LG Dismisses New Samsung QLED TV Technology: “It's Still An LCD Panel”

5icko said:
Yeah I'm on the the consumer's side.

BTW, it's the ignorant consumer that killed the plasma and stuck us with LCD. They all were brainwashed into thinking early model burn-in was an issue. They would also go into a brightly lit big box store and compare LCD next to plasma and think brighter is better. Dumb. And of course salespeople are no smarter.

Samsung made a 5300b series plasma that was sold for $600 when they were cleared out. As stunning as the venerable 8500 series in a dark room. No joke. I think they must have had 8000 series parts lying around while they were ramping down, creating what they could as sellable TVs and in this case calling it a B model.
Click to expand...

What killed the Plasma was 4k. Panasonic and Samsung were fine operating in the red on their Plasma sets as long as their LCD divisions more then made up the cost. But the market was moving towards 4k for high end sets and neither company wanted to release a high end 1080p screen especially with UHD (aka 4k) movies were on the horizon. Developing a 4k plasma proved to be expensive.
 
[21CW]killerofall said:
OLED TVs don't have backlights as OLED is emissive and doesn't need a backlight, unlike LCD. However if you remove "as a backlight" from your post, it would be accurate.
Click to expand...

You'd be correct with Samsung RGB OLED tech which is directly emissive RGB sub-pixels. LG went a different route using Kodak white OLED tech as a backlight with the typical color filter. This provides the benefit of OLED (each pixel having a backlight control = incredible contrast) and with fewer sideeffects (less burnin and supposedly more yields in manufacturing).

Here's another take:

https://www.plusplasticelectronics.com/electronics/lg-s-white-oled-tipped-to-win-technical-battle-of
 
Trimlock said:
What killed the Plasma was 4k. Panasonic and Samsung were fine operating in the red on their Plasma sets as long as their LCD divisions more then made up the cost. But the market was moving towards 4k for high end sets and neither company wanted to release a high end 1080p screen especially with UHD (aka 4k) movies were on the horizon. Developing a 4k plasma proved to be expensive.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Your answer has the partial answer.

Plasma's costs were higher due to the supply and demand caused by consumer's ignorance, which came long before 4k.
 
No shit LG. So is yours. LG OLED TVs just you OLED as the backlight for a LCD Display. Samsung used LED Backlighting with Quantum Dots to backlight their LCD. Same shit being lit by different technologies.

So I went from a Hitachi 55 inch Rear Projection, to a Samsung 52 Inch Plasma, to a Samsung 55 inch KS8000, and every time the picture quality has been a huge improvement. I think HDR is the bigger game changer then OLED.
 
Jorona said:
No shit LG. So is yours. LG OLED TVs just you OLED as the backlight for a LCD Display. Samsung used LED Backlighting with Quantum Dots to backlight their LCD. Same shit being lit by different technologies.
Click to expand...

For most people though, LED and LCD are 2 different TYPES of TV. So your level of nuance is going to totally go unnoticed.
 
SnowBeast said:
People gave up picture quality to have the flattest display.
Click to expand...

Can you blame the TV makers? Most people want a TV that is: (1) cheap; (2) thin; and (3) capable of being hung on a wall. Yes, a properly calibrated Plamsa or DLP clobbers every LCD or LED display ever made, and competes with all but the best OLED displays. But Plasma wasn't cheap or thin enough, and DLP couldn't be hung up. TV makers are this business to make money, not for the art.
 
5icko said:
Wrong. Your answer has the partial answer.

Plasma's costs were higher due to the supply and demand caused by consumer's ignorance, which came long before 4k.
Click to expand...
Uhh no, the costs came from the cell technology and how they powered the individual cells. There's a reason you only saw plasma screens of a certain size.

Supply and demand was lower but the costs to develop plasma was higher then other technology.
 
westrock2000 said:
We could have had Laser TV's.....lasers!, but you guys just had to have thin. How could anything be better then a laser? Nothing is ever better then a laser!
Click to expand...

