LG 48CX

[p3sty]

The cx48 has ruined all other monitors for me. I just need 240htz

 

[Makeroflostsouls]

The cx48 has ruined all other monitors for me. I just need 240htz

Yeah I really looked hard to find something else to replace it with and I still haven't seen anything that's really an upgrade. My desk is 36inches deep some I need something at least 48 inches or maybe could do one of the new 45's on an arm. But I really want a ultra wide , I like the 16x9 format.

 

[Dan_D]

Yeah I really looked hard to find something else to replace it with and I still haven't seen anything that's really an upgrade. My desk is 36inches deep some I need something at least 48 inches or maybe could do one of the new 45's on an arm. But I really want a ultra wide , I like the 16x9 format.

16:9 is the same aspect ratio as any normal 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 monitor. Ultra-wides would be thinks that are 3440x1440, etc.

 

[Advil]

I'm going to nurse this thing until I can affordably replace it with a 500hz equiv. So far it has been a trooper. I'm not sure if I posted it on this thread but I have used it gsync flawlessly for years and now since April with freesync with no issues at all on a 9070XT. LG has just knocked it out of the park the last few gens with graphics card compatibility.

 

[TwistedMetalGear]

I might be missing something but what's the purpose of an ultrawide when you can just crank up the FOV on a 16:9 display to get something even better than an ultrawide? I believe something around 106 FOV gives you the same horizontal FOV as a 21:9 ultrawide but with the added bonus of extra vertical FOV that you can't get on an actual ultrawide.

 

[elvn]

I might be missing something but what's the purpose of an ultrawide when you can just crank up the FOV on a 16:9 display to get something even better than an ultrawide? I believe something around 106 FOV gives you the same horizontal FOV as a 21:9 ultrawide but with the added bonus of extra vertical FOV that you can't get on an actual ultrawide.

I tend to agree with you generally, but a notable difference is the curvature. (To me, at least for the 700R to 800R ones at deep desk distances. 700R(adius) to 800R(adius) is 700mm to 800mm = 27.5" - 31.5" to center of curvature, where pixels are all pointed directly at you all the way to the side bezels). When sitting at a curved screen where you are able to sit at the center of curvature due to screen design and desk+screen mount layout, it would be like holding a screen in portrait mode out in front of you and spinning in your chair, like using a compass, so the uniformity would be better (than sitting as close but using a large flat 16:9 as an ultrawide resolution), and the geometry issues (outside of some game's own code warping it) would be minimized. People using multiple screens usually tilt the side screens inward in what is sort-of a very low "resolution" segmented curve similarly, so that the side screen's pixels are facing them instead of pointing progressively more off-axis from viewer the farther away the pixels are.

Unfortunately, some other gaming screen models/brands force upscaling of non-native resolutions to full screen, so can't do smaller resolutions 1:1 with bars natively. That might be due to complications with DSC in overcoming cable/port bandwidth, idk.

. . . . .

Personally I'd love if someone (else) made a big glossy OLED at 1000R(adius) ~ 39.5" to the center of curvature - like the samsung arc, at 8k 16:9 or at least higher rez than 4k, with the ability to do non native resolutions like 4k, 5k, 6k. and different uw or s-uw resolutions across the screen width. Those smaller than the full screen resolutions 1:1 pixel mapped with black framing, with some of those capable of a peak Hz, higher than the Hz the full 8k rez could hit, of say 480Hz farther down the line.

Farther out, I'd love some future extremely high rez XR / MR glasses with polished functionality, which could do multiple 4k virtual screens worth of screen space individually or as a larger curved surface, at high hz. That might involve eye tracking and foveated rendering or some kind (highest rez only within your central field of view or range of focus). There are also ways devs could theoretically only use the highest Hz in the sweet spot of your vision (reducing the frames/second demands overall). That kind of tech, by that time, would probably start breaking games out of the pancake screen into mixed reality though, where you could for example, have a field of game space on a surface or a virtual dioarama like box, of scrolling "holographic" 3D content right on your desk, or a table, or floating in space (for some types of games, outside of more immersive 1st person VR-like stuff).

There are XR glasses now but they are only 1080p total and their functionality is clunky. There are also pass-through MR headsets and tech demos showing free-floating game spaces, but the headsets are still very bulky (apple vision pro and meta VR headsets, also meta is making a competitor to vision pro now due out eventually), At some point the tech should get small enough and powerful enough to do what I described with very high resolutions in one svelte, sexy set of lightweight glasses that have a highly polished functionality., but it's a ways off yet. If XR glasses (the sunglass format virtual screen glasses) get to 4k resolution per eye (at 120hz and later 240hz, and on up) - I'd be more interested them even now to use part of the time, but 1080p is a non starter for me. Vision pro and VR headsets are still generally bulky gear, so those aren't very desireable to me for overall daily use.

