LG 48" OLED is coming

Discussion in 'Displays' started by realworld, Mar 13, 2019.

  1. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    905
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    I mean we don't even know if this is going to come out in 2020, so worrying about what it will support doesn't make much sense. We could be 2 years away from it, and the current HDMI situation won't last past this year.

    HDMI 2.1 is still very new and not even all TV manufacturers are including it on ANY TVs, for example no Panasonic OLED TV will have it despite being much more expensive than LG TVs. That's probably due to manufacturing logistics, just about every industry analyst and media person was certain we wouldn't get HDMI 2.1 this year because it was too soon after testing requirements were finished and published for the spec. And yet here we are. It's entirely possible that you can't even order HDMI 2.1 silicon unless you want ten million of them.

    We don't have video cards that support it either, those probably won't arrive until 2020 either. So...
     
    cybereality likes this.
  2. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,772
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    LG has been using all the same internals and features across all of their OLEDs until just this year. They have a lower end image processor for their lowest end model, but it still supports all the same features. So hopefully it remains that way. But maybe dell will pick up this 48" panel for their monitor.
     
    Lateralus and Formula.350 like this.
  3. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    This is excellent news. I can comfortably use anything from 40-48" and the one thing I've been wishing for is the stunning image quality of my 55" OLED in a smaller form factor. I knew that LG was supposed to release a smaller version but last I read, the size hadn't been confirmed. I had heard that it might come in Q3/Q4 of this year, but I'm perfectly fine with waiting if it means all of the right features will be packed in there.
     
  4. Insomniator

    Insomniator Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    I like this for a bedroom TV but I still just want a 27" computer monitor. There HAS to be good demand for this, its not some niche idea.

    I play competitive computer games with a kb/m on a normal desktop less than 3 feet away from the screen. I will NEVER play Starcraft or Dota on a 40"+ screen and I can't imagine many would either.

    Where is the "eSports" 24" OLED gaming monitor?

    The 48"+ is fine for a console... sitting on the couch.
     
  5. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,972
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    I'm with Sancus about the release. I'm not confident it will appear 2019. These manufacturers are always teasing a 1-2 years in advance it seems.
     
  6. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,627
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    LG has already confirmed it's X9 series of TVs (B9/C9, etc) will support the full HDMI 2.1 spec, and those TVs are slated for later this year. I'm assuming this model would include those features.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/lg-confirms-full-hdmi-2-1-support-in-2019-tvs/
     
  7. pbassjunk

    pbassjunk Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    438
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    49-50 really is the perfect size for a 4k desktop monitor. 43 strained me a bit, 55 required too much movement. Just went from a 43" Vizio to a 49" LG, on paper doesn't seem like much of an upgrade, but it practice - never been happier.
     
  8. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    905
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    Sure... the point of my post was that LG is already putting HDMI 2.1 on most of its TVs this year, even though competitors are not able to, so it seems unlikely that NEXT year they would decide not to. In response to a fear that it won't have HDMI 2.1.

    I am about 99.99% certain this will release in 2020 or 2021 and will have HDMI 2.1 full bandwidth. Assuming they don't change plans anyway.
     
  9. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    990
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Only problem is, burn-in will remain an issue. I would steer clear of OLED for desktop use. MicroLED might be the solution for all PC use scenarios: desktop and play.
     
  10. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    It's every thread...

    Been using my B7 as my primary computer monitor for a year and a half. Not even the slightest hint of burn-in and it's as beautiful as the day I got it. Obviously, I don't leave static content on the screen for days at a time...but Windows and game UIs have posed no issue.

    I'll buy this new LG without hesitation.

    MicroLED looks good, but it's expensive and a long way off from being "here."
     
    odditory, Baenwort, gan7114 and 2 others like this.
  11. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,772
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Yeah I'll go right ahead and buy that micro LED monitor. Oh wait they don't exist. Then I'll buy a micro LED TV. Oh wait the TVs don't even exist yet. Oh they're only 10 years away from being sold as monitors. Yeah I'll totally wait 10 years and not buy the current best technology because the burn in boogie man is under my bed.
     
    odditory, Lateralus and Sancus like this.
  12. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Lol. Well in fairness to euskalzabe and others, I do understand that it is a concern. It was for me, too...but then I decided to take the plunge and man, I can't see myself going back to LCD. The contrast and black levels on this set are holy-fudgeballs-amazing. I do not miss grey, washed out blacks. I do not miss IPS glow. I do not miss the VA viewing cone (even though it didn't bother me in normal use). Picture quality is STUNNING.