SED's would be the only thing close... But we can still hope!

And to those that keep saying OLED is just a different backlight, please go read the Wiki entry for clarity.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Can you blame the TV makers? Most people want a TV that is: (1) cheap; (2) thin; and (3) capable of being hung on a wall. Yes, a properly calibrated Plamsa or DLP clobbers every LCD or LED display ever made, and competes with all but the best OLED displays. But Plasma wasn't cheap or thin enough, and DLP couldn't be hung up. TV makers are this business to make money, not for the art.
Click to expand...
Plasma was thin enough to be hung but they were heavier, which limited your options a lot. I purchased a standing mount that put my TV against the wall, or close. When I move I may make a standing shelf against the wall to more or less "hang" my VT65 against the wall, right now I don't have any good options.

Another slams against DLP was side viewing, as you moved from center your image would go to crap.
 
Trimlock said:
Another slams against DLP was side viewing, as you moved from center your image would go to crap.
Click to expand...

That wasn't specifically the fault of the DLP technology, it was an issue with the screen that it <rear> projected on to. DLP <front> projectors do not suffer from this as you are looking at direct light reflection. Now was there a practical solution? Who knows. As you pointed out, the practical issues were just too prominent with rear projection of any kind (size, weight and consumables). So there was no financial drive to improve the design.
 
westrock2000 said:
That wasn't specifically the fault of the DLP technology, it was an issue with the screen that it <rear> projected on to. DLP <front> projectors do not suffer from this as you are looking at direct light reflection. Now was there a practical solution? Who knows. As you pointed out, the practical issues were just too prominent with rear projection of any kind (size, weight and consumables). So there was no financial drive to improve the design.
Click to expand...
Correct, I do miss DLP quite a bit though. My last one was a Sony DLP 42" that I had to chuck because it had image forming issues.
 
westrock2000 said:
That wasn't specifically the fault of the DLP technology, it was an issue with the screen that it <rear> projected on to. DLP <front> projectors do not suffer from this as you are looking at direct light reflection. Now was there a practical solution? Who knows. As you pointed out, the practical issues were just too prominent with rear projection of any kind (size, weight and consumables). So there was no financial drive to improve the design.
Click to expand...

Agreed- the only laser unit I saw in person was a short throw projector that you could butt right against the wall and project a screen against the wall above. I forget the size, but I'm going to guess 50 to 60 inches. It was a bit mind blowing! The lens / reflector was on the upper edge away from the wall, if you have never seen that style.
 
I sure hope these companies don't falsely advertise their product. People could easily sued if the specification wasn't true, yet what do we know, we know nothing about technology and how it works right!? OLED should be LED at his best, 6 or 8K up to 120" UHD, there, give us that. If only cable providers can make their product faster, better. The digital box is so so slow, I want to rapidly change channels without waiting with frustration. A TV Guide should be instant, the speed of light. Maybe such feature exists, but only the riches have such products.
 
Liver said:
I'm sure. Multinational companies brand their products on the market they are trying to sell to.

The implied confusion is so obvious.

Edit. I'm not making a comment on the quality or expense of the TVs. Just the branding is so deceptive.
Click to expand...

Well you should look again because I can not find a single instance where Samsung is marketing this product as QLED, this appears something the author of this article came up with himself.

Furthermore, as I said, even on Samsung's Korean website they specifically use the same exact term (Quantum Dot Technology or just Quantum Dot). SO it seems every market including the Korean market uses this same definition for branding.

In other words, I think you are incorrect by about 100% in this instance. You could be right in general or regarding other businesses or even other Samsung products. I'm saying you are wrong on this one.
 
The Samsung Quantum Dot sets are already competitive with the LG OLEDs on the high end, with OLED giving better blacks but Quantum Dots better for brighter rooms due to better brightness. HDR is superior in Quantum Dot sets as a result. It seems the next iteration of OLED from LG is focusing on being thinner, and not improving brightness, while the next gen Quantum Dots aim almost solely at better picture quality.