 

[Advil]

04.63.20 just came in for my CX 48 today. As usual, no info availalble.

 

[Rkele]

5 years, 2 months, 5 days.

That's how long I've had the CX48. Still going strong. A few hundred dead pixels around the edges, but not really noticeable unless you really look for them in a white background. Just for fun I tried to hit couple of them with some online pixel revival thingy but nope, they're dead.
No burn-in whatsoever. Perhaps some almost invisible ghosts on the places where the desktop icons have been for years. I remember how paranoid I was about burn-in in the beginning. Even dimmed the desktop icons to almost unusable level.

Funny enough, it took all these years to finally start hitting the 120Hz at 4K, when I got the 5090.

Some day, when it's time to upgrade, I will definitely try to stay at 48". All surroundings around the CX have changed and kinda evolved to accommodate it and any other size would be troublesome.

 

[elvn]

Still using my 48 cx as my gaming display. i have a few tiny black pixels at the top right and left along the edge, but hardly any. A tiny sprinkle of pepper within a 1/2" horizontal area in each spot right along the edge. Not really noticeable.

I could male a 55" work. That's the smallest size of the LG G5 tandem oled currently, and it's the size if the samsung ark some people used (though that is curved).

The tvs are Hz limited now compared to desktop monitors , and don't have dp 2.1 80Gbs. The tvs go much brighter in HDR though. The OLED monitors are limited, especially compared to the G5.

 

[MistaSparkul]

The CX is like the GTX 1080 Ti, there are way better options out today but nobody would fault you if you were still using one.

 

[elvn]

Just guessing that DV2 being talked about lately in some forums and tech sites might remain more valuable on OLEDs for longer (for movies and shows, primarily), since even OLEDs with high 10% window like LG's G5 tandem OLED ~ 2k nit at 10%, are still a bit more limited at larger % windows:

LG G5 (55" smallest size) in game mode (as per RTings review) :

Peak 2% Window 2,086 cd/m²
Peak 10% Window 2,118 cd/m²
Peak 25% Window 966 cd/m²
Peak 50% Window 616 cd/m²
Peak 100% Window 390 cd/m²
Sustained 2% Window 2,045 cd/m²
Sustained 10% Window 2,066 cd/m²
Sustained 25% Window 920 cd/m²
Sustained 50% Window 608 cd/m²
Sustained 100% Window 387 cd/m²

TCL QM8K (65" smallest model) game mode (per RTings review). The soon to be available QM9K is reportedly even brighter.

Peak 2% Window 3,610 cd/m²
Peak 10% Window 3,516 cd/m²
Peak 25% Window 2,166 cd/m²
Peak 50% Window 1,246 cd/m²
Peak 100% Window 800 cd/m²
Sustained 2% Window 1,632 cd/m²
Sustained 10% Window 1,673 cd/m²
Sustained 25% Window 1,646 cd/m²
Sustained 50% Window 982 cd/m²
Sustained 100% Window 657 cd/m²


You can see where all of the % windows on exceptionally bright miniLED FALD HDR (144Hz currently) gaming tv screens are starting to approach 1000nit, notably even the 25% and 50% sustained, and even 100% (un-sustained) windows, so that there would be little to no compression of ranges necessary for HDR 1000 (1k) at least. Perhaps DV2 will help to tone map for HDR4000, 6000, to 10,000 ranges to look better going forward though, (or to "upscale" HDR10 content to 4k, 6k, 10k nit capable TVs a little better than TV manufacturers offerings might on their own).

. .

The LG G5 at 55" is appealing, but limited to 144Hz so there are some tradeoffs vs faster, dimmer oled monitors (and those with dp 2.1 if 80Gbps)

 

[MistaSparkul]

Just guessing that DV2 being talked about lately in some forums and tech sites might remain more valuable on OLEDs for longer (for movies and shows, primarily), since even OLEDs with high 10% window like LG's G5 tandem OLED ~ 2k nit at 10%, are still a bit more limited at larger % windows:

LG G5 (55" smallest size) in game mode (as per RTings review) :

Peak 2% Window 2,086 cd/m²
Peak 10% Window 2,118 cd/m²
Peak 25% Window 966 cd/m²
Peak 50% Window 616 cd/m²
Peak 100% Window 390 cd/m²
Sustained 2% Window 2,045 cd/m²
Sustained 10% Window 2,066 cd/m²
Sustained 25% Window 920 cd/m²
Sustained 50% Window 608 cd/m²
Sustained 100% Window 387 cd/m²

TCL QM8K (65" smallest model) game mode (per RTings review). The soon to be available QM9K is reportedly even brighter.

