LG 48CX

I mean I'd think it's too big for desktop usage at that huge a distance too if I sized my browser windows to 50% of the screen. I typically use windows in 24-27" monitor size.

EDIT: I dunno what the hell is going on with this Club3D adapters shipping but it's 5PM here and it just left Chicago earlier in the afternoon. Probably won't arrive until Monday at this point (if ever).

Adapter.jpg
 
Last edited:
I mean I'd think it's too big for desktop usage at that huge a distance too if I sized my browser windows to 50% of the screen. I typically use windows in 24-27" monitor size.

EDIT: I dunno what the hell is going on with this Club3D adapters shipping but it's 5PM here and it just left Chicago earlier in the afternoon. Probably won't arrive until Monday at this point (if ever).

View attachment 260759
Nice, Mine has already arrived........at MyUS forwarding service with a 10 day backlog before it gets posted to Australia lmao !!
 
Hi, I got a strange question. I just received my 48cx today. I brought it from Best Buy. I was mounting it on the stand when I noticed on the bottom of the stand it had markings in black marker around the screws and where you put the 4 screws to secure the tv. It was a bunch of circles and some letters. Even though everything else looks fine and brand new then it made me wonder. I’m hoping they didn’t use mine as a demo. Does anyone else have markings in marker on the bottom of the stand. Thanks.
 
Hi, I got a strange question. I just received my 48cx today. I brought it from Best Buy. I was mounting it on the stand when I noticed on the bottom of the stand it had markings in black marker around the screws and where you put the 4 screws to secure the tv. It was a bunch of circles and some letters. Even though everything else looks fine and brand new then it made me wonder. I’m hoping they didn’t use mine as a demo. Does anyone else have markings in marker on the bottom of the stand. Thanks.
I had the same black marker on mine as well (from Best Buy).
 
I mean I'd think it's too big for desktop usage at that huge a distance too if I sized my browser windows to 50% of the screen. I typically use windows in 24-27" monitor size.

EDIT: I dunno what the hell is going on with this Club3D adapters shipping but it's 5PM here and it just left Chicago earlier in the afternoon. Probably won't arrive until Monday at this point (if ever).

View attachment 260759
lol that was just for testing (notice the stickers still on the screen)

I've had 48" TV's as monitors many times, and regardless of text size, screen size, or scaling, 48" is still Too Big :p

32" 4K is the sweet spot of ppi & viewing angle (though i'd say 36 or 38" @8k 165hz OLED would be absolutely perfect lol)
 
lol that was just for testing (notice the stickers still on the screen)

I've had 48" TV's as monitors many times, and regardless of text size, screen size, or scaling, 48" is still Too Big :p

32" 4K is the sweet spot of ppi & viewing angle (though i'd say 36 or 38" @8k 165hz OLED would be absolutely perfect lol)

Whoa careful there, people are gonna start telling you to "just push it further back" now. :LOL: I'm totally with you on this, still using my X27 as my desktop display since I don't require huge amounts of real estate, most of the time I only have Discord and Chrome open lol.
 
Whoa careful there, people are gonna start telling you to "just push it further back" now. :LOL: I'm totally with you on this, still using my X27 as my desktop display since I don't require huge amounts of real estate, most of the time I only have Discord and Chrome open lol.


Some people here are fooling them selfs if they think simply pushing a bigger 4k screen back is the same as a 27"-32" high PPI monitor in your face with a mouse & keyboard right in front of you. This is the reason I am keeping both :p

Completely different experiences.
 
I thought I should follow up on my Witcher 3 flickering issue. I found the problem, running borderless window while having a twitch stream up caused my flickering. Playing in Fullscreen fixed it. I realized borderless window was the problem when I played Prey and got flickering there as well with the only difference in my non flickering games being Fullscreen.
 
Some people here are fooling them selfs if they think simply pushing a bigger 4k screen back is the same as a 27"-32" high PPI monitor in your face with a mouse & keyboard right in front of you. This is the reason I am keeping both :p

Completely different experiences.


I'm gonna kick some truth to the young tech youth here. And of course, please disagree with me if anyone wants. And no, I am not singling anyone out, just using your comment(s) as an example.