    That's why I sound like a broken record every time someone inevitably voices burn-in concerns in every OLED thread. I want to share my experience because there is a lot of misinformation out there and probably not a whole heck of a lot of people using these as monitors. I am using mine in one of the "worst", most "abusive" ways and it's been flawless. I've had 8 hour marathon gaming sessions on the weekend with not even a hint of image retention (much less burn-in) of the game's UI elements. I do take certain precautions of course, but I can't say whether or not they're needed. I just know that either these panels are a lot more robust than some people give them credit for, or I happened to get the only magical holy grail set that's immune to burn-in under a desktop monitor usage scenario. I suspect it's the former and not the latter.
     
  13. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,695
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Clearly you got the Holy Grail.
     
    Lateralus likes this.
  14. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Guess I should go buy some lottery tickets! :D
     
    cybereality likes this.
  15. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,627
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Happy B6P owner here; no burn-in in sight.

    I will say if you do a lot of word processing, then I'd be a little worried how OLED would hold up. But for gaming/everyday use? It's not a concern so long as you aren't stupid with it.
     
    Lateralus likes this.
  16. Keller1

    Keller1 n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    With how many dark mode apps are available now, oled is especially compelling.

    Almost every utility i use nowadays has a dark mode or atleast customizable color schemes.

    The eye relief in the dark will be great.

    I know I absolutely love my notes screen, and i definitely want to extend the blackness to my desktop.
     
  17. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    990
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Well, burn-in is a real issue that affects some OLED users, while a boogie man isn't real. Get a better argument.

    I can tell you I have 2 friends who bought OLED in the past 3 years, one got burn-in and had it replaced, the other one is fine. I used to believe the burn-in fears were greatly exaggerated, then I saw them within my friend circle. So... I'm cautious, that's all.

    Which is exactly my use-case. Which is why I'd worry. If I just were playing games and browsing the web, I wouldn't fear burn-in at all.
     
  18. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    As I said, I don't blame you for being cautious. But I do think that the fears are greatly exaggerated. There have been a couple of OLED threads in the news subforum and of course a few people ended up mentioning burn-in concerns. There were more than a few of us who owned the sets that chimed in and had zero issues. I'm not saying it's not possible - I just think it's wildly overblown but thankfully the paranoia seems to be reducing with time as more of these sets get out into the wild.

    See, that's crazy to me. If you're primarily doing word processing, why on earth would you consider an OLED to begin with? That's nearly the worst case scenario for one, and nearly all of the benefits of stunning image quality would be wasted. :confused:

    If your usage is "primarily word processing with light web/gaming duty" then I'd say that's an edge case, and not one really suited to OLED. I remember a news article that was posted about the airport in Seoul using OLED TVs to display those flight information boards (you know, the ones that every airport has that remain static 24/7 aside from rotating through arrivals/departures) and when they were found to have burn-in, everyone jumped on the OLED hate bandwagon. I just shook my head as that is just about the worst use for an OLED and it shouldn't be shocking that they would have issues.

    Sounds like you'd be better off with a mix (LCD for word processing duties and an OLED for gaming/TV/movie use) or just an LCD if you don't game or watch video content enough to justify having an OLED around.
     
    Baenwort and euskalzabe like this.
  19. gan7114

    gan7114 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    221
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    As others have said, OLED burn in isn’t really an issue now. This site is filled with testimonial after testimonial — from prominent [H] goers no less — of burn in being a non-concern. Plenty of people around here own a 6 or 7 series LG OLED (I myself own a C7). We’ll vouch for them all day long.

