LG 32GS95UE – OLED 31.5″ with 4K @ 240Hz and 1080p @ 480Hz Support - The death knell of LCD panels

MistaSparkul said:
Do you even own these QD OLED monitors at all?
Click to expand...
What is this supposed to mean? That I need to own something to have an opinion instead of relying on professionals? Or that good reviewers cant be trusted?
SoCali said:
Anyone who thinks that 400nits is adequate when a highlight demands 1000+ are the ones necessitating medical intervention.
Click to expand...
And that's it, OLEDs beat LCDs at every other relevant performance metric. Prove me otherwise.
 
tongshadow said:
What is this supposed to mean? That I need to own something to have an opinion instead of relying on professionals? Or that good reviewers cant be trusted?

And that's it, OLEDs beat LCDs at every other relevant performance metric. Prove me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! The only thing your "professional" reviewers do is run some quick tests and then put out a review. The people who actually own these monitors alongside Mini LED displays or OLED TVs and use them everyday will catch things that reviewers might miss and can give different perspectives. If you just looked around to see what people who own both these highend OLED monitors alongside highend OLED TVs or Mini LED monitors then you'd actually realize that these OLED monitors are dim as shit for HDR and need a ton of improvement. What they are good at though is delivering a combination of high res + high motion clarity that cannot be found anywhere else. For HDR, they are just ok at best.
 
For HDR I'd argue the OLED monitors are bad. I don't even consider them ok because they are so limited. Super low APL they are amazing, mid APL they aren't even decent (325nits 25% window) and high APL worthless. Average that out across content.

The new Horizon (after HDR fix) is a great example of a game where all of these OLED monitors just fall apart. You spend 90% of the game outdoors with a skybox and it really looks no better than SDR as a result.

I dunno about everyone else but my definition of a great HDR display is not one that does HDR justice sometimes.

Motion clarity and refresh rate are where these monitors are champs. HDR absolutely not.
 
Forreal HFW has zero pop on my MSI. I just play on my InnoCN since I can't get over 144fps with everything maxed + DLAA.
 
SoCali said:
For HDR I'd argue the OLED monitors are bad. I don't even consider them ok because they are so limited. Super low APL they are amazing, mid APL they aren't even decent (325nits 25% window) and high APL worthless. Average that out across content.

The new Horizon (after HDR fix) is a great example of a game where all of these OLED monitors just fall apart. You spend 90% of the game outdoors with a skybox and it really looks no better than SDR as a result.

I dunno about everyone else but my definition of a great HDR display is not one that does HDR justice sometimes.

Motion clarity and refresh rate are where these monitors are champs. HDR absolutely not.
Click to expand...

OLED HDR is decent in that they can do uniform pixel lighting down to the hairline pixel side by side with other color levels and down to "infinite blacks" which creates side by side pixel by pixel contrast and maintains detail. That side by side isn't just object and areas based in scenes either, it's down to the detail and texture within objects. OLED HDR is good in highlights, isolated light sources, and details rather than large bright mids (and highs) scene areas.

FALD are still swiss cheese of lighting zones, a tetris brickwork of backlights where the contrast drops in darker colors and dark areas around the bright backlights (and sometimes "radiates" the other way dimming a brighter object and making it less detail, paled). They are non-uniform, making localized brightness gradients of zones if not outright blooming at times. It works really well for what they are able to do with the tech, but it's a tradeoff either way, among several other tradeoffs overall between the two techs.

I may even end up with a 8k 900D fald sometime before I get a 5000 series gpu, so I'm not bashing FALDs or writing them off really, both techs are using hacks to ameliorate their faults as best they can but neither is perfect by a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Too bad the rear world scene HDR brightness is below the QD-OLED's and the colors are meh, otherwise I'd get it. 480 Hz OLED for fast paced FPS has to be amazing. And then you have 4K for desktop and slower games.
 
Last edited:
The only hope is the Asus version since they push WOLED panels to spec vs being super conservative for longevity like LG.
 
As expected, a 480hz OLED destroys any 500hz+ LCD because of response time. You can clearly see the eyes of the alien without motion blur reduction techniques.


View: https://i.imgur.com/xILPF7x.jpeg

To reach similar motion to the OLED, an LCD would need to be at least 700hz and have pixel response below ~1.5ms throughout all GTG transitions. And this is a pipe-dream for any LCD because the fastest one can barely average 2.3ms:


View: https://i.imgur.com/ok8XaxL.jpeg

If this isnt proof that LCD is a dead-end technology when it comes to display performance, then I dont know what is.
 