Peak 2% Window 3,610 cd/m²
Peak 10% Window 3,516 cd/m²
Peak 25% Window 2,166 cd/m²
Peak 50% Window 1,246 cd/m²
Peak 100% Window 800 cd/m²
Sustained 2% Window 1,632 cd/m²
Sustained 10% Window 1,673 cd/m²
Sustained 25% Window 1,646 cd/m²
Sustained 50% Window 982 cd/m²
Sustained 100% Window 657 cd/m²


You can see where all of the % windows on exceptionally bright miniLED FALD HDR (144Hz currently) gaming tv screens are starting to approach 1000nit, notably even the 25% and 50% sustained, and even 100% (un-sustained) windows, so that there would be little to no compression of ranges necessary for HDR 1000 (1k) at least. Perhaps DV2 will help to tone map for HDR4000, 6000, to 10,000 ranges to look better going forward though, (or to "upscale" HDR10 content to 4k, 6k, 10k nit capable TVs a little better than TV manufacturers offerings might on their own).

. .

The LG G5 at 55" is appealing, but limited to 144Hz so there are some tradeoffs vs faster, dimmer oled monitors (and those with dp 2.1 if 80Gbps)

IMO, test slide data is somewhat worthless. You should instead be comparing real scene brightness and in that regard the G5 would probably be brighter than the QM8K in a lot of content, 3000+ nits in test slides yet it won't do anymore than 1000 for most highlights:

The G5 is also 165Hz and not 144Hz, but honestly even 240Hz now seems low considering we have OLEDs doing 500Hz+. I have both a 165Hz and 240Hz OLED and 165Hz does not make me feel like I am missing anything vs 240Hz, but 700 nits makes me feel like I am missing a lot vs 2200 nits.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

Still using my 48 cx as my gaming display. i have a few tiny black pixels at the top right and left along the edge, but hardly any. A tiny sprinkle of pepper within a 1/2" horizontal area in each spot right along the edge. Not really noticeable.

I could male a 55" work. That's the smallest size of the LG G5 tandem oled currently, and it's the size if the samsung ark some people used (though that is curved).

The tvs are Hz limited now compared to desktop monitors , and don't have dp 2.1 80Gbs. The tvs go much brighter in HDR though. The OLED monitors are limited, especially compared to the G5.

I've considered the Samsung Ark Gen 2 many times but held off because it's a 55" and for me a 50" is the absolute max size I prefer. The curve is awesome for gaming though.

 

[p3sty]

The CX is like the GTX 1080 Ti, there are way better options out today but nobody would fault you if you were still using one.

Like what?

I'm using the 48cx perfect size has all the features I need with the exception of 240 htz or higher refresh. TBH programs and games lack innovation anymore we seem to have flatlined.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Like what?

I'm using the 48cx perfect size has all the features I need with the exception of 240 htz or higher refresh. TBH programs and games lack innovation anymore we seem to have flatlined.

For HDR gaming the G5 or S95F. For high refresh + PPI there is the 27/32 inch monitors.

 

[dpoverlord]

Think we'll get a 240hz version for the G6

 

[p3sty]

After the 48cx I cannot see myself going to anything smaller. The Samsung odyssey format is horrible for me to narrow after having the 48cx .

 

[elvn]

After the 48cx I cannot see myself going to anything smaller. The Samsung odyssey format is horrible for me to narrow after having the 48cx .

Not horrible for everyone, but I agree personally. For me most of the ultrawides are too short, and most have very obtuse curvature that makes sitting at the center of curvature not doable realistically, which makes the pixels progressively more off-axis the further they are from the center of the screen. The 800R 45" 5120x2160 LG's center of curvature is around 32 inches though, so that is a lot closer than most.

The nearer you sit to a screen, the larger it effectively is to your perspective (including the height), and the nearer you sit, the lower the PPD. . and vice-versa sitting farther shrinks the screen and pixel sizes to your perspective. So only stating what physical size and ppi a screen are isn't telling the whole story, unless you are incapable of changing the viewing distance of your setup for whatever reasons.

https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

. .

48" 16:9 4k
I sit at ~ 38" to 45" away from my 48CX , depending what I'm doing. I consider 60PPD a minimum, and for non-standard subpixel formats, even higher really.

48" 16:9 at 38 inch view distance = 60 degree viewing angle = 64 PPD
48" 16:9 at 45 inch view distance = 50 degree viewing angle = 77 PPD

. .