    Of course we can’t speak for everyone’s experience or usage. If someone sets their OLED to 100% brightness or doesn’t use any of LG’s burn in prevention methods, then you could perhaps expect some burn in.

    On a personal note, at this point I think I’m just going to sit tight and wait for a 40” range OLED as my next PC monitor. The LG 34GK950F I ordered earlier this month arrived damaged from Amazon. I was a bit crushed, since it was on sale for an amazing price. I’ll just wait, no big deal.
     
    Lateralus likes this.
  20. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    990
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Well, easy, because I want the wonderful contrast that comes with deep blacks. But that's why I said before that I can't consider OLED due to burn-in, because my usage makes it a very real probability. I'm not saying that it will happen to anyone who uses OLED for desktop use, but I have lots of static white on screen for hours (despite using dark mode in anything and everything I can find). That's why I'm waiting on the only other thing that will make per-pixel "backlight" possible: MicroLED. Like OLED, but without the degradation. I'd happily buy an OLED for the living room (though I went with a Vizio P series that looks absolutely wonderful, even if not as perfect as OLED, a good %85 of the way for %50 the price).
     
    Baenwort and Lateralus like this.
  21. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Gotcha. I too am looking forward to MicroLED, but (for me) the upcoming 48/49" 120Hz LG should be a darn near perfect display to use until that time comes. That Vizio isn't a bad set by any means, and the new Samsung NU/Q sets look pretty awesome as well. Sony too, but they're always proud of their stuff and the price reflects that.

    And, Roll Tide! :)
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  22. Ziran

    Ziran Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    143
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2015
    I have had C7 since early 2017 (~2 years now). I have no burn in. This is my primary monitor I use every day (heavily).

    On the other hand after 2 years my 2015 Samsung JS9000 (55 inch) developed really bad bleed through at the left/right edges where the back light is.

    So my experience is that OLED has held up WAAAY better then LCD
     
    x3sphere likes this.
  23. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    905
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    shh no one wants to talk about durability of LCD panels, everyone knows they're perfect, last forever, and never develop new backlighting or color defects as they age.
     
    Brian_B, bigbluefe and Anemone like this.
  24. Keller1

    Keller1 n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    If you have a dark theme available to you, thats' going to help as it will stop any degredation in those areas.

    White is also a low-risk color, since the panel is RGBW and has a seperate subpixel for it.

    really, red and to a lesser extene blue are problematic, however, that being said ,this really can't be reommended as a work display.
    I'm gonna working with mine, but my work is game development and Visual Studio / Blender / Unity / Photoshop all come with configurable dark UIs where i can get rid of large blobs of static colors.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  25. Jumpem

    Jumpem Gawd

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    My JS8500 has done the same. Sometimes I think about trying to get it replaced under my extended warranty, but it still functions without any major flaws. I want to get an OLED for the living room, and am currently on the hunt for a gaming monitor that looks as good as the quantum dot VA panel in my JS8500. They don't seem to exist.
     
  26. noinimod

    noinimod n00b

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Is it purely a matter of viewing distance as to why 55" screens don't work well for computer usage? Or are there other reasons?

    I've been thinking about moving to a 55" for PC usage, and i'll definitely increase the viewing distance to compensate. Just not sure if i'm missing other potential issues.

    Any guys out there using 55" as their daily long-term drivers for pc usage able to chime in with your thoughts?
     
  27. Sancus

    Sancus Gawd

    Messages:
    905
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    It's a size issue in general. Unless you're one of those people who are comfortable with turning their heads to see all parts of a monitor(weirdos imo, it only really works if you're primarily using the monitor with it split, and never using full screen viewing). And even if you're fine turning your head, get too close and you'll see pixels. 4K @ 55" is only 80 ppi, most of us would refuse to use a normal desktop monitor with ppi that low. So you need the distance to compensate for the low pixel density.

    Thus, you need to be at least 36-42 inches away from it... which is already too far for most people's desk setups, and some might prefer further. Then, if your plan is to have a desk in front of you, depending on position etc you might end up with the desk blocking the bottom part of the screen. Unless it's a really shallow desk, anyway... or you move it even further away. You probably need a good, full mobile stand for it. It better be height adjustable, because you're going to need to adjust the height carefully. Keep in mind you don't want to be looking up at a screen -- it's really terrible for your neck and back. Even if it's only a few inches of incline. Incidentally, this is why fireplace mounted TVs are stupid garbage.

