LG 48CX

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
When's the 48" even expected to be available? Has this been announced? When were the 9 series available in 2019?
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,704
Yes, cut from the same substrates is my understanding.
Substrate composition maybe but the density/PPI has to be different. Or a 48" would be 3300x1500 or something stupid.

LG TVs come out around April/May every year.
rutger orly.jpg
MFW
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,558
Nah, only the 48" 4k and 77" 8k share the same sheet as they have the same pixel density. The reason we have a 48" is probably because this increases the yield for them when they make the 8k panel as they probably can cut out parts that are faulty and use it as a 48" 4k panel instead.

Those don't have anywhere near the same pixels per inch.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
Yes, cut from the same substrates is my understanding.

Substrate composition maybe but the density/PPI has to be different. Or a 48" would be 3300x1500 or something stupid.

AFAIK, 55" / 65" / 77" 4K panels have their own separate lines apart from the 88" 8K line (the latter of which is relatively new).

There's two scenarios: either 48" 4K has its own production line, or 48" 4K is cut from the 88" 8K line. I don't believe it's the former, although I could be wrong. If it's the latter, then math dictates that the mother panel would have to be at least 96", probably north of 100", because some tolerance has to be included for cutting.

However, I'm not sure I recall the 8K line using mother panels that large -- IIRC, I think I read it's somewhere around 90-92", which if that's the case that means you'd only get two 48" 4K from that same mother panel. That's a lot of "trim" waste when presumably LG would want to produce 88" 8K panels instead. That's why I was surprised when we learned it was going to be 48" and not 43", because with 43" it would definitely be the case where instead of one 88" 8K panel, they'd cut it up into four 43" 4K panels with the same waste. I guess it all depends on how many 8K lines they have going.

That's the biggest unknown here -- how LG is producing the 48" panels. If there is a lot of waste involved (when LG could otherwise be producing 88" 8K panels; e.g. opportunity costs), we may be surprised at the MSRP of the 48". As a result, the price of 48" might be higher than we're expecting.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,959
43" 4K UHD = 102 PPI
48" 4K UHD = 91 PPI
77" 8K UHD = 114 PPI
88" 8K UHD = 100 PPI

OLED screen sizes are very close to the Class size.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,558
The 48" 4K panels have nothing to do with 8K panels. The 48" simply replaces the 55" on the multi-model glass (MMG) at the 8.5-generation Paju and Guangzhou plants that use Cannon MPAsp-H1003T lithographers.

mmg-configuration.png

 

caffix

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
64
After a bit of uhming and ahhing about this, it seems like it might be my next upgrade. Just need to know about the weight of it, vesa mounting size and (most importantly) price.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
It's going to be 35.5LBS, 200x200 and launch @ $1999.

Weight is probably right but I imagine they'll use the same 200x300 VESA they've had for some time now. TV's this size/weight invariably go with rectangular ratio for VESA, not square.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,959
It's weird seeing that these actually weigh that much when it doesn't feel like it. I had to look to confirm my 55" weighs 16.3 kg :eek:.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
Very well may be remembering wrong then, sorry. If I remember I'll look when I pull it out of storage after our move.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,704
The 48" 4K panels have nothing to do with 8K panels. The 48" simply replaces the 55" on the multi-model glass (MMG) at the 8.5-generation Paju and Guangzhou plants that use Cannon MPAsp-H1003T lithographers.

View attachment 218970
So they could cost similar to 55" then?
Current China rigmarole will put a dent in production though.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
So they could cost similar to 55" then?
Current China rigmarole will put a dent in production though.


I think people expecting an OLED with a three-figure price tag will be bitterly disappointed. Maybe Black Friday 2020 they could hit that, but until then I expect launch price to be high, perhaps only a couple hundred less than the 55". I can't see it being the same price, that wouldn't make a great deal of marketing or business sense.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,160
I think people expecting an OLED with a three-figure price tag will be bitterly disappointed. Maybe Black Friday 2020 they could hit that, but until then I expect launch price to be high, perhaps only a couple hundred less than the 55". I can't see it being the same price, that wouldn't make a great deal of marketing or business sense.

I agree, I'd be absolutely shocked if these came in under $1,000. In fact I'd put money on it that they won't. If I'm honest, I doubt they'll even be $1,200 at first. I'm thinking more like $1,500...possibly higher.