45" 21:9 at 5120x2160 , ~ 17" tall

45" 21:9 at 24 inch view distance is almost 1/3 short of the center of curvature = 82 deg viewing angle width = 63 PPD
45" 21:9 at 32 inch viewing distance is at the center of curvature of the screen = 66 deg viewing angle width = 78 PPD

The 45" 21:9 is similar to a 34" 4k 16:9 screen with a +640px "wing" on each side.

Cons I don't like about that screen are:
- abraded outer layer/matte
- not as bright as oled TVs (especially new tandem oleds like the 55" G5, let alone future phOLEDs + tandem)
- "only" 165Hz 4k (with a 240Hz model rumored to be produced at some point)

. . .

32" 16:9 4k

32" 16:9 at 24 inch view distance = 66 deg viewing angle = 64 PPD (33" 16:9 = 62 PPD)
32" 16:9 at 32 inch viewing distance = 48 deg viewing angle = 82 PPD (33" 16:9 = 79 PPD)

. . .

34" 16:9 4k

34" 16:9 at 25 inch view distance = 61 deg viewing angle = 63 PPD
34" 16:9 at 32 inch viewing distance = 50 deg viewing angle = 77 PPD



. . .

57" 32:9 "4k+4k" super-ultrawide , ~ 17" tall

A 57" super ultrawide is a lot like a 34" 4k screen with a 1920px "wing" on each end.
The viewing distance numbers come out similar to the 45" 21:9 since they are practically the same height

57" 32:9 (or a ~34" 4k) at ~ 25 inch view distance = 63 PPD
57" 32:9 (or a ~34" 4k) at ~ 33 inch view distance = 79 PPD

As you can see, I aligned the screens by PPD so that central 4k portion of all of the screens would look practically the same from sitting at close to the respective viewing distances I used in the examples - as would the healthy screen heights to your perspective as well.

. . .

After the 48cx I cannot see myself going to anything smaller. The Samsung odyssey format is horrible for me to narrow after having the 48cx .

I agree with you about the 57" super ultrawide. You could sit at a distance where it is similar to the percieved screen height of the rest of the examples above, but the G95NC 57" 7680x2160 is quite different from the other examples because it's very long and it's center of curvature is very obtuse at 1000R(adius) = 1000mm = ~ 40 inches. Even if you wanted to sit 40 inches away, like I do my 48" 16:9, the 32:9 screen's physical height would make that unrealistic to your perspective. That would only make sense to me if a screen had a height like that of a 48" to 55" 16:9, or if a screen had a much more aggressive curvature. Sitting closer to the 57" s-uw would make the screen taller to your perspective like it would any screen, but the pixels would be a lot more off axis the farther they were from the center of the screen at 1000R, and your viewing angle would be extreme, so there would be some cons.

(The dotted line was added by me) . . . screenshots are from "Pete Matheson" youtube channel

If just considering the productivity aspect, I can do similar to this head turn below in a triple screen setup, but I get more height, (especially with 4k portrait mode screens on the sides). Additionally, some games don't play nice unless they are fullscreen, so having other monitors with 2ndary inputs connected to a laptop or other (less robust than my gaming) system that I can swap over to while gaming is also a pro for me as well, where a single screen loses that multi-screen space, multi-tasking usability while in game. Alt-tabbing out of games isn't a great solution either. That process can be laggy/clunky. Some games get buggy when you do that at times, too, or even freeze/crash. Apps can minimize or move around as well, which is annoying.

I get the attraction for some people but for me, I'd want a taller screen, even after taking viewing distance vs perceived height into consideration. I also don't like using oleds for static desktop/apps, but I want one for gaming. . and like I said I like to multitask while gaming, so having mutliple screens is a better usage scenario for me. Those factors overall making the biggest pro of the s-uw, the "productivity"space aspect, less useful to me.

 

[SH1]

Yeah...my neck complains the size is a little too big, but the rest of me requests the neck to live with it.

Gorgeous glossy true blacks picture. 4K at an effective 292 Hz or more. I still love mine! (Technically this one now is a C1, but basically same difference...)

 

[p3sty]

WHAT SCREEN IS IN THE PICTURE?

 

[elvn]

WHAT SCREEN IS IN THE PICTURE?

I thought it was obvious since the paragraph above it is talking all about it. It's the 57" 7680x2160 (2x 4k), 240Hz 1000R(adius)/1000mm/~40inch center of curvature super ultrwawide FALD VA screen. Samsung G95NC. There is one other manufacturer that makes one, I think acer, but it's not 240Hz.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-neo-g9-g95nc-s57cg95

https://hardforum.com/threads/samsung-odyssey-neo-g9-57-7680x2160-super-ultrawide-mini-led.2024564/

.

 

[p3sty]

elvn ugh that's the same blah......