I have a 55" KS8000 Samsung that I bought for $729, and it's a toss up in quality versus a multi thousand dollar LG B6 in a dark room and clearly superior in a bright playroom where I have it. It's surpasses my Panasonic ST60 Plasma in every way, aside from the Panasonic having slightly better blacks. I'm anxious to see how the next Samsung sets are when they hit the market, I'm wanting a 75" for my living room.
 
lcpiper said:
Samsung is claiming that Quantum Dot completely eliminated burn-in as a risk, 100% guarantee.
Click to expand...

Samsung also claimed the Note 7 wouldn't explode, and that their products are not total ripoffs of Apple devices. I'll adopt a healthy skepticism, thanks.
 
Terpfen said:
Samsung also claimed the Note 7 wouldn't explode, and that their products are not total ripoffs of Apple devices. I'll adopt a healthy skepticism, thanks.
Click to expand...

With the S7 phones, did they say it this way?

Samsung Announces Lifetime Guarantee Against Long-Term Image Retention for 2016 SUHD Quantum Dot TVs in the U.S.
Click to expand...


https://news.samsung.com/us/2016/09...mage-retention-2016-suhd-quantum-dot-tvs-u-s/

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/...suhd-quantum-dot-tv-television-screen-burn-in

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2016/09/samsung-quantum-dot-tvs-no-burn-ins/
 
lcpiper said:
Well you should look again because I can not find a single instance where Samsung is marketing this product as QLED, this appears something the author of this article came up with himself.

Furthermore, as I said, even on Samsung's Korean website they specifically use the same exact term (Quantum Dot Technology or just Quantum Dot). SO it seems every market including the Korean market uses this same definition for branding.

In other words, I think you are incorrect by about 100% in this instance. You could be right in general or regarding other businesses or even other Samsung products. I'm saying you are wrong on this one.
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm not wrong.

Third (ish) hit on Google. Straight from CES.

http://www.samsung.com/global/tv/bl...nveils-QLED-TV-the-next-innovation-in-TV.html

CES and on Samsung site.
 
Terpfen said:
At issue here is your willingness to buy in to untested claims.
Click to expand...
A claim is one thing, an explicit warranty is another.

Craftsman hand tools are warranted not to fail or they will be repaired or replaced.

Anyone here have a Craftsman hand tool that broke, and Sears/Craftsman wouldn't replace it?

A claim is a claim, a warranty a warranty.

I suppose everyone has their own threshold for such things.
 
lcpiper said:
I wonder if it is a new thing they started with/for CES 2017?

I haven't seen this on any of the Quantum Dot products previously marketed.

Looks like I am eating crow.
Click to expand...

It did start with the 2017 CES. It's basically the name for their evolution of the Quantum Dot sets prior.
 
lcpiper said:
I wonder if it is a new thing they started with/for CES 2017?

I haven't seen this on any of the Quantum Dot products previously marketed.

Looks like I am eating crow.
Click to expand...

Thanks for owning up to it. Especially on the internet! 10 points.

I will get an OLED screen for sure. Going to move and put up a 55 inch in the new place. My vacation house.

I just think it's a bit misleading using the "Q". I'm positive it's a marketing ploy.
 
Liver said:
Thanks for owning up to it. Especially on the internet! 10 points.

I will get an OLED screen for sure. Going to move and put up a 55 inch in the new place. My vacation house.

I just think it's a bit misleading using the "Q". I'm positive it's a marketing ploy.
Click to expand...

I was raised to own up to my mistakes. A man owns what's his, the good and the bad. I figure, if you can't face your mistakes, you are just that much closer to thinking you don't make any, and that your shit don't stink. And that even if you can convince yourself of that, you'll never convince others sooo.



