LG 48CX

tacos4me

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
792
You should try talking to them through chat because I saw the same thing this morning (said free delivery tomorrow) while my order said July 27th. I got into chat telling the rep that I can order again right now and have it tomorrow so why is my current order still showing July 27th and after the guy looked into my order it miraculously shipped 5 minutes later.

He also said that I'm "lucky" to have it shipping soon because demand is huge with a long order back log.

EDIT: The reason I gave up and ordered at BB is because their ETA as evident by this thread and else where is very conservative. People have been ordering and receiving it in a few days or weeks. Yours seems to be an outlier.

FYI Walmart has it in stock online too last I checked and it said I'd have it in a few days.
Perhaps all the lucky folk are west coast or something, I dunno. Reached out via phone a few times and they're clueless.

I certainly don't appreciate going into the low priority queue very much. Best Buy logistics are on my shit list.
 

SoCali

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
86
Perhaps all the lucky folk are west coast or something, I dunno. Reached out via phone a few times and they're clueless.

I certainly don't appreciate going into the low priority queue very much. Best Buy logistics are on my shit list.
Ah yeah that may be the case. It seems many of the people getting theirs so fast are in California.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,385
I would but if I order today my local best buy shipping date is around the same, so if there is no difference in timing I may as well save $100.
Except Bestbuy's shipping dates are total bs. I placed my order on June 26th. Bestbuy told me I would get the TV between July 14th to July 21st. When did the tv show up at my door? On July 1st lol. If you have an arrival date of 21st from Bestbuy, odds are it's going to come a lot sooner.
 

Attachments

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,760
For this, you can just widen the FOV, unless changing the resolution is to get around an application limitation. Both methods should result in the same number of degrees of FOV per pixel, and the same effective in-game view distance (which is what you give up when you widen the FOV, at least if it's widened linearly).
Thanks but a lot of games use HOR+. HoR+ could technically be considered an application limitation if you want to think of it that way but it's a limitation they do on purpose. What they are doing is emulating a real world lens in cgi suites and game engines, aka virtual cinematography. A wider lens will always show more of the scene/world at the same camera distance since HOR+ is based on height of the frame. Zooming your FoV frame camera distance out in game with a FoV slider in a 16:9 or even a 4:3 screen is not the same thing (in a HOR+ game). It becomes a game of leap frog at nearer comparisons (16:9 frame < inside 21:9 frame < inside of 16:9 frame < inside of 21:9 frame, larger and larger FoVs) but at the same virtual distance/FoV frame point the wider aspect will always show a a wider game world where the height is based on HOR+ (virtual lenses). An ultrawide adds a considerable amount to the sides. Zooming or warping your FoV that far out in 16:9 or 4:3 would no be reasonable. The only way to get the same view with HoR+ without zooming your camera out an extreme amount is if you use letterboxing or some kind of warped fish-eyed lens perhaps.

eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg HOR-plus_scenes-compared_1-sm.jpg

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

The point was actually that you could save a bit of taxation on your gpu by running an ultrawide rez instead of running 4k native, but I also said it would have more game world shown, yes, for the above reasons. Hopefully I'll be able to run 3840x1600 letterboxed 1:1 on some games off of a 3080 or "3090" ti eventually with HDR, VRR, 444, 10bit 120hz. I think it would be fun to experiment with on racing games and at a slightly nearer distance than I'd normally be playing games from on a 48" or 55" OLED.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,017
Personally I have zero interest in traditional non native resolution use scaled beyond 1:1. It looks muddy and soft.. I'm not buying a 4k oled to run shit on it.
You miss all the posts here of people running games at 1440p and being very happy with it?

And that's the key takeaway here: games. Of course you don't want to write a letter or read a webpage at non-native res, text is the hardest thing to get to scale well. But for games the results are way better. You should watch the video, they show things side-by-side, zoomed in to see the difference (or lack thereof).
 

mirkendargen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
142
You miss all the posts here of people running games at 1440p and being very happy with it?

And that's the key takeaway here: games. Of course you don't want to write a letter or read a webpage at non-native res, text is the hardest thing to get to scale well. But for games the results are way better. You should watch the video, they show things side-by-side, zoomed in to see the difference (or lack thereof).
+1. What generally sticks out is assets that are being scaled anyway, sprites, etc, and they also look bad in 4k because they're being scaled up then too, just by the engine not the TV. Rendered stuff just looks every so slightly softened when you run 1440p and let the display scale (in PC mode with no sharpening/super resolution business).
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,760
You miss all the posts here of people running games at 1440p and being very happy with it?