 

[elvn]

This isn't about the 48cx I am still using at my desk, which has a tiny, handful of specks of black "pepper" in a 2inch area right along the top edge in one top corner's edge and a couple of specs on the other left end of the screen of that top edge. This is about my 77" LG C1 in my living room , which gets a lot of hours. It has started showing a small dull red glowing spot, probably less than 1/8th of an inch including the very dim red glow, in some black fields (in one spot, more than halfway up in the middle of the left side),

" and I noticed now that there are couple of white, more defined, but very tiny rectangular pixel spots recently on the screen, too."

Edit: this appears to have been an input artifact of some kind as far as I can tell. I did some color background tests and haven't seen the white subpixels again so far. The single red one still appears, but once I set back on my couch and at a lower viewing angle, it isn't as visible - and in actual content, I never see it.

Brought it home october 21st, 2021.



. . .

I'm eventually moving the 77" to my modeled basement as a home theater space, where I'll run it into the ground until it gets worse or dies. At this point, it's definitely usable and not showing spots during media playback from 8' - 9' away, so I'll use it as long as I can for movies and shows.

Next time around, for home theater I'll probably take a stronger look at the miniLEDs like the QM8k and QM9K from TCL, but the newer OLEDs are supposedly better ~ somewhat more resilient and better made , ( plus new tandem oleds like the LG G5, and in upcoming years, hopefully "phOLED" phosphorescent blue oled screens).

I've always kept my 48" CX desktop OLED almost exclusively for gaming and media, so I'll keep using some non-oleds for desktop/apps in a multi monitor array there. Idk what I'll upgrade my desktop screen to eventually. The 45" 32:9 5120x2160's are appealing, but not very bright, and not glossy, 165Hz 4k max. The 55" LG G5 TV is nice and bright, and I'd find it usable for pc if mounted separately at around ~ 45" view distance (where it would get 68 PPD), which I already practically am doing with the 48" CX, but it has no curve and isn't higher than 4k like the 5120x 21:9 screen, so would "only" be a boost in brightness, though that's considerably brighter on typical scene brightness and %'s of the screen than a 48CX. Both of those are 165Hz.

Still holding fast for now.

 

[elvn]

Some comparisons.

LG CX monitor review scores (Rtings) :

. . .

LG CX scores from it's RTings TV Review :

. . .

LG G5 OLED review scores media / game mode (RTings) :

. .

LG 45GX950A SDR brightness and HDR brightness scores (RTings) :

. . . .

TCL QM8K HDR media / HDR Game mode ratings (Rtings) :
<QM9K not reviewed yet>

QM8K SDR ratings (Rtings)

 

[kasakka]

The CX is like the GTX 1080 Ti, there are way better options out today but nobody would fault you if you were still using one.

Absolutely. I've had the CX for over 5 years now. I'm still happy with it and don't see any huge need to replace it, despite having some dead pixels on the edges. You just don't notice them in actual use.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Just higher HDR brightness is not enough for me to swap. The LG CX is good enough where I'm not unhappy with its HDR performance. I've got several smaller, higher brightness displays (OLED tablet and two mini-LEDs) to compare to. Yes, they're better, but they don't really make a huge difference in my overall experience.

I feel like we are again in a transitional period where OLEDs will improve drastically in the next 1-2 years with all the new layer tech etc. I hope that also means we will get 240 Hz refresh rates - ideally with low latency BFI.

I'm still waiting for that overall package that will be a major improvement in every area. At this rate, the likely scenario is that I will buy a house before I upgrade my TV.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Absolutely. I've had the CX for over 5 years now. I'm still happy with it and don't see any huge need to replace it, despite having some dead pixels on the edges. You just don't notice them in actual use.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Just higher HDR brightness is not enough for me to swap. The LG CX is good enough where I'm not unhappy with its HDR performance. I've got several smaller, higher brightness displays (OLED tablet and two mini-LEDs) to compare to. Yes, they're better, but they don't really make a huge difference in my overall experience.

I feel like we are again in a transitional period where OLEDs will improve drastically in the next 1-2 years with all the new layer tech etc. I hope that also means we will get 240 Hz refresh rates - ideally with low latency BFI.

I'm still waiting for that overall package that will be a major improvement in every area. At this rate, the likely scenario is that I will buy a house before I upgrade my TV.

240Hz is really nothing to write home about anymore, just look at the LG 45" thread where people are happy enough to settle for 165Hz instead. Being an owner of both a 165hz and 240Hz OLED I wouldn't bother upgrading for 240Hz anymore either especially now that OLEDs are hitting 500Hz and above that just makes 240Hz seem like a huge meh. I've said it before but I'll say it again, it's not just raw brightness of these new OLEDs that is impressing me, it's specifically the COLOR VOLUME. A brighter OLED doesn't really mean much if the color volume doesn't improve, and the S95F's colors makes it impossible for me to go to any other OLED right now.

