4k, even with the 32" screen having RGB pixel layout.

I already have glasses and they work fine, so stop assuming things. The prescription is recent. What you're completely failing to acknowledge while jumping straight to conclusions is that some apps have absolutely shit text scaling options and/or don't play well with Windows scaling to begin with. Or make it hard to adjust text size. Either way, it's not something I want to fuck with. If text is too large, it's still a lot easier on the eyes than text being too small. Up to a point anyway. Obviously at a certain size, it gets stupid. But at this distance, I can comfortably keep this display at 4k resolution and 100% scaling and have absolutely no difficulties viewing or coding (or viewing websites with poor scaling and text choices...). I can even reduce text size, allowing me to look at more code at once. Most coding themes are also dark, which works very well with OLED's absolute darks.

Thankfully, I at least haven't had another episode of light sensitivity with this thing. I've more or less gotten used to its brightness, both for desktop and game use. I think part of the issue is that I was playing Empyrion before, and it had a lot of stupidly bright suns on completely black backgrounds, which was hard to look at.

Sadly, also owning a 42" C2 it is very obvious that the 42" C3 is much worse as a PC monitor unless there is a way to disable ASBL on it, it is like I was comparing the C2 to something like a C7 or similar, it just looks dated for desktop/productivity use.

I haven't really noticed this outside of when I actually had static content on my screen and wasn't using it. Then simply moving my mouse on it immediately woke it up. There was only one isolated incident where it sort of refused to push the brightness back up. So perhaps recent firmware has improved by leaps and bounds in that category.

Club3D HDMI cables are the legit stuff, which isnt insanely priced.

https://www.amazon.com/Club3D-CAC-1371-Ultra-Speed-Male-Male/dp/B07VK7JWH5/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=36Y0OS5C048HZ&keywords=club3d+hdmi&qid=1702793381&sprefix=club3d+hdmi,aps,730&sr=8-2&th=1&psc=1

Again, thanks for recommending this cable. Since switching to it, I haven't had any more episodes of my screen displaying weird artifacts or disconnecting. Rock solid. I should have just went Club3D from the getgo, I've used it several times in all my other displays.



As far as pixel shifting, it's kind of annoying in this LG C3. UI elements often get cut off during desktop use. I'm still not annoyed enough at it to outright turn it off, but it is pretty bothersome.

 

[jarablue]

Yea I am glad I didn't upgrade to a C3. I'll stick with my C2 being able to disable shit in the service menu for dimming. Seems like the C2 is better for pc monitor stuff than the C3.

 

[elvn]

What any TV/monitor is "capable of" is static.

Idk how you think a ~ 1500p desktop monitor sized field of pixels isn't a downgrade scenario in pixel density from 60PPD + that you typically get from 4k screens in ordinary setups.
That's not even taking into account how the picture degrades from an overly wide viewing angle since the extreme side pixels are more off-axis.
That and the fact that viewing ergonomics can be strained.

1440p to 1500p desktop monitor equivalent PPD from an oversized 4k plopped onto a desk results in measurably worse picture quality to your eyes/brain than 60PPD+ 4k scenarios.
That, and the wide viewing angle degrees resulting in a larger # of (wider amount of ) off-axis pixels and by a greater amount of degrees to the ends: exacerbating uniformity issues (OLED and VA), and distortion from long angled view depending how near. Measurably worse
The degrees you have to look to the sides outside of your central viewing angle is also measurable, so the viewing ergonomics are also measurably worse by that metric.


Those are tradeoffs using one like that but if you are good with using it like that, it's your screen. However It's a big reason a lot of people were vocal about the lack of 32" 4k oleds or so in size when the 48" LG OLED gaming TVs hit, and why a bunch of people waited for or switched to 42" OLEDs from 48" ones just to get a little closer to at least a slightly less extreme tradeoff in PPD and viewing ergonomics when sitting the screen on a desk compared to a 48" 4k. The non-standard subpixel layout for text just flags the lower PPD of an oversized 4k on a desk even moreso, making it even more obvious of an issue. The 32" 4k screens, even though pentile and not playing nice with text sub-sampling, should have much less of a problem with text fringing and perceived pixel sizes in general because they are much higher PPD (much smaller perceived pixel sizes) at desk distances. And from the early reviews I've seen of them, that is the case.


.. 42" 4k screen at 24" view distance, 75 deg angle = 52 PPD

.. 32" 4k at 24inch to 27 inch desk mounted view distance: 64 PPD to 70 PPD
.. 42" 4k at 32 inch to 35 inch decoupled from desk view : 64 PPD to 70 PPD


. . . .

It really comes down to whether you think stacking bezel-less monitor space around a ~1500p screen until you get a larger field of perceptually 1500p desktop screen sized pixels to your perspective, and at a near to a wall viewing angle, isn't lower picture quality compared to a 64 to 70 PPD 4k screen in your central viewing angle.

The text thing alone indicates it's measurably better picture quality at the higher PPD people are getting with the newer 32" 4k screens on a desk, so the opposite is true, the lower PPD scenario is measurably worse. The text issue just make it much more obvious. "1500p" is not unusable, or horrible or anything mind you (non-standard pixel layouts vs text issues aside anyway). Plenty of people used similar lower pixel density for years until something better came along. For the gaming tv's, the available OLED size limitations vs the very good specs/tech and pricing made a lot more people become willing to make some compromises on size, PPD, viewing angles, (and non-rgb OLED text) on a desk than otherwise would have, had a more desktop oriented/sized screen been out with the same tech/specs and pricing deals.