There was also another comment a few postings back where someone used the word "ppl" in reference to, the majority of what he thought people would like / want.

The truth is, we are all different ( I cannot stress this enough ) in what we like, want, need, desire, etc etc. This is of course based on our own personal economics, age, eye health, height, posture, back . next health and or comfort, etc etc. When I see people mention PPI, I want to tell that person specficially, "hey, wait a second, I'm 51, I don't have razor sharp eyes like you do."

One persons comfort zone for viewing distance is going to differ ( sometimes greatly ) from one guy to the next, again, same with PPI, image sharpness, or, whatever the case may be. A lot of you guys seem to want to umbrella everyone else under the same set of "rules" of what you think and assume everyone else wants or needs should be .... let's try and NOT do this. It would make, rather, take away the need to make a very large portion of the comments that end up getting made on these treads.

If you like 27" sized displays and think these 48" are too big for yourself ... "personally" ... then use that word - personally and leave it at that. The same goes with all the other little things I am hearing in regards to what people like individually.

Take 10 of us here and line us up ... place in front of us the same monitors / displays, different sizes, resolutions, desks, chairs, you name it and I promise all 10 of us will end up and come away with different setups every single time.

And sure, my comment is meant to be a bit funny and silly as well as overwhelmingly .... pretty. Just a friendly reminder guys :)

With that said, today, the 12th is the last day for me to return my 55" C9 and get the 48" CX. The cost out of pocket would be an additional $320 dollars. I am personally leaning toward just keeping the C9. Someone please change my mind.
 
Whoa careful there, people are gonna start telling you to "just push it further back" now. :LOL: I'm totally with you on this, still using my X27 as my desktop display since I don't require huge amounts of real estate, most of the time I only have Discord and Chrome open lol.
I'm unsure of where to go, myself. I want either the 48" cx or an acer 27" xb3 144hz gsync display. The problem is I really would love oled, but I also code and do artwork on this machine. I don't have room or the desk for both.

I don't know how well suited the OLED is for those, though I wouldn't do coding full screen and could move windows around a bit. For art, I use a tablet and it's best to keep full screened.

I feel like the cx may not be ideal for me due to size (I'd need a stand and to pull my desk back) and maybe burn in from productivity. On the other hand, the cx has insane color quality and blacks, not to mention motion.

The cx is twice as expensive, so I'd be stuck with my 8bit 60hz TN gsync 28" for awhile longer than if I went for the acer, but since I keep my monitors 5+ years that isn't as much of a factor. I plan on getting a 3080ti when they launch.

Any thoughts? :) I do really like my current screen size, but oled benefits are so tempting...
 
I'm unsure of where to go, myself. I want either the 48" cx or an acer 27" xb3 144hz gsync display. The problem is I really would love oled, but I also code and do artwork on this machine. I don't have room or the desk for both.

I don't know how well suited the OLED is for those, though I wouldn't do coding full screen and could move windows around a bit. For art, I use a tablet and it's best to keep full screened.

I feel like the cx may not be ideal for me due to size (I'd need a stand and to pull my desk back) and maybe burn in from productivity. On the other hand, the cx has insane color quality and blacks, not to mention motion.

The cx is twice as expensive, so I'd be stuck with my 8bit 60hz TN gsync 28" for awhile longer than if I went for the acer, but since I keep my monitors 5+ years that isn't as much of a factor. I plan on getting a 3080ti when they launch.

Any thoughts? :) I do really like my current screen size, but oled benefits are so tempting...

Asus has a 42" 144" gsync for around $1500 ... has all the bells and whistles.

There is a Swift and Strix model. Acer also makes a 42" high refresh rate monitor as well. Some some research.

No way in hell I would get a small 27" ....... with games, immersion is everything. Imagine how incredible it will be to play Cyberpunk 2077 on a 48" CX Oled @ 4K @ 120hz on your new 3080 Ti

 
I had an X27 for a few years. Was excellent on desktop, like reading a gloss magazine. But that small size and high PPI was all but lost in games. Hardly any immersion having a small screen right up in your face. Having a larger screen further back is way better game world immersion.
 