 

[kalston]

My LG CX has developed... backlight bleed? lol

(it is white, and faint enough that it's a struggle to capture with a camera at all)

This the top right corner, in a pitch black room. I am curious as to why there is light, when the pixels are actually turned off. It goes away when I power the TV off of course but otherwise it's always there, even with a 0% black screen or the screen off function.

Don't read this as a complaint though, the TV will likely hit 30k hours before I finally retire it from the main comp. That's a lot of abuse!

On a side note I've experimented with using a custom ultra wide resolution on it and it was pretty good for gaming (physically the same size as the 45" LG ultra wide out there now), but I guess I really got used to full size 48" so it still felt kinda small. It's a neat way to avoid the messed up top border of the screen, though!

 

[equinox654]

After 5 years my CX48 is scrap. My wife went into my man cave to watch tv on Saturday since I was playing Ball X Pit on the tv down stairs. I was sick all weekend and didn’t even go upstairs where my man cave is.

When I got home from work today I went to hop on BF6 and when I opened the door I noticed the tv was on.

The OLED had been on for 4 days. All 4 corners have dead pixels as well as the first few rows on all sides. Also a splotchy grid sorta burned in from the main screen on YouTube.

My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.

 

[MistaSparkul]

After 5 years my CX48 is scrap. My wife went into my man cave to watch tv on Saturday since I was playing Ball X Pit on the tv down stairs. I was sick all weekend and didn’t even go upstairs where my man cave is.

When I got home from work today I went to hop on BF6 and when I opened the door I noticed the tv was on.

The OLED had been on for 4 days. All 4 corners have dead pixels as well as the first few rows on all sides. Also a splotchy grid sorta burned in from the main screen on YouTube.

My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.

4 days is not even 100 hours, definitely not long enough to suddenly cause dead pixels and permanent burn in. You probably already had those dead pixels long before but just didn't notice until now. As for the burn in, try running a long compensation cycle and see if that clears it up.

 

[equinox654]

4 days is not even 100 hours, definitely not long enough to suddenly cause dead pixels and permanent burn in. You probably already had those dead pixels long before but just didn't notice until now. As for the burn in, try running a long compensation cycle and see if that clears it up.

I figured the dead pixels popped up from around 96 hours with no panel refresh. I’m pretty ocd about my oleds. I basically use that one for couch gaming since I have a G8 on my desk. Last game I played was RDR2 a couple of weeks ago and it was the snow area. Pretty sure I would have seen it.

I admit it is possible though. Don’t tell my wife that though. Best Buy has this years 65” 1300 off.

 

[elvn]

Any thoughts on the LG G5? S95F isn't available here yet, and G5 is 400 off deal atm (so £1999 vs £2499 for S95F at release). They both seem pretty similar, so go cheaper?

Going back a few pages to reply to that comment since I've been doing some research on the LG G5.

The S95F OLED and samsung's QN mini-LED FALD screens all have matte abraded surfaces on them this gen, so those are out of the running for me.
. . .

LG uses dithering on its OLEDs
to address problems like chrominance overshoot and instability in low-brightness pixels, which can cause noise or banding in dark scenes. While it can improve overall picture quality by simulating more colors or smoothing out transitions, this processing can sometimes introduce new artifacts, such as visible diagonal lines, especially when viewed up close on certain models
. . .

The dithering issue is steering me away from the LG G5 OLED, because I wanted to use one on a stand, gapped from a pc desk but still at a desk-like viewing angle. The vids of the dithering on reddit and youtube look bad. Apparently the C5 series ("see" 5, not "gee" 5), also has much more visible moving lines from dithering than previous generations.

. . . .

From another thread/forum, the comment was that from statements by reviewer sources, a few said that the dithering lines do not become unnoticeable until after 1.5m (an inch shy of 5 feet), though some said they become unnoticeable after 3 feet.
I think the screen size vs viewing distance, PPD might come into play there though, since most of those reviewers are primarily "living room TV" oriented, even if they cover the gaming.

The 1.5 meters figure as a minimum to make dithering not apparent is equivalent to 4' 11", which is essentially 5 feet. Viewing a 55" 16:9 4k screen at 5 feet (or 60 inches), results in you sitting farther than where you would view the screen within the 60 to 50 degree human central viewing angle, which is the optimal viewing angle for PC use.

. . . . . . .