And that's the key takeaway here: games. Of course you don't want to write a letter or read a webpage at non-native res, text is the hardest thing to get to scale well. But for games the results are way better. You should watch the video, they show things side-by-side, zoomed in to see the difference (or lack thereof).
I watched the vid when it was posted in this thread quite a long time ago.

To each their own. Non native rez (without DLSS) is muddy and soft (poop) to me and I have no interest in it. DLSS sounds promising for the games that are supported by it though. In fact they are saying it's end result is BETTER than native, almost like DOWNSAMPLING from a higher than native resolution rather than they typical mudscaling from a lower one's look. That's a huge difference in the end result if true.

.
 

mirkendargen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
142
I watched the vid when it was posted in this thread quite a long time ago.

To each their own. Non native rez (without DLSS) is muddy and soft (poop) to me and I have no interest in it. DLSS sounds promising for the games that are supported by it though. In fact they are saying it's end result is BETTER than native, almost like DOWNSAMPLING from a higher than native resolution rather than they typical mudscaling from a lower one's look. That's a huge difference in the end result if true.

.
It entirely depends what you want, it sounds like you wouldn't like DLSS, because it's also a softer image. The way that it's better than native res is it does excellent anti aliasing as part of that softness.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,385
I watched the vid when it was posted in this thread quite a long time ago.

To each their own. Non native rez (without DLSS) is muddy and soft (poop) to me and I have no interest in it. DLSS sounds promising for the games that are supported by it though. In fact they are saying it's end result is BETTER than native, almost like DOWNSAMPLING from a higher than native resolution rather than they typical mudscaling from a lower one's look. That's a huge difference in the end result if true.

.
Have you ever even seen checkboard rendering on Horizon Zero Dawn on the ps4 pro? Or maybe Uncharted 4 which renders at 1440p then does some kinda upscaling to 4k. I would certainly say it does NOT look like poop. Is it as good as native 4k? Well no of course not, but it isn't so bad that it sticks out either.
 

SoCali

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
86
I'm with elvn, 1440p on these displays in game (my C9) looks really really bad. You don't need to zoom into anything to immediately spot the difference as stuff just meters away from your player/FOV become an aliased blurry mess. Vegetation takes a huge hit with lots of shimmering.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,791
What worked for me was changing the the port you have your PC plugged into to "PC".. You can do this by:
  1. hitting the home button on your magic remote
  2. in the upper-right corner of the screen click on the settings (gear) button
  3. click "Edit"
  4. click on the icon to the left of the text label of the port your PC is plugged into
  5. select "PC" from the list (this will automatically change the text label to PC as well)
This should fix your ABL issues (even with contrast above 80). Just keep in mind that when you have it set to PC it will disable/grey out many picture settings for the TV.
I appreciate the help! But yeah, I had already done that on day 1 or 2 of owning this thing. I feel like I must be missing something else.

IMG_4822.JPG


I have Energy Saving turned off, am in Game Mode, and have HDMI Ultra HD Deep Color and Instant Game Response enabled for that 4th HDMI input.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,385
I'm with elvn, 1440p on these displays in game (my C9) looks really really bad. You don't need to zoom into anything to immediately spot the difference as stuff just meters away from your player/FOV become an aliased blurry mess. Vegetation takes a huge hit with lots of shimmering.
Straight 1440p on these OLED's look pretty bad yeah I'm not gonna disagree with that. I'm just saying that lower than native resolutions don't always have to look bad.
 

jincuteguy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
406
Currently I'm using my LG E9 55", you guys think I should get the new CX 48"? I'm so tempt to get it cause I think 48" would look more sharp cause of the PPI
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,760
yeah I played horizon. Looking forward to it on PC if it allows higher Hz. That's my worst gripe about consoles. They use checkerboarding tricks and dynamic rez and all that, and some do smart slow camera panning in relation to the character to make the movement less smeary, but they are still very choppy animations. As for the dynamic rez on PS4, it's not always downscaling all the time, and anyway I don't expect as much from a console to be honest. I suffer a console for convenience and portability when I can't play on my main rig for whatever reasons.

