LG OLED TV Sale

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,712
Slickdeals has an informative post on some LG OLED TVs that are on sale from BuyDig.

55" LG OLED55C8PUA C8 OLED 4K HDR AI Smart TV $1048.99 w/ promo code GHU4Y78
65" LG OLED65C8PUA C8 OLED 4K HDR AI Smart TV $1648.99 w/ promo code DLR589L
55" LG OLED55E8PUA E8 OLED 4K HDR AI Smart TV $1148.99 w/ promo code T984R5N
65" LG OLED65E8PUA E8 OLED 4K HDR AI Smart TV $1898.99 w/ promo code G1345OD
 
Better jump on this asap. I doubt they will get cheaper and stock has to b running out on the 2018 models by now. I am going to wait til the next 2019 models but these prices next year for you hdmi 2.1 and stuff.
 
Archaea said:
Why don’t they make smaller OLED?


32” for instance?
Click to expand...
It has to do with the process used to make the panels. Basically, smaller panels still cost the same to make, which is why the Dell 30" OLED monitor is in the same price range as these TVs. It also doesn't help that LG makes all the panels. Nobody else is in the game, they all have up on the tech during the R&D phase.
 
doublejack said:
It has to do with the process used to make the panels. Basically, smaller panels still cost the same to make, which is why the Dell 30" OLED monitor is in the same price range as these TVs. It also doesn't help that LG makes all the panels. Nobody else is in the game, they all have up on the tech during the R&D phase.
Click to expand...
That’s doesn’t make sense.

If they cost the same to make them the 55” and 65” wouldn’t be $600 apart in this sale.

I see 32” HDTVs all day for < $200.

Add another $500 to it and I’d think we should be seeing 32” OLED monitors for $700 ish.
 
Archaea said:
That’s doesn’t make sense.

If they cost the same to make them the 55” and 65” wouldn’t be $600 apart in this sale.

I see 32” HDTVs all day for < $200.

Add another $500 to it and I’d think we should be seeing 32” OLED monitors for $700 ish.
Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense? You know that whether a panel is 32" diagonal or 65" diagonal they have the exact same number of pixels if they are 4K resolution. Some technologies shrink easier than others. Plasma TVs were very rare to nonexistent below the 37-42" range for a similar reason. It just wasn't possible to affordably make a plasma pixel small enough to shrink the screen size beyond that. Also, smaller plasma TVs were generally 720p or 480p EDTV sets. OLED can be shrunk down smaller than 55", but doing so creates costs. Why do you think the Dell 30" OLED monitor was $3500 at launch? At the time that was way more expensive than an LG 55" TV. By your logic that situation should never happen... but it did!

Asus is launching a 22" 4K OLED display. Have you seen the MSRP rumor on that one? I hope you're sitting down, because it is more than $5,000.

Wait, a 22" display costs about 5x the price of a 55" TV on clearance? :cry:

As far as the price gap between 55" and 65" TVs in LG's lineup, that is simply called premium pricing. Do you think the local movie theater really puts $2 more popcorn in a large bucket for $8 vs a small bucket for $6? I can come up with so many other examples of this principle in action. It is economics 101. It doesn't matter that LG can make the 65" set for about as much as it costs them to make the 55" one, they charge more for the premium product and it pads their bottom line.

Your comparison between OLED and LCD tech doesn't make sense. The idea of a $700 32" OLED panel literally made me laugh out loud. That is years away from reality. We'll probably get there eventually, but it won't be soon.
 
Funny how really good deals are showing up a week after I finally jumped on a 55" B8 for $1000... all while I'm still waiting for it to actually arrive!

I'd probably get the E8 if I hadn't already jumped on the earlier one.
 
doublejack said:
What doesn't make sense? You know that whether a panel is 32" diagonal or 65" diagonal they have the exact same number of pixels if they are 4K resolution. Some technologies shrink easier than others. Plasma TVs were very rare to nonexistent below the 37-42" range for a similar reason. It just wasn't possible to affordably make a plasma pixel small enough to shrink the screen size beyond that. Also, smaller plasma TVs were generally 720p or 480p EDTV sets. OLED can be shrunk down smaller than 55", but doing so creates costs. Why do you think the Dell 30" OLED monitor was $3500 at launch? At the time that was way more expensive than an LG 55" TV. By your logic that situation should never happen... but it did!

