Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Displays' started by realworld, Mar 13, 2019.
About damn time!
Nice, but 48" is still kinda big for a monitor.
I'm probably in the minority in [H] as I live in a house in Finland built at a time period when they squeeshed in as many rooms as possible in an already limited space but I want one to replace my current Panasonic 42" Plasma TV with something which is better and still fits the room (if picking up a 55"+ would have to buy a new sofa and bookshelf and reorganize things to fit the TV in the current living room against the only wall which it would be possible but that takes also the sitting distance from 1.8~2.3 m to like 3.5~4 m again).
Been anxiously waiting as the plasma TV is from end of 2009 but has got a bit of a burn-in from intensive use. One seating position is pretty angled so it's not ideal with a VA (QLED) 49" replacement and IPS panels seems too lackluster in contrast ratios versus Plasma to be worth it so was really waiting for <50" OLED as my natural upgrade.
Still gotta hang out to 2020 though, this is almost certain to come out sometimes next year, be launched at CES 2020 and maybe out in stores in february-march the earliest I expect.
No it isnt i have 42" now and it feels okey but could be a bit bigger.. it is just a matter of taste and what u are gonna do with it.. as for monitor it is great size.. not too big.. not too small.. kinda in middle ground atm.. some likes it bigger.. some likes it smaller..
and for rpg.. Finland is great place to live
Yeah, everyone definitely has their own tastes.
I just know that I was running a 40" before, and the size was good but I wanted HDR and FreeSync, so I bought the 55" Samsung and it's way too big.
I'm making it work, and it's nice for gaming/movies but really difficult for desktop apps. I don't think I could run a TV that size as a daily driver, but I guess some people do it.
48 is slightly too big for me at 4k, and too small at 8k. 8k would be nice at 65-88"
Ans yes, as a computer monitor, on a desk.
Are these going to have Adaptive Sync this year? Only thing that was missing from the LG OLEDs that would make them perfect.
What are you talking about? 48" would be the perfect size . Especially for racing games.
Nice, 32% smaller than the 55”. The 55” is a bit much for computer use involving a desk.
Yeah, you're probably right.
2020 is a bit too far away for me. There is also samsung coming out with qdoled, which might have reduced burn in too. Unless there is a 48 incher this year I'm probably going for a 55
I use a 49" and I like it on my desk. Tried 55 and 65 but was turning my head too much.
Okay. I haven't tried 49" yet. I went from 40" to 55" and the 55" is overkill.
I mean, it looks great, but I have to make windows so small just not to strain my neck, it kind of wastes the space compared to 40".
Still too big for a desktop monitor, IMO. I had a Samsung KS8500 49” on my desk for about nine months before the neck strain from looking up all the time forced me to give it up. 40”-43” is what I’m hoping for in an OLED or QLED.
I think 43" is the max for me for desktop usage. Had one for a while and it seemed to large - 49" would definitely be too much for me personally. 32" is the sweet spot for me I think.
Glad to see they're moving into smaller sizes though, maybe we'll actually get something geared more for PC usage in the future.
They really, really need to reach for 43".
I just don't get it. Why bother with 48" when anything less than 55" is considered too small for a living room tv these days, and anything higher than 43" is too big for a desktop monitor.
Furthermore, if LG can sell their 55" OLEDs for $1500, they sure as hell would be able to sell a 43" OLED for $800-1000. LG could single-handedly conquer the high end monitor market.
Seems like easy money to me. Maybe they just aren't aware of demand for a good quality 43" 4K desktop monitor?
49" is the perfect size for a TV in the bedroom, in my opinion. I've also been in some small apartments.
So will all the graphics options in pc games show up on it? I hate to drag up a tv vs monitor for games graphics debate.
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I have full graphics options on my Samsung 4K TV connected to an AMD rig (second rig in my sig).
Might be my next buy, but I don't think I can go back to a non-Gync display again, no matter how great of a monitor/TV it may be. Here's hoping that the FreeSync (it would most likely have) plays nice with Nvidia GPUs. You know you're going to need some high-end Nvidia GPU(s) and proper VRR to take advantage of 4K 120Hz. The same goes for the 55" Alienware. Hopefully they do a G-Sync and a V-Sync variant like all their current monitors but I kind of doubt it now with the news of V-Sync working on Nvidia GPU's (although highly limited depending on monitor).
I don't think there is any actual reason to make a G-Sync OLED screen. I could be wrong, but I think all the special features of G-Sync are targeted around mitigating the crappiness of LCDs. You don't need stuff like variable overdrive or the super fast low latency backlight control of G-Sync HDR on an OLED screen, since it has 10x faster pixel response than the fastest LCD. Freesync with LFC and a wide range of 30-120hz should be just as good as G-Sync for this application.
Since Nvidia is now supporting Freesync, I can't imagine that they would refuse to suport HDMI 2.1 VRR, which this display will have. The Dell 55" OLED monitor will have DP1.4 and it would be pretty dumb of Dell to not support Freesync, since it's almost certainly built into whatever hardware they use.