I guess if you are playing a really fast roomba hover pillar character in a shooter you might not care as much if your graphics clarity drops a notch in a firefight. I play a lot of RPGs, action oriented RPGs, etc which have a lot of gorgeous detail in the game worlds and creature designs. They also have a lot of text and in inventory systems, crafting, etc.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,017
I'm with elvn, 1440p on these displays in game (my C9) looks really really bad. You don't need to zoom into anything to immediately spot the difference as stuff just meters away from your player/FOV become an aliased blurry mess. Vegetation takes a huge hit with lots of shimmering.
Lower resolutions are going to have more shimmering, period. Instead of comparing 1440p to 4k, you should be comparing 1440p on the C9 to a 1440p monitor
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,791
Straight 1440p on these OLED's look pretty bad yeah I'm not gonna disagree with that. I'm just saying that lower than native resolutions don't always have to look bad.
I read that 1080p should look the best because it divides evenly into 4K. I remember trying it on my B7 because it supported 120Hz @ 1080p, but I don't remember how it looked in comparison.

Currently I'm using my LG E9 55", you guys think I should get the new CX 48"? I'm so tempt to get it cause I think 48" would look more sharp cause of the PPI
Yeah, order one now and let's see if you get yours before tacos4me. :D I kid, I kid!

It's definitely sharper and (for me) a better size given its use case, but yours doesn't have the 40Gbps "limitation" that I'm not sure will matter in the end anyway to 99% of people.
 

nutop

n00b
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
37
just IMO but I think the 48CX scales really well at 1440p. until i get a new card that can do the full bells and whistles, that's what i use and i think it looks great. i'm sure everyone will have varying opinions, but i'm pretty impressed with it.
 

Fleat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
973
Popped into Costco today for some grocery shopping and they have the 55 and 65CX in store now, but not the 48CX unfortunately. I asked the electronics rep and they were not sure if they would get the 48CX.

On a somewhat related note, I have a 55C9 in my office within the exchange window at Costco. Think it would be worth the $300 to move from the 55C9 to the 55CX?

From what I have read, the only appreciable benefit seems to be 4k120 4:2:2 support while we wait for HDMI 2.1 gpus. I am still considering it because I do have some minor concerns about firmware updates leaving the C9 behind, but the $300 seems a bit much for the temporary benefits. I will almost certainly be buying an HDMI 2.1 GPU at launch unless my circumstances change significantly.
 

nutop

n00b
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
37
Popped into Costco today for some grocery shopping and they have the 55 and 65CX in store now, but not the 48CX unfortunately. I asked the electronics rep and they were not sure if they would get the 48CX.

On a somewhat related note, I have a 55C9 in my office within the exchange window at Costco. Think it would be worth the $300 to move from the 55C9 to the 55CX?

From what I have read, the only appreciable benefit seems to be 4k120 4:2:2 support while we wait for HDMI 2.1 gpus. I am still considering it because I do have some minor concerns about firmware updates leaving the C9 behind, but the $300 seems a bit much for the temporary benefits. I will almost certainly be buying an HDMI 2.1 GPU at launch unless my circumstances change significantly.
imo... no. they are almost identical sets with minor improvements. the only thing you will get outside of what you mentioned is a better processor. use the 300 dollars towards your new video card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fleat
like this

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,385
Popped into Costco today for some grocery shopping and they have the 55 and 65CX in store now, but not the 48CX unfortunately. I asked the electronics rep and they were not sure if they would get the 48CX.

On a somewhat related note, I have a 55C9 in my office within the exchange window at Costco. Think it would be worth the $300 to move from the 55C9 to the 55CX?

From what I have read, the only appreciable benefit seems to be 4k120 4:2:2 support while we wait for HDMI 2.1 gpus. I am still considering it because I do have some minor concerns about firmware updates leaving the C9 behind, but the $300 seems a bit much for the temporary benefits. I will almost certainly be buying an HDMI 2.1 GPU at launch unless my circumstances change significantly.
Absolutely not. If anything it's a downgrade due to 40Gbps instead of 48Gbps like you get on the C9. Does it matter? Probably not but what I'm getting at is that the CX literally offers you nothing over a C9. 4k120Hz 4:2:0 is only a temporary benefit and is going to go away in about 2-3 months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fleat
like this

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,317
I think 1440p looks great with some sharpening. I use the Nvidia sharpen tool in the GeForce Experience overlay along with adjusting Sharpness on the TV itself. Guess I'm just one of those people who needs ~120FPS all the time. I tried 4k in Natural Selection 2, a dated online title, and immediately noticed the framerate drop. Back to 1440 until I get my 3080Ti, maybe longer.

edit: I should also add that the "shimmering" effect of aliasing on the 55CX actually seems less distracting to my eyes than it did with my 32" 1440p monitor. Perhaps it's the distance I'm sitting at or the screen size itself "spacing out" the lines better. Thankfully the lower perceived PPI just doesn't seem to bother me at all.
 
