Hardware Unboxed puts an LG OLED TV through their monitor tests. RTINGS shows up in the comments.

Nothing really new here that hasn't been said in a hundred other views or debated thousands of times in the LG Oled thread. If you can deal with the huge negatives of having a dim 48" display, you won't find a faster or contrastier display.
 
burburbur said:
Nothing really new here that hasn't been said in a hundred other views or debated thousands of times in the LG Oled thread. If you can deal with the huge negatives of having a dim 48" display, you won't find a faster or contrastier display.
Click to expand...
Eh, its still pretty interesting to see the results when run through tests normally used on monitors. RTings did, yeah. But Hardware Unboxed has a different presentation and I think by the end of the video, it really highlights how bad monitors are. And the insanely obvious opportunity for an overlap product.
 
chameleoneel said:
Eh, its still pretty interesting to see the results when run through tests normally used on monitors. RTings did, yeah. But Hardware Unboxed has a different presentation and I think by the end of the video, it really highlights how bad monitors are. And the insanely obvious opportunity for an overlap product.
Click to expand...
The problem with LCD has *always* been the tradeoff you have to make between image quality and refresh rates/response times. Simply put, LCD is pretty bad at the actual "displaying an image" part of being a display. Frankly, CRTs were superior, aside from their obvious bulk issues.
 
gamerk2 said:
The problem with LCD has *always* been the tradeoff you have to make between image quality and refresh rates/response times. Simply put, LCD is pretty bad at the actual "displaying an image" part of being a display. Frankly, CRTs were superior, aside from their obvious bulk issues.
Click to expand...
sure but I think a lot of people are not necessarily as informed as you are. And after a couple of years of reviews on high refresh monitors and looking at $350 - $1000 monitors---------probably think that's about as good as it gets. Or may even still not understand that even though a TV isn't called a "monitor", it may still have benefits over a monitor for certain situations, etc.
 
gamerk2 said:
The problem with LCD has *always* been the tradeoff you have to make between image quality and refresh rates/response times. Simply put, LCD is pretty bad at the actual "displaying an image" part of being a display. Frankly, CRTs were superior, aside from their obvious bulk issues.
Click to expand...
As I recall there were still RAMDAC related tradeoffs of resolution/color depth and refresh rate. CRT flicker was considerably worse than PWM flicker in terms of eye strain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Kueller said:
As I recall there were still RAMDAC related tradeoffs of resolution/color depth and refresh rate. CRT flicker was considerably worse than PWM flicker in terms of eye strain.
Click to expand...

I remember 72Hz being the minimum refresh rate you wanted to run at any resolution, with >75 Hz preferred and 85 Hz being the ideal. Ahhh the good 'ol days.
 
Valnar said:
I remember 72Hz being the minimum refresh rate you wanted to run at any resolution, with >75 Hz preferred and 85 Hz being the ideal. Ahhh the good 'ol days.
Click to expand...
I still remember the first time cranking my monitor up to 90hz in quake 2... I wonder if oled will come close to the clarity of crt when I finally get one.
 
Valnar said:
I remember 72Hz being the minimum refresh rate you wanted to run at any resolution, with >75 Hz preferred and 85 Hz being the ideal. Ahhh the good 'ol days.
Click to expand...

You're probably thinking of general web browsing and work. Yeah, 60hz looks bad when you're looking at a big white webpage.

But I still use a CRT, and 60hz is fine for games. Like Control will put a hurting on your PC at high settings, so I ran it at 60fps. And when you're running at 60fps, you need to have your monitor at 60hz to get good motion clarity. It looked fantastic. Never noticed flicker.

And keep in mind, when you were growing up, all those CRT TV's were 60hz. We managed to deal with it, up through the Playstation 2 era.
 
Enhanced Interrogator said:
You're probably thinking of general web browsing and work. Yeah, 60hz looks bad when you're looking at a big white webpage.

But I still use a CRT, and 60hz is fine for games. Like Control will put a hurting on your PC at high settings, so I ran it at 60fps. And when you're running at 60fps, you need to have your monitor at 60hz to get good motion clarity. It looked fantastic. Never noticed flicker.

And keep in mind, when you were growing up, all those CRT TV's were 60hz. We managed to deal with it, up through the Playstation 2 era.
Click to expand...

I remember the CRT days well. I had a PC in 1990. 60 Hz was painful regardless and I remember the flicker well. I guess I never noticed any game issues with 75 or 85.
 
Valnar said:
I remember the CRT days well. I had a PC in 1990. 60 Hz was painful regardless and I remember the flicker well. I guess I never noticed any game issues with 75 or 85.
Click to expand...
I still blame a bad CRT for having to get glasses quite early in my life as well as occasional headaches. 60 Hz on CRT is not pleasant and neither are focus issues.
 