I'm gonna kick some truth to the young tech youth here. And of course, please disagree with me if anyone wants. And no, I am not singling anyone out, just using your comment(s) as an example.

There was also another comment a few postings back where someone used the word "ppl" in reference to, the majority of what he thought people would like / want.

The truth is, we are all different ( I cannot stress this enough ) in what we like, want, need, desire, etc etc. This is of course based on our own personal economics, age, eye health, height, posture, back . next health and or comfort, etc etc. When I see people mention PPI, I want to tell that person specficially, "hey, wait a second, I'm 51, I don't have razor sharp eyes like you do."

One persons comfort zone for viewing distance is going to differ ( sometimes greatly ) from one guy to the next, again, same with PPI, image sharpness, or, whatever the case may be. A lot of you guys seem to want to umbrella everyone else under the same set of "rules" of what you think and assume everyone else wants or needs should be .... let's try and NOT do this. It would make, rather, take away the need to make a very large portion of the comments that end up getting made on these treads.

If you like 27" sized displays and think these 48" are too big for yourself ... "personally" ... then use that word - personally and leave it at that. The same goes with all the other little things I am hearing in regards to what people like individually.

Take 10 of us here and line us up ... place in front of us the same monitors / displays, different sizes, resolutions, desks, chairs, you name it and I promise all 10 of us will end up and come away with different setups every single time.

And sure, my comment is meant to be a bit funny and silly as well as overwhelmingly .... pretty. Just a friendly reminder guys :)

With that said, today, the 12th is the last day for me to return my 55" C9 and get the 48" CX. The cost out of pocket would be an additional $320 dollars. I am personally leaning toward just keeping the C9. Someone please change my mind.

I'm not sure if it's enough to convince you to a CX but all I got is 120Hz BFI. I'm totally addicted to it. You guys are gonna hate me for this but I'm considering just using 1080p with Integer Scaling just so I can get that sweet sweet 100/120fps lock for BFI in demanding games lol. I have never seen such crisp clear motion on a non CRT so it's blown my mind.
 
I have laser corrected vision and I still have my own preferences for how a display should be set up.

I used a 27" 1440p display at 100% scaling for years. Then I bought a 49" 5120x1440 super ultrawide, which was like two of those. At work I have one of the 27" 5K displays and now on my desk the super ultrawide has been replaced by the CX 48". They each have their pros and cons. I generally kept the smaller displays quite a bit closer than I do the CX 48", probably about 30-35 cm closer.

I am a web/app developer so when working from home my daily setup involves having all kinds of apps open: Visual Studio Code/Xcode/Android Studio for programming, browser for docs, searching stuff, AWS/Azure configuration, another browser for personal stuff, Android and iOS emulators for debugging and testing, Slack/Teams/Outlook for communication, terminals, maybe some design tools. I use a couple of virtual desktops for all this on MacOS.

If we just ignore the 27" 1440p as that is kind of like the minimum I would consider for my desktop now and look at the others. For working:
  • The super ultrawide has the perfect amount of desktop space. 3-4 windows comfortably side by side.
  • 27" 5K has the best text rendering and crispest visuals. Very pleasant to look at, but it requires scaling to be comfortable and then it's a bit small for the window arrangement I would prefer.
  • CX 48" is somewhere in between. At 85-90 cm viewing distance and scaled to the equivalent of 3200x1800 according to MacOS, it has fairly crisp text and still enough desktop space. It lets me put more things on a single virtual desktop than the others, but for working I mainly use the lower 1/2 or 2/3 of the screen because it's nor particularly comfortable looking up and down. The top of the display is where I keep terminals, email and other stuff that does not require my attention that often.
Out of these the super ultrawide is my favorite for working. PbP mode allowed a better separation of work/personal stuff as I could run two computers and use a 3360x1440 ultrawide view for work if I wanted.