This LG product will be a TV with no Displayport, for sure, but it's also possible Dell or someone else uses the 48" panel in a PC-targeted monitor product with Displayport. But by that point we should have HDMI 2.1 video cards and HDMI 2.1 is better than DP 1.4 anyway.
Coming Soon TM. Seriously though we have zero clue as to how good it will be or what features it will even have. Hopefully it will check off all the 4k consumers little check boxes.
I can has?
48" is an awesome size for an arcade cabinet screen. You could mount it in an arcade cabinet vertically and then rotate the games...
VRR is about mitigating the effect of sample and hold image processing, which is still done by OLED. The near-instantaneous response time of an OLED prevents certain image anomolies common with LCD from happening, but it still won't prevent stutter and tearing when the image gets out of sync with the refresh rate.
This is flat out wrong, vrr is the official hdmi implementation of adaptive sync.
Sample and hold is only mitigatable via not sampling and holding as much or by doing it more frequently. I e image interpolation for 24p content or BFI
VRR does absolutely nothing to help with that. Higher refresh rates help, so does strobing backlight like ULMB. VRR avoids tearing and gives lower input lag than using V-Sync.
VRR is still needed for the smoothest experience, regardless of the LCD panel technology. What G-Sync and FreeSync do is match the refresh rate of the monitor with the rendered frames from the game. Even with OLED, you will still get either stutter or tearing if there is a refresh/fps mismatch.
VRR stands for "variable refresh rate" and was in use long before HDMI adopted it. I always qualify HDMI VRR when talking about it specifically.
Sample and hold is eliminated when not doing sample and hold, obviously. Mitigate means to lessen the effects of.
ULMB mitigates persistence and ghosting, which is the result of pixel response time and is not needed with OLED. VRR does not affect pixel response time.
Sample-and-hold displays continuously display frames for the whole refresh. Whether it is VRR or locked refresh.
You misread my post. I wasn't saying sync isn't needed -- and this TV will have it since VRR is in all LG HDMI 2.1 TVs -- more that G-Sync *specifically* doesn't seem to offer any benefits over Freesync/generic VRR in this case, because all the things G-Sync does that make it superior to Freesync are LCD monitor mitigations, as far as I know. So HDMI 2.1 VRR/Freesync should be actually competitive with G-Sync on an OLED. They are just inferior to G-Sync on LCDs.
That makes more sense. Okay.
48" is still too big as a computer monitor... 40" is more or less my limit. Samsung is releasing a 43" QLED this year, and I'd still not do it - don't need those extra 3". 40" in front of your face is already really a lot.
43" is my max for a monitor. It's only a matter of time before OLEDs begin to be developed at smaller sizes, unless MicroLED takes over the market in the next few years.
About damn time! 48" is perfect as I have a very deep desk. This will be my future monitor, if it supports 120hz, at least on 1080p.
65 isn't that big. Yall need to go BIGGER
Anyone with less than a 77 inch on their desk is softcore at best.
My fear is that these models (the LG 48" OLED or the Samsung 43" QLED) are going to be priced for their market, and as such, will also lack some of the bells and whistles that make them appealing to us.
Things I anticipate to be missing/considerably nerfed: HDR (lacking or half-assed), only 60Hz or not recognized as 120Hz when connected to a computer, lacking Adaptive Sync, lacking RGB4:4:4 in PC mode, only being HDMI 2.0
This was a debate a friend and I had where she was quite happy with 8K TVs coming, even if they're out of most people's price range, because it's ushering in new technology. My argument was that we're barely even utilizing 4K in most regards (she said her cable service has lots of 4K content, but DirecTV isn't even broadcasting everything in 1080p, with minimal 4K for PPV movies), and we shouldn't be progressing forward until the low end sets all pack the same options as the high end ones. My case is made for me with like Samsung and their QLED TVs. They finally offered a sub-55" model and it even had Adaptive Sync.... except it ended up being 60Hz and lacked in other areas compared to the 55" (as per RTings review). I thought I was going to finally find a replacement TV for monitor usage since it was looking promising, especially since it was down to like $500 during the holidays. Alas, I don't have the funds to upgrade often, so I need (want) something that will tick all the boxes and last me. I already have had to deal with a bunch of shortcomings on my current TV due to ignorance of first time with using one as a monitor (pulls double duty, TV + couch PC gaming), so I really don't want to spend $750 and be unhappy again.
Who knows... maybe LG will buck the trend here?? Fingers crossed!
Well this is over a year away, so who knows. I would be surprised if it makes sense to release any HDMI 2.0 OLED in 2020, regardless of size.
Same reason every TV doesn't have AdaptiveSync would be my guess; cheaper. I can't imagine it's all that much cheaper in this instance, but apparently enough that they don't come with it. Given how many consoles there are in the world, of which only the Switch doesn't support it.
Just like in this case, I'm sure their logic is it's A) cheaper to manufacture by 1/2 a cent B) it is an upsell incentive to a higher end model (which doesn't cost them much more to manufacture I imagine, so pure profit).
AdaptiveSync is also a DisplayPort thing, I believe, while most TVs are HDMI only.
I would guess once VRR comes to HDMI, then all new TVs will have it.