Well that review was a massive let down.

I've seen a couple other reviewers show a live testing of 800ish nits on a 10% window in their video which is more expected for a woled so little surprised to see hardware unboxed have such a different result.
 
Should wait for other reviews because HWUnboxed seems to always demonstrate some discrepancy.
 
LMAO they gimped this monitor's HDR even harder than QD-OLED.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1025.png
    IMG_1025.png
    488.2 KB · Views: 2
LG desperately needs PHOLED. All this MLA+ stuff is for nothing if this is the end result, 1300 nits my ass. They are basically just finding bandaid solutions to an outdated technology at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
MistaSparkul said:
LG desperately needs PHOLED. All this MLA+ stuff is for nothing if this is the end result, 1300 nits my ass. They are basically just finding bandaid solutions to an outdated technology at this point.
Click to expand...
It's baffling to me that they plan to launch RGB panels next year. As you mentioned previously it's hard to believe that won't result in a drop in brightness.
 
Lava Lamp Freak said:
It's baffling to me that they plan to launch RGB panels next year. As you mentioned previously it's hard to believe that won't result in a drop in brightness.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think the move to RGB will finally give us great HDR on OLED monitors. So what we have now is either this trash WOLED that isn't making use of it's MLA+ tech, or the QD OLEDs which are just as bad because Peak1000 mode has finally been proven to be even dimmer than TB400 thanks to horrible PQ-EOTF tracking in that mode.

1711560146508.png


What a crappy state for HDR on OLED monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
There's no way that the 450nits it's going on a 10% window is correct. I'm expecting it to be fixed otherwise it makes no sense relative to the 27 they just released.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yeah I don't think the move to RGB will finally give us great HDR on OLED monitors. So what we have now is either this trash WOLED that isn't making use of it's MLA+ tech, or the QD OLEDs which are just as bad because Peak1000 mode has finally been proven to be even dimmer than TB400 thanks to horrible PQ-EOTF tracking in that mode.

View attachment 644136

What a crappy state for HDR on OLED monitors.
Click to expand...

Could be better but don't really think oled is in a crappy state.

I really think we need to see some more reviews on this monitor. I don't really trust the brightness numbers here as every other reviewer has shown way higher peak brightness in 10% windows.

QD peak 1000 mode is dimmer in full screen whites but not necessarily a bad mode or a worse experience in real content.

Darker content - HDR1000 mode for a better HDR experience
Brighter content - HDR400 mode for a better HDR experience

Just setup 2 HDR config profiles and flip em
 
Hypez said:
Could be better but don't really think oled is in a crappy state.

I really think we need to see some more reviews on this monitor. I don't really trust the brightness numbers here as every other reviewer has shown way higher peak brightness in 10% windows.

QD peak 1000 mode is dimmer in full screen whites but not necessarily a bad mode or a worse experience in real content.

Darker content - HDR1000 mode for a better HDR experience
Brighter content - HDR400 mode for a better HDR experience

Just setup 2 HDR config profiles and flip em
Click to expand...

Why should I do that? If the monitor is capable of 1000 nits then it should just do it properly in the first place. As TFTC mentions, this is something that should be able to be fixed with a firmware update to more fine tune the EOTF tracking. That piss poor tracking isn't what one should expect.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Why should I do that? If the monitor is capable of 1000 nits then it should just do it properly in the first place. As TFTC mentions, this is something that should be able to be fixed with a firmware update to more fine tune the EOTF tracking. That piss poor tracking isn't what one should expect.
Click to expand...
Couldn't tell you why it works like that other then probably how the algorithm is designed to identify and bump up highlights.

It's been like this for over 2 years on the AW34 so I wouldn't bet on it getting a firmware update.
 
Yeah I don't think they will fix it. Every QD-OLED monitor to date behaves like this. No clue why it took 2 years for a reviewer to actually investigate but it just goes to show that they really don't use the displays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hypez
like this
The biggest take aware from the Hardware Unboxed review is apparently the LG doesn't have any sort of burn in warranty?

That should be a deal breaker for almost everyone unless you only plan to game and limit all static images.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah I don't think they will fix it. Every QD-OLED monitor to date behaves like this. No clue why it took 2 years for a reviewer to actually investigate but it just goes to show that they really don't use the displays.
Click to expand...