For a 55" 16:9, in order for me to view one in the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees for pc desktop/gaming, I'd be somewhere around :

41 inch view distance ~ 60 degrees
to
51 inch view distance ~ 50 degrees

Say around 40 inch +/- for 60 degree viewing angle, maybe 3.5 feet ( ~ 106 cm).

. . . . . . .

The fact that some sources are saying dithering lines don't become unnoticeable until after almost 60 inch view distance is disturbing (for pc use). At 60 inch view distance the screen is only at a 44 deg viewing angle, so not filling your central view, being somewhat shrunken to your perspective.

Optimal viewing angle for pc use is near the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, which gets you a healthy 64 to 77 PPD, and most PC users would probably go for fatter(nearer) toward the 60 deg end of that figure to fill out the central view. If dithering is noticeable at those viewing angles, then it would be a deal breaker and I'd have to avoid the G5 OLED. I do have an eye for detail, and dislike matte abraded screen surfaces even. I've not found any good data about how far the dithering is noticeable though, more like recommendations.

If the 1.5m is correct, then dithering lines would be visible at less than 5 feet away. However, if the 3 feet comment is correct, then it might be ok at 60 to 50 deg, since that viewing angle range is around 3.5 feet to 4.4 feet.

PPD calculator:
https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/


. . . .

Making the two videos below full screen or a larger window on a larger screen makes it more apparent than windowed or using small screens. The issue is that there are lines present, but also that they are moving, or appear to change/move as the content is moving.

G5

View: https://imgur.com/a/yjyNoAi

. . .

G5

View: https://imgur.com/a/hKhZBlA

. . .


. . .
G4

. . .

 

[kalston]

Yeah I have the same worries as you. The matte of the S95F is a damn shame, but so is the dithering on LG C and G panels (B is unaffected but looks no better than our old CX lol). It's the kind of thing that's hard to judge without trying it in person though, but it's a turn-off at this price point.

My other issue with Samsung is that for whatever reason they mix up QD-OLED and WOLED depending on the size and region, and in Europe there's very few Samsung panels that are actually QD-OLED. Like, this prevents me from going for the older and cheaper gen, for example S90F that was actually glossy only comes in WOLED type here, and is no better than LG's offerings (it has the dithering issue as well).


In many ways I love the 32" inch QD-OLED panels out there, other than somewhat average HDR they are virtually flawless.

But I'm really addicted to 48" size and can only imagine going up, not down, or sticking to the same.

 

[MistaSparkul]

There is no such thing as a perfect TV with zero flaws. The pros of the G5 far, far outweigh the cons by miles. In fact, my cousin who got burn in on his CX last year from playing too much FF XIV with RTX HDR on, finally decided to cash in on his Bestbuy geeksquad warranty to get a G5. They sent over a technician to inspect the TV then later gave him this notice the following day:

He called them up, then got issued store credit for $1488.

This means with the sale price of the G5 being $1750, he was able to buy a brand spanking new G5 for just $262 (plus tax)!

Yeah sure it's not 100% perfect, but neither is the CX with it's near black chrominance overshoot and vertical streaks, yet everyone just happily keeps on using it without complaining.

 

[elvn]

Yeah I have the same worries as you. The matte of the S95F is a damn shame, but so is the dithering on LG C and G panels (B is unaffected but looks no better than our old CX lol). It's the kind of thing that's hard to judge without trying it in person though, but it's a turn-off at this price point.

My other issue with Samsung is that for whatever reason they mix up QD-OLED and WOLED depending on the size and region, and in Europe there's very few Samsung panels that are actually QD-OLED. Like, this prevents me from going for the older and cheaper gen, for example S90F that was actually glossy only comes in WOLED type here, and is no better than LG's offerings (it has the dithering issue as well).


In many ways I love the 32" inch QD-OLED panels out there, other than somewhat average HDR they are virtually flawless.

But I'm really addicted to 48" size and can only imagine going up, not down, or sticking to the same.

I'm in a similar situation. The 45" 21:9, 5120x2160 LG GX950a 's format was perfect really, but I found the overall PQ lacking. They did some weird lift in order to do their "high" brightness mode, the HDR curve was dim in the normal range and the colors were kind of dull (or still narrow but oversaturated in other modes), and the matte coating made everything worse with granular looking bright fields of color and text, and flattened blacks.

I guess I have to wait to see what 2026+ has.

There is no such thing as a perfect TV with zero flaws. The pros of the G5 far, far outweigh the cons by miles. In fact, my cousin who got burn in on his CX last year from playing too much FF XIV with RTX HDR on, finally decided to cash in on his Bestbuy geeksquad warranty to get a G5. They sent over a technician to inspect the TV then later gave him this notice the following day:

View attachment 767932

He called them up, then got issued store credit for $1488.