Asus is launching a 22" 4K OLED display. Have you seen the MSRP rumor on that one? I hope you're sitting down, because it is more than $5,000.

Wait, a 22" display costs about 5x the price of a 55" TV on clearance? :cry:

As far as the price gap between 55" and 65" TVs in LG's lineup, that is simply called premium pricing. Do you think the local movie theater really puts $2 more popcorn in a large bucket for $8 vs a small bucket for $6? I can come up with so many other examples of this principle in action. It is economics 101. It doesn't matter that LG can make the 65" set for about as much as it costs them to make the 55" one, they charge more for the premium product and it pads their bottom line.

Your comparison between OLED and LCD tech doesn't make sense. The idea of a $700 32" OLED panel literally made me laugh out loud. That is years away from reality. We'll probably get there eventually, but it won't be soon.
Click to expand...

What about 230+ PPI OLED displays that have been in phones since 2010 (original Galaxy S)? Still doesn't make much since to me that they've been able to put high PPI OLEDs in sub 6" displays in phones/tablets for the past decade, but not lower PPI OLEDs in 12-55" TVs.

Not trying to argue, was just another consideration I had. But it also seems to me that the vast majority of TV sales now are 50" at a minimum, so maybe OEMs just don't care to cover the smaller size segment as well.
 
T4rd said:
What about 230+ PPI OLED displays that have been in phones since 2010 (original Galaxy S)? Still doesn't make much since to me that they've been able to put high PPI OLEDs in sub 6" displays in phones/tablets for the past decade, but not lower PPI OLEDs in 12-55" TVs.

Not trying to argue, was just another consideration I had. But it also seems to me that the vast majority of TV sales now are 50" at a minimum, so maybe OEMs just don't care to cover the smaller size segment as well.
Click to expand...

LG is supposed to release a 44-48" OLED later this year or early next year, so hopefully we will finally get one smaller than 55". But I just don't see 27-32" happening anytime soon. Monitor manufacturers seem to be way more interested in developing high refresh LCD than OLED, and while I could see one of the TV manufacturers doing it, the number of people looking for that size in a TV is already pretty small. That's evident by the fact that you can walk into any place that sells TVs and 95% of them are going to be the larger sizes. I think Sam's Club might have had a single 32" set last time I was in there, with the rest being 42"-75" and the vast majority of those were the typical 55"-65" sizes. So the selection of smaller sets is already limited, and then the subset of people that are shopping for a 27-32" TV who would also be willing to pay a premium for OLED is even smaller.

As you pointed out, high PPI OLEDs for small tech devices have been around for a while. So I don't think it's about the difficulties of shrinking the pixels or scaling the technology down, but rather the lack of market demand and a return on investment. It's just not worth it for them to go there right now IMO.
 
My biggest regret scoring a deal on a 55" C8 last December ($1100) was that I didn't just hold out or spend extra for the 65"

Always get the 65"
 
I was playing through shadow of the tomb raider last weekend on my 55" oled with RTX on, 4k with a 2080ti, I have to say the picture quality and experience with that game on OLED is outstanding. Highly recommend OLEDs for gaming if you're still thinking about it, and for fast twitch games like COD it does 1080p at 120hz. (I'm on a C8)
 
odditory said:
My biggest regret scoring a deal on a 55" C8 last December ($1100) was that I didn't just hold out or spend extra for the 65"

Always get the 65"
Click to expand...

For TV duty and if space allows, I agree. For monitor use, 55" is for me at the extreme upper limit of usability. I specifically avoided the 65" for my use case. :)

mikeo said:
I was playing through shadow of the tomb raider last weekend on my 55" oled with RTX on, 4k with a 2080ti, I have to say the picture quality and experience with that game on OLED is outstanding. Highly recommend OLEDs for gaming if you're still thinking about it, and for fast twitch games like COD it does 1080p at 120hz. (I'm on a C8)
Click to expand...

It's unbelievable really. A true game changer after so many minor iterative improvements to LCD tech. Little over 1.5 years using this thing and I'm still awed by the image quality in games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
If the realtek RTD2173 converter gets released and allows for 4k120hz on the new 9 series OLEDs might have to upgrade.
 