Yeah this was almost instantly noticeable when I switched over from Peak1000 to TB400, anyone with working eyes should've caught on. Anyways the whole idea of switching back and fourth between HDR modes also isn't viable for the reason that many games are a mix of low and high APL content. Take Horizon Forbidden West for example, high APL during daytime and low APL during nighttime. Not every game is like RE4 Remake where it's ONLY low APL. So what am I supposed to do when I'm playing HFW, switch my HDR mode every time the day/night cycle changes? :ROFLMAO:
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yeah this was almost instantly noticeable when I switched over from Peak1000 to TB400, anyone with working eyes should've caught on. Anyways the whole idea of switching back and fourth between HDR modes also isn't viable for the reason that many games are a mix of low and high APL content. Take Horizon Forbidden West for example, high APL during daytime and low APL during nighttime. Not every game is like RE4 Remake where it's ONLY low APL. So what am I supposed to do when I'm playing HFW, switch my HDR mode every time the day/night cycle changes? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Its so dumb. I mentioned it back in the AW3423DW thread when I got mine soon after launch and even back then everyone just blindly suggested HDR1000 mode while I complained about how much it would dim the screen in Doom Eternal. I still can't wrap my head around why they are so hellbent on satisfying marketing departments with both the HDR400 cert and 1000nit peak brightness bullet point if neither can be achieved in a single mode instead of just making it a better product by ditching the HDR400 certification and providing a mode that caps peaks to like 800 but eliminates the ABL behavior of HDR1000 mode. It may necessitate being just under 250nits full field but its much better than the huge 100nit full field dips of HDR1000 mode.
 
Monitors Unboxed got their hands on it and it looks... not super impressive other than the 480Hz features. It doesn't look BAD but when there's the QD-OLEDs for about the same price it isn't as tempting. The HDR performance doesn't seem to be any brighter, and in fact seems to be worse, than the QD-OLEDs which is perplexing since the whole advantage of the white subpixel should be higher brightness at the expense of lower color volume. Likewise the color accuracy and uniformity aren't bad, but the QD-OLEDs, particularly the ASUS and Dell, and outstanding. Finally, there's no burn-in warranty which would certainly give me pause.

Have to see how other vendors do with the same panel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
weird, lg called me to say the monitor will be delivered on april 16th...
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
erek said:
You excited at all? Just curious
Click to expand...
no. but that might be because i don't get excited about anything. i.e. i could have the hottest girl on earth in front of me naked, but i wouldn't be excited.
 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGtsatPGT4
Interesting up close in camera looks at reflections and comparison of the "glossy" (?) vs the "matte" (?). Sounds like we need a scale that is more precise like 30% AR / grain size .2microns or whatever. That "matte" screen looks more glossy than my current glossy 2nd monitor.
Also very interesting up close look at the sub pixel layout, as I saw in at CES the woled subpixels look very clean compared to the qd-oled.
 
Last edited:
The Display Guy recorded a response to optimum, and in general I also prefer a dim reflection when compared to a haze. (I say in general because I had a UP3218K and didn't like the glossy coating on that one.) I have both a U3223QE with a light matte and an Apple Studio Display in the same room, and I strongly prefer the Apple. I find a reflection to be less distracting than a contrast-ruining haze.

I haven't seen a QD-OLED in person yet, but I look forward to evaluating soon.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZjxEcuVHlQ
 
Lava Lamp Freak said:
The Display Guy recorded a response to optimum, and in general I also prefer a dim reflection when compared to a haze. (I say in general because I had a UP3218K and didn't like the glossy coating on that one.) I have both a U3223QE with a light matte and an Apple Studio Display in the same room, and I strongly prefer the Apple. I find a reflection to be less distracting than a contrast-ruining haze.

I haven't seen a QD-OLED in person yet, but I look forward to evaluating soon.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZjxEcuVHlQ
Click to expand...


I have all 3 coating types in my setup (Glossy LG CX, semi gloss QD-OLED, matte mini LED), and while I much prefer the full glossy experience, the other two are by no means unusable like some people make it out to be. I will always choose the glossy option if given a choice, but matte works just fine if there is no other option.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I have all 3 coating types in my setup (Glossy LG CX, semi gloss QD-OLED, matte mini LED), and while I much prefer the full glossy experience, the other two are by no means unusable like some people make it out to be. I will always choose the glossy option if given a choice, but matte works just fine if there is no other option.
Click to expand...
I agree -- it really is a subjective preference depending on the room, the user, and their needs, so it doesn't make sense to declare that someone is wrong about their opinion. And opinions can change over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top