I was just reading an article that has some CYA statements that try to cover it as a justifiable choice.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...of-tvs-at-ces-say-hello-to-qled/#7ae731e31cbc

The article says that;
The QLED name was seemingly chosen because it helps consumers understand that the new TVs use a combination of LED and Quantum Dot technologies.

Some readers may recall that the QLED term was first coined by Quantum Dot maker QD Vision (which Samsung now owns) to describe an experimental emissive technology, where each pixel made its own light. However, my Samsung source assures me that the brand’s QLED TVs will be based for the foreseeable future on various edge and direct backlighting solutions.

I approached Samsung for official comment on its QLED plans, but only got a fairly predictable ‘We don’t comment on rumors or speculation’ response. I’m also not yet able to confirm exactly what it is about Samsung’s latest Quantum Dot TVs that helps them deliver such a supposedly large jump in performance.
Click to expand...

This article was pre-CES.
 
Trimlock said:
Uhh no, the costs came from the cell technology and how they powered the individual cells. There's a reason you only saw plasma screens of a certain size.

Supply and demand was lower but the costs to develop plasma was higher then other technology.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about. Plasma's death knell occurred long before 4k as makers backed out due to costs associated with consumer driven supply and demand economics.

Everyone except you and some random uk blogger knows this.
 
lcpiper said:
A claim is one thing, an explicit warranty is another.
Click to expand...

Not really. And a lifetime guarantee is not the same as a lifetime warranty. Companies usually set quality thresholds before allowing the warranty to kick in; ever try to return a monitor with only one or two stuck pixels? Good luck.
 
5icko said:
Wrong. Your answer has the partial answer.

Plasma's costs were higher due to the supply and demand caused by consumer's ignorance, which came long before 4k.
Click to expand...

Mostly true, but were often even cheaper compared to above average LCDs. Consumer ignorance, general lack of regard for picture quality and bad marketing and treatment from the manufacturers themselves contributed to plasma's death.
 
LOL!

It certainly still is an LED-lit LCD panel with 10 or 12-bit color - but they look fantastic, not much worse at all than the LG OLED (and better in ways, such as brightness)... but that doesn't change the fact that the LG OLEDs cost ~3x as much, and have display lag so bad they are not appropriate for anything interactive. Display lag over 40ms is pretty bad, and LG's OLEDs are not only 65ms minimum IN GAME MODE, but they are variable up to 100ms and therefore are even worse (actually, downright horrible) because you can't even get used to the latency it adds... it's always changing on-the-fly. Add in the shorter lifespan... and I just don't think their products are competitive yet, unless you have lots of money to burn and only are watching TV/Movies, no gaming or other interactive apps are very viable (gaming especially!)
 
Liver said:
When I saw that. WTF. Are they really going to fool people in thinking the "Q" looks like an "O"? They could have named it something else, but purposefully went with Q for marketing. BS.
Click to expand...

That's actually what it's really called (Quantum Dot), everyone uses that term, it's the standard term (I think Samsung actually tried to call it something else in the 2014-2015 models, and people convinced them otherwise so as not to confuse consumers).

The real bullshit stuff going on (which they participate in too) is the SUHD label on the box, which is meaningless except that it's supposed to be "better in some undefined fashion", in the opinion of the manufacturer.
 
disemboweler said:
LOL!

It certainly still is an LED-lit LCD panel with 10 or 12-bit color - but they look fantastic, not much worse at all than the LG OLED (and better in ways, such as brightness)... but that doesn't change the fact that the LG OLEDs cost ~3x as much, and have display lag so bad they are not appropriate for anything interactive. Display lag over 40ms is pretty bad, and LG's OLEDs are not only 65ms minimum IN GAME MODE, but they are variable up to 100ms and therefore are even worse (actually, downright horrible) because you can't even get used to the latency it adds... it's always changing on-the-fly. Add in the shorter lifespan... and I just don't think their products are competitive yet, unless you have lots of money to burn and only are watching TV/Movies, no gaming or other interactive apps are very viable (gaming especially!)
Click to expand...