For personal use, which involves gaming, watching videos, web browsing and music production stuff:
  • Super ultrawide has maybe a bit too much desktop space for anything but music things. I feel like 3840x1440 or 3840x1600 would be a better compromise. For gaming it has its issues but I felt it was quite fine for everything but first person shooters where the super ultrawide form factor wasn't that helpful. The newer G9 would do better. HDR is mediocre.
  • 27" 5K would be ok but not good for gaming due to the performance demands and it's 60 Hz only, probably not that fast response time etc. Never carried it home so I can't say.
  • Let's face it, for gaming and media the LG OLED is unbeatable. Incredibly immersive, incredible looking. For desktop use it has more space than I know what to do with for everything but the music production stuff. I run Windows 10 on my personal PC and use 125% scaling for comfortable, crisp text. Again mostly using the lower half or 2/3 of the screen because of the side of this thing.
I too would like to see LG make this OLED in something smaller. 38-40" would be ideal, would settle for 43". It would make it just that little bit smaller and thus the overall size would be more usable with sharper text too. Running with a black background I don't mind not using all the space, you don't see the bezels so it's like a couple of windows floating in a void.

For me a multi-monitor setup is not easily setup right now so I try to stick with just one that works for everything. The CX 48" is not ideal but I have made it work and when I do get to use it for non-work stuff, boy is it great!
 
If you move your desk back separately from the display(s) then your peripherals are still right in front of you. I use 17" 4k screen scaled on my laptop, a 70" 4k tv off of that same laptop at 6 - 8' away at times in my living room couch-desk "couch master" setup. I've had 17" , 19" , 23.5" , 27.5", 27", 32" displays at my desk at 1080, x1200, 1400p..and now 43" 4k displays at ~3.5' viewing distance. If you have the space and are willing to break away from the up against the wall like a bookshelf stereotypical setup into more of a command center and media stage setup it will work great. Pixels farther away look tighter (which is why larger 1080p living room tvs didn't look like total crap), and pixel arrays very close look huge - too huge for VR really for example, until we get higher rez VR per eye.

I would have preferred 40 to 43" for my current pc room but I can make 48", even 55" work at the right viewing distance with some rearranging. My peripheral desk is a C shaped /box controller shaped / kidney shaped island on caster wheels so as long as my room is long enough it's not a problem. I can even roll the peripheral desk back up against the monitor stand bench style desk when I'm not using it.


A7gEgdY.png
 
The ppi is the biggest issue here. I don't think anyone would decline an 8k version of this (being we had GPU's that could handle it lol)

That being said, the picture quality on this thing is literally insane. TLOU2 on a ps4pro or Gears 5 on PC look like different games using this OLED vs my LG38GL950g-b or Samsung TV. The contrast ratio with HDR and the high gloss screen gives the "looking through a window" picture quality. Its jaw dropping how good the image quality is
 
The ppi is the biggest issue here. I don't think anyone would decline an 8k version of this (being we had GPU's that could handle it lol)

I genuinely don't understand this. The reason to need higher PPI is to be able to sit closer to the screen without being able to see pixelation. 4k 48" is high enough PPI at a large enough size that the screen takes up enough of your field of view that you need to move your head to see all parts of it before you are close enough to see pixelation. So...is what you actually want basically a monitor wall that you can't see all of at once?
 
I genuinely don't understand this. The reason to need higher PPI is to be able to sit closer to the screen without being able to see pixelation. 4k 48" is high enough PPI at a large enough size that the screen takes up enough of your field of view that you need to move your head to see all parts of it before you are close enough to see pixelation. So...is what you actually want basically a monitor wall that you can't see all of at once?


For me it's a complete non issue, maybe some people out there have eyesight that mirrors people from the planet krypton, but it looks perfectly fine to me. I sit at the same ~ 3 feet distance from the screen from my 43" sony 4k tv, and this thing looks just as sharp even though technically ppi went down compared to what I was coming from.

All the worries about fuzzy text, are nonexistent with standard 4k@ 60Hz and no reduced chroma sub sampling. Anyone worrying about coding on this screen to my mind should have zero worries. It has virtually zero downside and almost all upside as far as I can tell based on initial impressions. And on top of that videos and games look much better.


This thing reminds me of a tesla, and I hope the same thing happens to the standard gaming display market that has happened to gas focused luxury brands like the bmw 3 series getting their sales gutted because so many people are choosing electric instead.

If people are going to use multiple displays, I get keeping others around that would be better fit for certain things, I get wanting a smaller display for competitive gaming play. But for everyone else deciding on one display to rule them all, choosing some washed out, crusty matte finished gaming display is absurd to me. Specifically for people who are already spending over a grand on some curved display with gimped verticle resolution.