    Basically, to use a 55" monitor you need a dedicated room for it, more space than a normal setup, and your desk and room layout might all need to be adjusted to make it possible. That's a long list of requirements and awkward things to consider for most people. The vast majority probably just have their desks shoved into a corner in a room that is used for other purposes, and a 55" display is not going to work well under those conditions at all.
     
  28. gan7114

    gan7114 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    221
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    As Sancus said, it's really a matter of size and viewing distance.

    In terms of picture quality, the hard upper limit for unscaled 4K desktop is 46". That translates to 96 PPI (the PPI that Windows UI is actually based around, without scaling), and is roughly the PPI that the vast majority of desktop users are familiar with. If you use a 23" HD monitor, that's 96 PPI. 24-25" HD screens are similar.

    In terms of desktop viewing distance, most people sit within 2-2.5ft, or 24-30 inches. That just happens to be the common width (depth) of your average desk.

    I don't own a 4K monitor (yet), but as an anecdote, I use an L shaped office desk here at work with one side running along the wall. The width of the desk is 30", and there's a 2" gap between the desk and the wall, so 32" total. On that wall, and about 6" up the wall from the desk, I have a cork board. After reading your post, I was curious what the size of the cork board actually was, because to my eyes it always looked to be roughly 16:9 and about 40". As it turns out, the cork board is 40.5" diagonal, so I was pretty close.

    In other words, I have a nice example sitting on my wall of what a 40" 4K TV or monitor would feel like as a desktop.

    And I like it, I like it a lot.

    You don't have to move your head, and it mostly fills up your field of view. When I eventually get a 40" 4K monitor for my home office, it's going to be wall mounted.
     
  29. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,556
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Pretty much all of this. I am currently using a 55" OLED only because it was the smallest size available and I was determined to make it work. But, it's not optimal.

    I was hoping that it would work long-term but after using it for a year and a half I am looking forward to the day when one of these smaller OLEDs is released. It's still awesome for gaming, but when I use it for work and productivity, much of the size is wasted because I resize apps to a smaller portion of the screen so that I am not turning my head when reading things like this forum post.

    The PPI does not bother me, but I agree that smaller displays are sharper. Of course it would be a non-issue if you could increase the distance between you and the set but as you pointed out, that won't be feasible for a lot of people's desk setups. Still, PPI has always been down in the list of things that are really important to me in a display. A 55" 4K is no Retina display up close, but it's perfectly usable. It's not as if the pixels are the size of dimes. This part is obviously going to be extremely subjective depending on one's visual acuity. Some people don't want tiny sharp text (think of a 27" 4K monitor) because it's difficult to read and using scaling sort of defeats the purpose. Others don't care for larger text that's not razor sharp because they have hawk-like vision or they don't mind to use scaling.

    As far as displays larger than 32" I have used 37" (great size but was 1080p at the time, well before 4K), 40" curved 4K (awesome and I think 40-44" is the ideal size), 48" curved 4K (still very usable and crazy immersive for games), and finally my current 55" 4K OLED (honestly too large for most people; I am looking to downsize but do not wish to give up the OLED picture quality).

    I was hoping that I would get used to the 55" because back in 2015 when the 4K Samsung TVs came out and everyone was buying them because of how good they were as monitors, there was a huge thread going here and several of the early adopters went for the 55" models (despite the 40" and 48" models being available) and kept proclaiming how awesome they were. After trying out the 40" and 48" Samsungs, I kept thinking "Man, 55 would be too big...48 is the largest practical size for a desktop monitor" and I was right. I could go back to my 48" JS9000 right now and it would feel a lot more practical - but unfortunately, I'd be giving up the reduced input lag at 4:4:4 and eye-popping image quality, and I'm not willing to do it so I'm living with this massive beast until LG releases their 44" or 48" or whatever smaller size they've decided on.