View attachment 767933

This means with the sale price of the G5 being $1750, he was able to buy a brand spanking new G5 for just $262!

Yeah sure it's not 100% perfect, but neither is the CX with it's near black chrominance overshoot and vertical streaks, yet everyone just happily keeps on using it without complaining.

It really may depend on how far away from it you sit. For my purposes where it would be a 55" at around 3.5 feet away, the dithering might rule it out. I have an eye for detail and don't even like matte abraded screens, so if I saw obvious dithering lines throughout scene motion like the examples above, it would make me regret spending ~ $1800 + tax (or less if I catch a sale) on a 55" LG G5. I realize the examples are close-ups but if I saw it at ~ 3.5' away I'd be regretful of the purchase.


great trade in deal for your cousin though
.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I'm in a similar situation. The 45" 21:9, 5120x2160 LG GX950a 's format was perfect really, but I found the overall PQ lacking (they did some weird lift in order to do their "high" brightness mode, the HDR curve was dim in the normal range and the colors were kind of dull, and the matte coating made everything worse with granular looking bright fields of color and text, and flattened blacks.).

I guess I have to wait to see what 2026+ has.



It really may depend on how far away from it you sit. For my purposes where it would be a 55" at around 3.5 feet away, the dithering might rule it out.


great trade in deal for your cousin though
.

Welp like I said if it's not the G5's dithering to complain about then it'll just be something else in it's place whether it's the C5's diagonal lines/green tinting/lack of tandem panel, S95F's matte coating/one connect box, S90F doesn't use a matte coating but still has raised black levels in a non pitch black room because QD-OLED, or Mini LED TVs having typical LCD issues. All TV's will have some problems or another, but IMO the trade offs are well worth it. Life is too short to be stuck on 2020 HDR displays.

 

[elvn]

Welp like I said if it's not the G5's dithering to complain about then it'll just be something else in it's place whether it's the C5's diagonal lines/green tinting/lack of tandem panel, S95F's matte coating/one connect box, S90F doesn't use a matte coating but still has raised black levels in a non pitch black room because QD-OLED, or Mini LED TVs having typical LCD issues. All TV's will have some problems or another, but IMO the trade offs are well worth it. Life is too short to be stuck on 2020 HDR displays.

I tried with the gx950a but that wasn't "it". I felt it wasn't even a sidegrade in PQ to my 2020 display , lol , other than the rez and 800R format. Appoaching ~ $2k after taxes here, since they don't make anything smaller than a 55" LG G5, isn't a price tag I'm willing to suffer in your face dithering lines on, lines that appear to transition as material moves on screen. I'd have to see it in person to be sure though, at around my 3.5 foot viewing distance on different viewing material. Some say they are still visible until you get 5' +.

.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I tried with the gx950a but that wasn't "it". I felt it wasn't even a sidegrade in PQ to my 2020 display , lol , other than the rez and 800R format. Appoaching ~ $2k after taxes here, since they don't make anything smaller than a 55" LG G5, isn't a price tag I'm willing to suffer in your face dithering on. I'd have to see it in person to be sure though, at around my 3.5 foot viewing distance on different viewing material.

.

Well that is a gaming monitor so I guess the priorities when making that display were different with more focus on Hz/other gaming features rather than straight up picture quality improvements compared to previous gen monitors, so somewhat of a slight apples to oranges comparison putting it against a full blown TV like the CX. Comparing TV to TV though, the G5 is a day and night difference in picture quality against a CX.

 

[elvn]

the G5 is a day and night difference in picture quality against a CX.

That was the idea, until I learned more about the dithering issue.

 

[MistaSparkul]

That was the idea, until I learned more about the dithering issue.

I'd rather have G5 HDR with dithering than CX HDR with it's own set of issues but that's just me. Now that I've seen what these 2025 sets can do I just can't go back to anything else lol. My PG32UCDP is now just sitting in it's box.

 

[elvn]

I have some time before the 55" G5 might drop a few hundred more, where I'd be more tempted to bite (had the dithering concern not turned me off).

I may see if I can bring my laptop in a backpack to a bestbuy that has a LG G5 on display, if they'll let me connect it to the screen to test for a few minutes (maybe they'll let me come back near closing time or something). The only one local is a 65 inch model though, so it might be like PPD ~ perceived pixel sizes, where the 65" screen's dithering might be visible a bit farther away than a 55 inch would. The 55" at 3.5 feet away I'd be going for with my setup would be an equivalent viewing angle and perceived pixel size as a 65" at around 4 feet 3 inches away.

Idk. I guess if they hit my price point before 2026 screens potentially outshine them, I could try one and return it if I found the dithering to be obnoxious.

.