And yes, this is just one viewpoint inside my head, other people have their own preferences, but that's mine.
 
For me it's a complete non issue, maybe some people out there have eyesight that mirrors people from the planet krypton, but it looks perfectly fine to me. I sit at the same ~ 3 feet distance from the screen from my 43" sony 4k tv, and this thing looks just as sharp even though technically ppi went down compared to what I was coming from.

All the worries about fuzzy text, are nonexistent with standard 4k@ 60Hz and no reduced chroma sub sampling. Anyone worrying about coding on this screen to my mind should have zero worries. It has virtually zero downside and almost all upside as far as I can tell based on initial impressions. And on top of that videos and games look much better.


This thing reminds me of a tesla, and I hope the same thing happens to the standard gaming display market that has happened to gas focused luxury brands like the bmw 3 series getting their sales gutted because so many people are choosing electric instead.

If people are going to use multiple displays, I get keeping others around that would be better fit for certain things, I get wanting a smaller display for competitive gaming play. But for everyone else deciding on one display to rule them all, choosing some washed out, crusty matte finished gaming display is absurd to me. Specifically for people who are already spending over a grand on some curved display with gimped verticle resolution.

And yes, this is just one viewpoint inside my head, other people have their own preferences, but that's mine.

Yup, I've been coding and doing other productivity work on it for a week, zero issues. I came from a 32" 1440p monitor, exact same PPI. I just scooted the 48" back about a foot to get a similar field of view, and still have the 32" next to it and run them both at 100% scaling. Tons of screen real estate and still perfectly readable.
 
anyone know an easy way to hot key a button to swap between 4:2:2 120hz & 4:4:4: 60hz with out having to go into the NVIDA control panel every time ?

Unfortunately that does not seems to be possible, but someone made an app using NvAPI that let's you do this from the command line. See https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...aming-thread-consoles-pc-14.html#post59699820

I've tried it and it does seem to work. You could probably make some batch files or shortcuts that let you assign a hotkey. Just so you know, some games might automatically switch between 4K 60 Hz 4:4:4 and 4K 120 Hz 4:2:0 just by changing the refresh rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
Unfortunately that does not seems to be possible, but someone made an app using NvAPI that let's you do this from the command line. See https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...aming-thread-consoles-pc-14.html#post59699820

I've tried it and it does seem to work. You could probably make some batch files or shortcuts that let you assign a hotkey. Just so you know, some games might automatically switch between 4K 60 Hz 4:4:4 and 4K 120 Hz 4:2:0 just by changing the refresh rate.

I think this relates to the "use highest possible" refresh rate setting in NVCP. It makes games that are fullscreen exclusive use 120hz 4:2:0.
 
I genuinely don't understand this. The reason to need higher PPI is to be able to sit closer to the screen without being able to see pixelation. 4k 48" is high enough PPI at a large enough size that the screen takes up enough of your field of view that you need to move your head to see all parts of it before you are close enough to see pixelation. So...is what you actually want basically a monitor wall that you can't see all of at once?

I feel like the PPI is not high enough for what you can manage without buying a very deep desk or wall mounting and pulling your desk back. It's ok, but could be crisper if this was either smaller or 8K. I would definitely buy an 8K version of this and just run it with integer scaling at 4K for gaming. 8K would allow for no compromises desktop scaling where you don't need to choose between having tons of desktop space or sharper text. Honestly 5K or 6K would be perfectly fine too but good luck having a TV ever support those!
 
I just did a test with GSYNC and HDR enabled on my C9 at a specific spot in The Division 2, at a very dark and near black area. I switched back and forth like 20 times. When i set the brightness to 48 while playing with GSYNC and HDR, there is as much shadow detail as without GSYNC and brightness to 50, but it does still look a bit different, the blacks are slightly deeper with GSYNC and brightness to 48, but i really can't say there is less shadow detail. In fact, i even liked it a bit more lol. But it's important to set the brightness to 48. 49 will introduce some kind of posterization, like a hard transition between black gradations, which looks weird. And at 50 of course it looks way too elevated. And from my testing, Instant game response mode is not causing this issue, it's happening as soon as you enable GSYNC/FREESYNC in the GPU driver settings.