I agree with Hardware Unboxed fully. It is the best 120hz TV that can be used as a monitor albeit the drawbacks he mentioned & how it would not be a fit choice for him & I agree with that also.
 
Ergonomically, BFI or strobing should be used at 120Hz+ for most PC use.

60Hz BFI is a useful feature NOT intended for Windows Desktop use, but for retro-friendly motion blur reduction.

For example, YouTube 60fps, Sonic Hedgehog, 8-bit and 16-bit consoles, sports TV, or anything where motion blur is the worse evil over flicker in fast-scrolling or fast-panning at 60fps.

There is over 60 years of legacy 60fps 60Hz content that can't be easily be motion-blur-reduced by other means (than strobing or interpolation techniques).

Very few displays support 60 Hz single strobe but LG has standardized 60 Hz strobe for their OLEDs. Other examples that have retro-friendly strobing are BenQ XL2411P, ViewSonic XG2431, and Eve Spectrum 4K144. Users should still have the optional choice to turn on/off strobing for any Hz that they wish -- including intermediate refresh rates such as 72 Hz or 85 Hz too. (Any-Hz strobing capability is one of the criterion of Blur Busters Approved 2.0 because 60 Hz is too flickery and 120 Hz is too GPU hungry for many at max resolution).

Right Tool for Right Job!
 
Last edited:
And there are plenty of 60fps locked games still being released. Like fighting games and platformers.

And console ports in general. You can't expect Platinum Games to rework their whole game engine to support arbitrary frame rates if their PC port is only going to move at $5 during steam sales. Of course it would be nice if all game studios targeted arbitrary frame rates from the start, but with studios that are 90% console-focused, you're going to get 60fps capped games on occasion.
 
Enhanced Interrogator said:
And there are plenty of 60fps locked games still being released. Like fighting games and platformers.

And console ports in general. You can't expect Platinum Games to rework their whole game engine to support arbitrary frame rates if their PC port is only going to move at $5 during steam sales. Of course it would be nice if all game studios targeted arbitrary frame rates from the start, but with studios that are 90% console-focused, you're going to get 60fps capped games on occasion.
Click to expand...
Japanese game devs in general seem to really struggle with PC as a platform. There's just so many stupid things about PC ports for Japanese made games. Hardcoded resolution lists, no ultrawide support, 60 fps locks, keyboard/mouse control problems, various performance issues etc. For a lot of this stuff you could probably google for standard solutions to querying and assigning resolutions based on what the hardware supports. I wonder if this is some language barrier and/or company culture issue underneath it all.

For example I have played through modded Sekiro at 120 fps super ultrawide several times and there was zero issue with the game engine supporting this, but out of the box you cannot choose anything but 16:9 resolutions and fps is locked to 60.
 
kasakka said:
Japanese game devs in general seem to really struggle with PC as a platform. There's just so many stupid things about PC ports for Japanese made games. Hardcoded resolution lists, no ultrawide support, 60 fps locks, keyboard/mouse control problems, various performance issues etc. For a lot of this stuff you could probably google for standard solutions to querying and assigning resolutions based on what the hardware supports. I wonder if this is some language barrier and/or company culture issue underneath it all.

For example I have played through modded Sekiro at 120 fps super ultrawide several times and there was zero issue with the game engine supporting this, but out of the box you cannot choose anything but 16:9 resolutions and fps is locked to 60.
Click to expand...
I don't think they necessarily struggle, they just haven't learned new programming paradigms for games. The issue seems to be more often than not that the entire game is being updated in a single loop while newer games are doing things like physics on a separate thread at a higher speed than rendering is able to finish. To be fair it is much easier to make everything run at the same rate, including art assets, than it is to update and sync everything dynamically. When your biggest platform is consoles that still typically run at a fixed 30, 60, or 120 FPS then there really isn't an incentive to progress beyond that.
 
Enhanced Interrogator said:
And there are plenty of 60fps locked games still being released. Like fighting games and platformers.
[…]
but with studios that are 90% console-focused, you're going to get 60fps capped games on occasion.
Click to expand...
With new 120 Hz + VRR consoles, they will have to learn new programming paradigms over time.
 
CRT's had quite a lot of issues:
- sharpness
- geometry
- ANSI contrast ratio
- typically low brightness
- need to use light blocking filters reducing maximum brightness
- inherent flickering
- manufacturing cost
- bulkiness
- weight
- power consumption
- x-rays, high voltage and all the good safety related stuff ; )
- screen burn-in
- guns loosing emission
- RGB convergence
- susceptibility to magnetic fields

I love all my CRTs but it is not like we do not have better technology these days than CRT :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top