I don't think they'll be the same price as the 55" unless LG just knows they can milk everyone who wants/needs the 48" size. But it'd be stupid IMO not to make it at least $100-$200 cheaper.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,041
OLED typically debuts at MSRP, which was $2500 for the 55" C9, and then quickly drops by ~10-15% per month until it hits ~60% of MSRP in mid-summer, where it stays until Nov/Dec deals, that usually knock an additional 10-20% off. So $2000 -> $1200 w/ 'extreme deals' at $999 would be my guess. But that's making a lot of assumptions, since we don't know MSRP and we don't know if they will discount this as heavily as their larger models.

Regardless, it's probably realistic to expect to pay ~$1000-$1500 for this.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,558
The 55" C9 launched at $2,499 and LG are just breaking even on OLED production. No way the 48CX is going to launch at $999-$1499. I'm thinking $1,699-$1,999 launch price with $1,199 by years end.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
52
PPI isn't enough. There isn't much difference between the PPI on my 49" Samsung CRG9 and my 55" LG C9, but the CRG9 has much better text rendering. Something needs to be done about the pixel structure and/or the ClearType software.

I'm planning to try a 55" with an IPS panel and RGB pixels next. I've pretty much given up on the LG OLED for text use. I tried hard to live with it for the other benefits (gaming, videos) but text is just too important to me since that's what I do most of the time.

Just to follow up on this for those interested... I started using an LG 55SM9000 (IPS panel with RGB structure) instead of my LG 55 C9 OLED, and this solved the text problem - it is rendered fine on the IPS LCD TV - well-defined and without fringing. This panel is definitely not as nice as the OLED in other ways, and it has a surprising amount of vignetting, but the text rendering is significantly better.
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,193
I would agree with Vega. The just under $2,000 sounds about right at launch. That's assuming the 55' was at $2500. How much is drops off after that and when is anyone's guess I'd say.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,670
It's weird seeing that these actually weigh that much when it doesn't feel like it. I had to look to confirm my 55" weighs 16.3 kg :eek:.

Right? Just read that my 65 C9 is 75lbs with the stand. I never looked it up before you mentioned it here. I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't sit my it on my center speaker.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
52
Right? Just read that my 65 C9 is 75lbs with the stand. I never looked it up before you mentioned it here. I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't sit my it on my center speaker.

I believe the weight is listed wrong for the 65" (with the stand). This is the weight of the 77". I think the weight of the 65" is about 65lbs.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
I believe the weight is listed wrong for the 65" (with the stand). This is the weight of the 77". I think the weight of the 65" is about 65lbs.

The 65" C9 is listed at 25.2kg/55lbs MINUS stand, and with the stand at 33.9kg/74.7lbs. That's listed in a few places, but not sure how to verify exactly unless someone can actually weigh it themselves.

Other 65" TV's come in a bit less it seems, while 75" models are more... the 77" I'd expect to be more still, and its weight is listed at 29.9kg/65.9lbs without stand, 36.5kg/80.4lbs with the stand.

Who knows... o_O
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
52
The 65" C9 is listed at 25.2kg/55lbs MINUS stand, and with the stand at 33.9kg/74.7lbs. That's listed in a few places, but not sure how to verify exactly unless someone can actually weigh it themselves.

Other 65" TV's come in a bit less it seems, while 75" models are more... the 77" I'd expect to be more still, and its weight is listed at 29.9kg/65.9lbs without stand, 36.5kg/80.4lbs with the stand.

Who knows... o_O

It's wrong for the 65" - the stand is 10lbs, not 20lbs.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,041
It's wrong for the 65" - the stand is 10lbs, not 20lbs.

What are you talking about? The stand for the 65" C9 weighs ~17lbs and the second piece weighs ~2.2lbs. According to the LG page, the difference is 19.1lbs. That's exactly correct.

(no I'm not weighing my TV, but I'm 100% certain the 55lb number on the LG page is correct.)
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
It's wrong for the 65" - the stand is 10lbs, not 20lbs.

No way. My 55" B9 stand isn't anywhere near that. The 65" may be have a slightly bigger one, but no way is it 10lbs... that's REALLY heavy for a stand, would practically have to be solid cast iron steel to way that much lol!
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,041
No way. My 55" B9 stand isn't anywhere near that. The 65" may be have a slightly bigger one, but no way is it 10lbs... that's REALLY heavy for a stand, would practically have to be solid cast iron steel to way that much lol!

B9 and C9 have very different stands with very different weights. The C9 stand is very heavy.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,670
B9 and C9 have very different stands with very different weights. The C9 stand is very heavy.