Sadly, i wasn't able to catch this with my camera.
 
I genuinely don't understand this. The reason to need higher PPI is to be able to sit closer to the screen without being able to see pixelation. 4k 48" is high enough PPI at a large enough size that the screen takes up enough of your field of view that you need to move your head to see all parts of it before you are close enough to see pixelation. So...is what you actually want basically a monitor wall that you can't see all of at once?

30-308682_wtf-face-png-facepalm-emoji-girl-transparent-png.png
 
Unfortunately that does not seems to be possible, but someone made an app using NvAPI that let's you do this from the command line. See https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...aming-thread-consoles-pc-14.html#post59699820

I've tried it and it does seem to work. You could probably make some batch files or shortcuts that let you assign a hotkey. Just so you know, some games might automatically switch between 4K 60 Hz 4:4:4 and 4K 120 Hz 4:2:0 just by changing the refresh rate.

If you can make a batch file or a shortcut to it then you should be able to make a hotkey to that location and file with displayfusion, and if you have a streamdeck or any other hotkey app you can then tie it to that.

I've launched explorer code inside of .lnk file properties by launching from a shortcut .lnk file using displayfusion and mapping it to a streamdeck button. In my case I did it to launch a windows store /metro type app that isn't as easy as working with a exe in a folder but the same method should work for anything else that is able to be launched in a shortcut including stuff with command line in a shortcut or shortcuts to batch files.
 

I get that people like higher ppi for working with apps, docs, (text) .. images. But the point is if you have 27" 108.8ppi 1440 at 1.5' away and you have a 43" 4k at 3.5' away or so or a 48" 4k at 40" to 48"away or so... 55" at 48" to 55 "away, the tightness of the pixels to your perspective is going to be nearly the same, within 105 - 110 "perceived ppi" , "pixels per visual FoV area" (.. or the equivalent "ppd" to be more accurate).. depending how far you sit in those ranges. In fact beyond those distances you'll probably have to resort to going past 1:1 using 125% windows scaling.
 
Last edited:

Yeah still not getting it. The difference in what you see with a 32" 4k screen 30" away and a 48" 4k screen 45" away is exactly nothing. The only difference is the desk/mounting setup needed to achieve those things. You have a 49.9deg viewing angle with both, which is going to require moving your eyes and possibly head to see everything. Why do you want closer?
 
I get that people like higher ppi for working with apps, docs, (text) .. images. But the point is if you have 27" 108.8ppi 1440 at 1.5' away and you have a 43" 4k at 3.5' away or so or a 48" 4k at 40" to 48"away or so... 55" at 48" to 55 "away, the tightness of the pixels to your perspective is going to be nearly the same, within 105 - 110 "perceived ppi" , "pixels per visual FoV area" (.. or the equivalent "ppd" to be more accurate).. depending how far you sit in those ranges. In fact beyond those distances you'll probably have to resort to going past 1:1 using 125% windows scaling.


my point is 108 ppi sucks bad. I am stunned at the low ppi acceptance around here lol. Especially when phones have 400+ ppi these days.... Anyone that has used a 27" 1440p screen vs a 27" 5k screen should tell you its a night and day difference in image quality

again this OLED and even the big ass 48" video wall of awesome is amazing less one part: Resolution
 
my point is 108 ppi sucks bad. I am stunned at the low ppi acceptance around here lol. Especially when phones have 400+ ppi these days.... Anyone that has used a 27" 1440p screen vs a 27" 5k screen should tell you its a night and day difference in image quality

again this OLED and even the big ass 48" video wall of awesome is amazing less one part: Resolution

...Seriously?

Phones have the PPI they do for exactly two reasons in this order:

1. Marketing to get you to buy a new one next year
2. You hold it 6" from your face.

If you do work with your face 6" away from the monitor, I'll shut up and agree you need phone levels of PPI. Otherwise...
 
Before getting the CX48 I was all worried about the distance of the monitor cause everyone keep saying the ideal distance is xxx this xxx that or xxx this is way too close or PPI this is on xxx distance...blah blah...