    If and when Asus/Acer come out with their 43" 4K 120Hz monitors, I'll probably pick up one of those to try out (particularly if I'm still waiting on LG's smaller OLED at that point). Fun times. But YES noinimod, I largely agree with Sancus. A 55" may be fine for you IF you can put adequate distance between you and it. I unfortunately cannot, and I would be better served by a smaller panel. For anyone sitting at a typical distance of 2-2.5 feet in a PC scenario, I'd steer them towards a 49" at max with 40-43" being the ideal size for most people.
     
    elvn and noinimod like this.
  30. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    990
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    I'm currently using a 40" 4K display and it's great. 48" is still too big for me, as the screen is ~3ft away from me and wall mounted... but this is good, means we're moving down in size finally.
     
  31. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    54,646
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I think 43" is about the perfect size for productivity. For gaming, I think the 48-49" is better.
     
    Anemone likes this.
  32. Anemone

    Anemone Gawd

    Messages:
    892
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    I'd say they ought to make a 44. Yes I too would love 43, but you could take a 88/8K and cut it into 4 panels and quite likely make better margins out of the 4 monitors than out of the 1 8K TV. 40-43 people would stretch to 44 for the "OLED" and those wanting bigger would either jump to 55 or go with the 44 as good enough.
    $.02
     
    Lateralus likes this.
  33. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,637
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    An 88” 8k tv would be $15k. i don’t think people are going to pay >4k for their 44” monitors to beat those margins. Sure you get fewer wasted panels at 44 but fro.m what I understand at those sizes they don’t toss panels for a few dead sub pixels and they have a way to deal with. a few defects. So unless yields really suck that 8k panel is a nice halo product.

    I don’t disagree with the thought that people would buy a 44” 4k TV co marketed as monitor. Just keep the tv stuff to save r&d and increase versatility and i’d pay the same price as a 55” 4k oled for the 40-44” oled ‘monitor’
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  34. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,331
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Once I started using a big monitor array including two 43" screens with a 32" in the middle, I decided to move my viewing distance back. I overlapped a second round crescent/kidney shaped desk I had in storage over the top edge of the surface of my main longer, thinner desk so that I can sit upright 3' or so away to my eyeballs and a bit farther if my chair is tilted back.

    Considering what my current setup is, I'm aiming for a 43" to match the array and replace the center 32" gaming monitor. That probably means the upcoming 144hz 43" 4k AUO VA panel based ones though I wish they'd make a high density FALD version (no word on that yet) . I'd definitely consider a 43" 120hz+ OLED with VRR and hdmi 2.1 but 48" seems too big and wouldn't fit my multi monitor array well. Upgrading to a 43" in the middle instead of 32" I'll have to move back a bit more already as it is due to the 10" wider screen pushing each side monitor 5" farther away L/R from where they are now.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    34.0" diagonal 21:9 .. 31.4" w x 13.1" h (3440x1440 ~ 109.68 ppi)

    37.5" diagonal 21:9 .. 34.5" w x 14.8" h (3840x1600 ~ 110.93 ppi)

    31.5" diagonal 16:9 .. 27.5" w x 15.4" h (2560x1440 ~ 93.24 ppi) .. (3840x2160 ~ 137.68ppi)

    40.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 34.9"w x 19.6"h (3840x2160 ~ 110.15ppi)

    43.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 37.5" w x 21.1" h (3840x2160 ~ 102.46 ppi)

    48.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 41.8"w x 23.5" h (3840x2160 ~ 91.79 ppi)

    55.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 47.9"w x 27.0"h (3840x2160 ~ 80.11 ppi)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Although I'm looking forward to eventually upgrading my gaming monitor from 32" at 3' to a 43" (slightly farther away due to overall array size), I have to admit that for some games having most of the gaming screen in my focal view all at once is advantageous and I'll lose that going that much larger at similar distances. This comes down to FoV options, game indicators and limited HUD design/modularity for the most part but that's how most games are still made. So it becomes function and advantage vs aesthetics and immersion (and even disadvantage) for some games, including single player ones where you are counting on your HUD and indicator information during combat.