Last edited:

madpistol

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
129
I personally didn't buy a $1700 4k monitor to game at 1440p. It looks like crap, 4k or nothing imo lol
That's the idea... but my 2070 Super just isn't up to the task @ 4k120. However, I knew that going into this, with the plan to get a high-end HDMI 2.1 GPU when it's released.

For now, I'm actually really happy with the way 1440p looks on this TV. It's definitely not perfect, but I can live with it. 1440p on the 55 CX still looks far superior to my previous Dell 1440p TN monitor.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,017
Probably not but what I'm getting at is that the CX literally offers you nothing over a C9.
120hz BFI is a pretty significant addition.

Though not everybody will use it, since you can't use Gsync at the same time. I'm guessing most people will choose Gsync since it's kind of a "set and forget setting" whereas getting the most with BFI requires you to tune every game carefully, and even make custom refresh rates (if the CX supports that) to get a fluid image.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,385
120hz BFI is a pretty significant addition.

Though not everybody will use it, since you can't use Gsync at the same time. I'm guessing most people will choose Gsync since it's kind of a "set and forget setting" whereas getting the most with BFI requires you to tune every game carefully, and even make custom refresh rates (if the CX supports that) to get a fluid image.
The C9 doesn't support 120Hz BFI? Yikes I guess that's 1 point for the CX then.
 

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,716
Well guys, I am officially on the other side of the lg cx 48 oled. For some odd reason, it was a bitch to get into and out of my car (I need a bigger car). But it's pretty damn glorious now.

I have not touched any settings related to text, but sitting about the same distance ~3' from the screen as my old sony 43 inch, the text looks perfectly fine to my eyes.

I changed chrome to a dark theme, and need to do that for windows too.

Right now the screen is stretched a bit over the edges in each direction, so I'll have to adjust that somewhere. Using an old pascal 1080. This will tide me over until new cards arrive. All I am playing now is league of legends anyway. That and I still need to finish pillars 2.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,506
CX has plenty of benefits over the C9, just to name a few:

1. 4:2:0 4K/120Hz right now.
2. 48" size option.
3. 120 Hz BFI versus unusable 60 Hz BFI on C9.
 

kiario

n00b
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
17
120hz BFI(trumotion) is in my opinion the major factor with the CX. I have my 48CX setup with 120hz max BFI and its glorious. 80 backlight and contrast. 50 Brightness and 55 color and 10 sharpness. All other picture improvement option off. And of course the HDMI input set to PC for decreased ABSL.
Movement sharpness like plasma / CRT. Nothing can compare to it. Super clean.
I am super satisfied with the 48CX now when I understand the settings.
 

jincuteguy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
406
CX has plenty of benefits over the C9, just to name a few:

1. 4:2:0 4K/120Hz right now.
2. 48" size option.
3. 120 Hz BFI versus unusable 60 Hz BFI on C9.
What is BFI? And you can't use BFI with Gsync, then if you use BFI, you get tearing cause no Gsync? I mean does BFI provide no tearing as well?
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,506
What is BFI? And you can't use BFI with Gsync, then if you use BFI, you get tearing cause no Gsync? I mean does BFI provide no tearing as well?
It blacks/blanks the screen on "High" setting by 50%, so eye-tracking based motion blur is reduced by 50%. Correct, you must lock your FPS to 120 Hz in order to get BFI to look proper/smooth. So typically your hardware requirements are much steeper to use BFI, as you want your game minimum FPS to >/= 120 FPS. In order to not get tearing, I recommend the low lag V-Sync On trick as found here that I've had good results with:

https://blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/
 

kiario

n00b
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
17
What is BFI? And you can't use BFI with Gsync, then if you use BFI, you get tearing cause no Gsync? I mean does BFI provide no tearing as well?
I get zero tearing V-sync on. I have an old 1080TI and I would say with some adjustments it can run many games at 120fps(1080p). No need for Gsync when BFI results with 120hz are perfect motion. Waiting for the 3080TI :)