I have shallow desk and I was going to get a monitor arm to mount on the wall but the CX48 came earlier than expected, so no choice but to use the desk. I now have it around 27-36 inch eye distance way from me and 100% window scaling, and I think it's perfectly fine once I got used to the size. In that range I don't even see any pixels...
 
I don't know why you guys seem so triggered by the fact that not all of us are using the CX as our primary desktop display. It's not like we flat out refused to buy a CX at all just because of it's size. Some people on Overclock.net actually refuse to buy CX all for reason that it "doesn't fit on my desk" which is absolutely retarded. If you won't make adjustments to fit this beast then you are missing out on the greatest gaming display to come out in 15 years since the Sony FW900. Yes I don't use my CX as my primary monitor but that's just my own personal preference, but I still use it for gaming an I sure as hell enjoy every bit of it for that.
 
my point is 108 ppi sucks bad. I am stunned at the low ppi acceptance around here lol. Especially when phones have 400+ ppi these days.... Anyone that has used a 27" 1440p screen vs a 27" 5k screen should tell you its a night and day difference in image quality

again this OLED and even the big ass 48" video wall of awesome is amazing less one part: Resolution

Huh?

I've never once looked at my CX 55 and thought "Hmmmmm... I wish this display was higher resolution with more pixel density." What you're describing is insane. There's a reason everyone swears by this display: quality of pixels, not quantity. That is to say, the colors, vibrancy, contrast, etc. is all nearly perfect on LG's CX 48 and larger displays. On top of that, most people are buying this thing for gaming, and there isn't a single GPU out there that can push 4k120 max details and do so comfortably on modern titles. These displays are amazing because it's going to take a long time for GPU power to catch up with the raw abilities of this CX OLED.

Would I like to see an 8k version? Absolutely!
Would I be willing to pay 4x+ the price of the CX 48 to have it? No. Not even close.

What you're describing is something for LG or other manufacturers to aspire to in the future, but as of now, while the technology may exist, the market for that sort of product isn't mature enough; they would never make money on the project.

The CX OLED really is an end-game display where technologies after this will be incremental at best, but I guess it's impossible to please everyone.
 
Last edited:
Moved it about 52" from my head position while sitting and am warming up to it. Only issue still bugging me is the hue shift on the sides but guess can't have everything. Though the problem is acknowledged and proposed solutions are available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjALegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0iDXnPl9NfMxmf5d-TYz5m
Not sure if they will become widely applied soon by the likes of LG or go the way of A-TW polarizers on IPS screens.
 
There is literally 2 things I want LG to (try and) address in the future with their OLED displays.

1. Reduce Burn-in risk (further)
2. Increase refresh rate.

Would love to see an OLED-like display in the future that can do 240hz.
 
There is literally 2 things I want LG to (try and) address in the future with their OLED displays.

1. Reduce Burn-in risk (further)
2. Increase refresh rate.

Would love to see an OLED-like display in the future that can do 240hz.

I would looove 240Hz too but in the mean time we have an excellent alternative with BFI. BFI at 120Hz is CRT like and would destroy the motion clarity of 240Hz sample and hold. Yes it has it's downsides like brightness reduction and technically being a flicker effect but man trust me it is AMAZEBALLS.
 
I would looove 240Hz too but in the mean time we have an excellent alternative with BFI. BFI at 120Hz is CRT like and would destroy the motion clarity of 240Hz sample and hold. Yes it has it's downsides like brightness reduction and technically being a flicker effect but man trust me it is AMAZEBALLS.

BFI is fantastic on the 48CX. Colors are good, brightness is good, motion clarity is epic and I don't notice any flicker @ 120fps.

People that say BFI on the 48cx is dim with bland colors must have never used BFI features on prior IPS/VA/TN monitors. Prior to this 48cx, I would say the PG27VQ had the best BFI as it pumped out 400NITS in BFI mode, however, that monitor suffered from the shittiest AG coating you have ever seen, and 1440pee resolution which blows dick.

The 48cx is the King of Displays, finally overthrowing the FW900. I seriously have an old beat to shit FW900 sitting in my closed that I will now finally be throwing away.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top