I can confirm this. The 65 C9 stand was like pulling a boulder out of the box. No way it's 10lbs.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,092
I can confirm this. The 65 C9 stand was like pulling a boulder out of the box. No way it's 10lbs.

Yeah putting up my 65" LG C9 was a two person job to make it comfortable. The stand is big, heavy and crappy design compared to the sleek and tiny ones on my previous Samsung TV.

Also if any of you are planning to wall mount or monitor arm the LG CX 48" then remember that the VESA mounting point does not sit at the center of the back but at bottom center of the screen.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,670
Yeah putting up my 65" LG C9 was a two person job to make it comfortable. The stand is big, heavy and crappy design compared to the sleek and tiny ones on my previous Samsung TV.

Also if any of you are planning to wall mount or monitor arm the LG CX 48" then remember that the VESA mounting point does not sit at the center of the back but at bottom center of the screen.

Damn right. Also I was scared shitless picking it up. We're likely moving later this year and I'm deathly afraid of transporting it, even if it's just across town.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
897
Damn right. Also I was scared shitless picking it up. We're likely moving later this year and I'm deathly afraid of transporting it, even if it's just across town.
You will need this:


I transported mine couple of weeks ago (not myself, but by a moving company). Even with the display completely wrapped up, I was extremely worried when I was removing the wrap to see a crack on the screen. Thankfully, all went well. Transporting a 55" OLED is definitely a 2 person job.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,092
Damn right. Also I was scared shitless picking it up. We're likely moving later this year and I'm deathly afraid of transporting it, even if it's just across town.

Same here. First off the box barely fit in the car and the way to get it out of the box and install the stand is excessively complicated for such a simple thing. Since the display is so thin and it comes with a paper saying "don't pick it up from here, here, here and here" I didn't know where the hell I was supposed to carry it. By comparison my previous 65" Samsung I can carry by myself no problem and setting it up is super easy with the breakout box. LG would be wise to adopt something similar because having all the inputs at the side and back is a bit annoying.
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,745
Same here. First off the box barely fit in the car and the way to get it out of the box and install the stand is excessively complicated for such a simple thing. Since the display is so thin and it comes with a paper saying "don't pick it up from here, here, here and here" I didn't know where the hell I was supposed to carry it. By comparison my previous 65" Samsung I can carry by myself no problem and setting it up is super easy with the breakout box. LG would be wise to adopt something similar because having all the inputs at the side and back is a bit annoying.

I bought a 55" b9 for my mother to replace an old tv, and it's a terrible design imo from a logistical standpoint.

Having a thin area on top is meaningless if the base is very thick, it just makes handling the tv more difficult. And from a technical standpoint, Panasonic has showed that having a thicker back with more robust cooling helps achieve higher peak and sustained brightness. I never understand why having some hyper thin tv was more important than performance. If a tv was an inch thick across the board, that would be fine by me, and easier to carry if needed.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,092
I bought a 55" b9 for my mother to replace an old tv, and it's a terrible design imo from a logistical standpoint.

Having a thin area on top is meaningless if the base is very thick, it just makes handling the tv more difficult. And from a technical standpoint, Panasonic has showed that having a thicker back with more robust cooling helps achieve higher peak and sustained brightness. I never understand why having some hyper thin tv was more important than performance. If a tv was an inch thick across the board, that would be fine by me, and easier to carry if needed.

Definitely. I understand the OLED can be very thin due to how it is manufactured but then having a bulkier section sticking out the back makes it thick again. Mounting on the wall is pretty much the only time thickness matters as you can make it look more like a painting if it's thin but even then it doesn't need to be super thin to look right. Visually, my older Samsung KS8000 looks thinner because the overall package is thinner and curved in the back.
 

Baenwort

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
180
Nah, only the 48" 4k and 77" 8k share the same sheet as they have the same pixel density. The reason we have a 48" is probably because this increases the yield for them when they make the 8k panel as they probably can cut out parts that are faulty and use it as a 48" 4k panel instead.

So I need them to make a 8K 65" display so I can get the 32" 4k OLED I want?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
Pathetic weaklings.

When my 65" was delivered I unpackaged it and put it together all by myself.

After a 55" CCFL-based LCD I moved several times alone, the OLED was practically nothing. Stand off, both fit fine in the backseat of my Accord. Together, actually, as I still have both and we just moved.
 
Top