Regarding lag, its quite easy to test with just moving mouse in windows. If it is not reacting immediately then the lag is noticable. When you run 120hz BFI max, the mouse pointer is very easy to follow even when moving it fast around the screen. Any lag is noticable directly
 

mirkendargen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
142
It blacks/blanks the screen on "High" setting by 50%, so eye-tracking based motion blur is reduced by 50%. Correct, you must lock your FPS to 120 Hz in order to get BFI to look proper/smooth. So typically your hardware requirements are much steeper to use BFI, as you want your game minimum FPS to >/= 120 FPS. In order to not get tearing, I recommend the low lag V-Sync On trick as found here that I've had good results with:

https://blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/
You could do a 60FPS lock while set to 120hz refresh with BFI (to prevent visible flicker) on more demanding games and have no tearing as well.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,752
To each their own. Non native rez (without DLSS) is muddy and soft (poop) to me and I have no interest in it. DLSS sounds promising for the games that are supported by it though. In fact they are saying it's end result is BETTER than native, almost like DOWNSAMPLING from a higher than native resolution rather than they typical mudscaling from a lower one's look. That's a huge difference in the end result if true.
I tried Control with my CX and it does upscale even 1080p to 4K with DLSS so that it is hard to tell apart from native resolution. It has some sharpening artifacts but afaik Nvidia is working on making that part adjustable. I will take that to go from ~20 fps at native res to 60 fps with raytracing enabled on a 2080 Ti.

Running a lower resolution you lose fidelity but gain fps. Using Nvidia image sharpening helps a lot in this situation. Running a game at 1440p or 1800p with image sharpening you aren't going to notice the difference when actually playing the game rather than focusing on finding the difference. The fps boost is a great improvement in the overall experience. Especially for fast paced games this is a good option.

Finally you can run ultrawide resolutions for narrower vertical area but wider FOV and usually better performance than 4K 16:9. No scaling issues but that's where you again need HDMI 2.1 to get 120 Hz as it requires GPU scaling so the display needs to think it is still getting 4K 16:9. I tried custom resolutions yesterday with Shadow of the Tomb Raider and if I try to feed my CX for example 3840x1600 using the display's scaler, it will just stretch the image to fullscreen. GPU scaling worked fine. This might be game specific as GTA V and RDR2 won't scale these right without running in borderless window mode or setting the desktop res to the ultrawide custom res first.
 

lors

n00b
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
35
I think 1440p looks great with some sharpening.
This. I played COD MW Multiplayer at 1440p on my 65C9, i also tested Doom eternal, i think it looks pretty great. 99% of the time i play at 4K though, because i do not play MP games anymore.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,726
BFI on the 48CX is the best BFI I have ever seen. Its plenty bright as well.....those people saying BFI @ 4k120 is "Dim" must never of tried BFI on any IPS or TN monitors before.

The BFI on the 48CX is really, really good.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,752
BFI on the 48CX is the best BFI I have ever seen. Its plenty bright as well.....those people saying BFI @ 4k120 is "Dim" must never of tried BFI on any IPS or TN monitors before.

The BFI on the 48CX is really, really good.
People said the same about ULMB on the ASUS PG278Q and that to me was just fine, in fact with 100% brightness and ULMB enabled it was nearly exactly the same brightness that I used on the desktop without ULMB.

The BFI on the CX 48" is great, I just wish it was a bit faster to toggle on. LG's menu structure really sucks. I would not recommend combining BFI with HDR though as it really diminishes the impact there.
 

kiario

n00b
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
17
You could do a 60FPS lock while set to 120hz refresh with BFI (to prevent visible flicker) on more demanding games and have no tearing as well.
In my games if I drop below 120fps when set at 120hz and BFI i get noticable stutter and not perfect movements. Have not tried to lock 60fps though. Maybe its a difference?
 

Brik

n00b
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
6
Except Bestbuy's shipping dates are total bs. I placed my order on June 26th. Bestbuy told me I would get the TV between July 14th to July 21st. When did the tv show up at my door? On July 1st lol. If you have an arrival date of 21st from Bestbuy, odds are it's going to come a lot sooner.
I can confirm that this is true..my expected delivery date was like 3 weeks away when i purchased it (July 21st). I ordered it on monday, it shipped tuesday, and was delivered thursday.
 
Top