Input lag on my C6 OLED is around 32ms. What are you even talking about?

It was only HDR input lag that was high but a recent update brought it down to the same as SDR mode.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

Maybe your info applies to the 2015 models, things have changed since then.
 
Last edited:
SilverSliver said:
I have a 55" KS8000 Samsung that I bought for $729, and it's a toss up in quality versus a multi thousand dollar LG B6 in a dark room and clearly superior in a bright playroom where I have it. It's surpasses my Panasonic ST60 Plasma in every way, aside from the Panasonic having slightly better blacks.
Click to expand...
Slightly?! It's night and day difference.
 
Kalabalana said:
OLED is a better technology across the board.
There isn't an argument against it other than it's production cost.
Click to expand...

That and THE thing everyone in this thread pining for an LG OLED seems to be ignoring - they are NOT appropriate for gaming, not nearly. Unless you like horrible input lag that changes on the fly, and therefore is laggy AND you can never get accustomed to it like you might with a TV that just always had 70ms input lag - you can kind of adjust to that, though I wouldn't recommend it.

They claim they're going to improve it on future models and current models with a firmware update - but sources say they would have to perform a miracle to get the display lag to appropriate levels, given how bad it is STILL after a year (or so). The hardware isn't capable, is what most think. Not that it couldn't be improved with firmware, it could, but probably not nearly enough.

GAMERS - make sure you get good info from multiple sources about the display lag for any given TV,m especially 4K, and even more especially, OLED. There isn't a 4K HDR OLED TV on the market that is suitable for gaming... unless you only play Telltale "games" I guess! :)
 
x3sphere said:
Input lag on my C6 OLED is around 32ms. What are you even talking about?

It was only HDR input lag that was high but a recent update brought it down to the same as SDR mode.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

Maybe your info applies to the 2015 models, things have changed since then.
Click to expand...

So they have finally released the firmware, ok then. 2016 LG OLEDs were affected by this as close as a few months ago, when I was researching them. It was the 2016 models, and the numbers for the lag were really that bad up until recently if what you say is accurate.

Is it still variable lag, is what I wonder... that's arguably the worst part.

Also, even with the updates, LG's consistently rate among the lowest even on the link you sent (which is what I used initially the find out the LG OLEDs had the problem to begin with, but good on them to update it when firmware comes out). Though, the numbers for your model seem pretty good, nowhere near as bad as they were earlier in 2016.

It does go to show, though, that LG is either incompetent (not realizing lag was an issue, somehow) or was trying to sell a beta, flawed-by-design product for the better part of a year before the backlash. Every manufacturer has problem models, but it becomes egregious when the company making the models that are by far the most expensive are among the worst in an important metric for interactive content.

I have a samsung currently, but I don't care what manufacturer I get when I buy a new TV, it's the models I look at case by case generally - because you can't trust a brand name in the TV/Monitor categories, they all seem to have both nice models, and complete misses.
 
Meeho said:
0.034 cd/m2 ANSI vs 0.007 @ 120 cd/m2 peak is a huge difference. If you can't see that, good for you as you have an easier time with more TV technologies, but to me 0.034 is abysmal.
Click to expand...

I did not say that I could not see it, simply said not worth the tradeoffs. I will replace my ST60 with a 75 inch QLED for sure if there is improvement over the current gen. Good blacks and great brightness is more important to me than great blacks and mediocre brightness.

Looks like black levels on the ST60 were tested at 0.011 cd/m2 while the KS8000 tested at 0.016 cd/m2. Contrast is very close with the ST60 at 7451:1 and the K8000 at 6906:1. Couple that with new sets capable of 4k, HDR - which is amazing - much better brightness and better able to deal with reflections. The ST60 is great, and good plasma TVs were way ahead of their time - but it's old hat to OLED and even Quantum Dot LEDs now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top