I would guess the OLED screen size question regarding phones vs TVs comes down to economy of scale and a dedicated use case. With phones they expect to sell 50M+ of them every generation and can roll the development cost into those projected numbers. With TVs, the numbers are much lower and their typical use case is for a living room, ergo ~50”. Smaller than that and the use case dictates much lower sales and harder to recoup dev costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
T4rd said:
What about 230+ PPI OLED displays that have been in phones since 2010 (original Galaxy S)? Still doesn't make much since to me that they've been able to put high PPI OLEDs in sub 6" displays in phones/tablets for the past decade, but not lower PPI OLEDs in 12-55" TVs.

Not trying to argue, was just another consideration I had. But it also seems to me that the vast majority of TV sales now are 50" at a minimum, so maybe OEMs just don't care to cover the smaller size segment as well.
Click to expand...

You're on to something with the demand factor. Since rear projector LCDs and DLPs were popular, consumers have been buying larger and larger televisions. At one point 42" was the floor for popular models. Now it is 50 or 55 inches.

There are other factors, though, which I'll get into in a moment.

Lateralus said:
LG is supposed to release a 44-48" OLED later this year or early next year, so hopefully we will finally get one smaller than 55". But I just don't see 27-32" happening anytime soon. Monitor manufacturers seem to be way more interested in developing high refresh LCD than OLED, and while I could see one of the TV manufacturers doing it, the number of people looking for that size in a TV is already pretty small. That's evident by the fact that you can walk into any place that sells TVs and 95% of them are going to be the larger sizes. I think Sam's Club might have had a single 32" set last time I was in there, with the rest being 42"-75" and the vast majority of those were the typical 55"-65" sizes. So the selection of smaller sets is already limited, and then the subset of people that are shopping for a 27-32" TV who would also be willing to pay a premium for OLED is even smaller.

As you pointed out, high PPI OLEDs for small tech devices have been around for a while. So I don't think it's about the difficulties of shrinking the pixels or scaling the technology down, but rather the lack of market demand and a return on investment. It's just not worth it for them to go there right now IMO.
Click to expand...

You're completely correct that the demand just isn't there for smaller TVs. LG is the only manufacturer that continued to spend on OLED research to the point that they could even make a TV size panel the masses could afford. Samsung and the others gave up early on. Since LG is the only game in town and consumers are buying bigger TVs, it makes sense that smaller OLED TVs aren't available.

However, there are other reasons. If it was simply a matter of scale then Samsung and others that make OLED screens for phones and other small devices would be making TVs as well. They would make big versions of their small OLED displays and be in business. Turns out it is not that simple. The manufacturing process is different, the materials are different, and the demands on the tech are different.

One example is the pixel layout. Small OLED screens have very high PPI numbers, so high that our eyes can't distinguish individual pixels. As a result, many high resolution small OLED displays do not use a traditional RGB grid for their subpixels. Instead, they use what is known as PenTile, a diamond arrangement with shared green subpixels. Here's an example in the form of the Galaxy S4.

s41.jpg


The count of the green subpixels is used to describe the resolution. So a display like the Galaxy S4's will have 1920 x 1080 green subpixels for a claimed 1080p display. That's 2,073,600 green subpixels. There are only 1,036,800 red and blue subpixels, however. Since our eyes detect green better, we are tricked into thinking the display is a true 1080p panel.

When pixels are bigger and more spread out, as they are on a TV, we do see the difference. The trick doesn't work.

The way LG TV panels work is actually completely different. Each pixel starts out as the color white with an RGB sandwich on top of it. It looks this, example on the left vs traditional RGB subpixels on the right:
WOLED.gif


So, for each subpixel the color is changed from white by manipulating the RGB filters.


Long story short, we're back at my original statement which is shrinking OLED TV panels to say 32" or 40" sizes does not result in a panel that is much cheaper to produce. LG has to do it using their big panel techniques, and not a blown up version of relatively tiny phone or tablet panels.

LZ_Xray said:
I would guess the OLED screen size question regarding phones vs TVs comes down to economy of scale and a dedicated use case. With phones they expect to sell 50M+ of them every generation and can roll the development cost into those projected numbers. With TVs, the numbers are much lower and their typical use case is for a living room, ergo ~50”. Smaller than that and the use case dictates much lower sales and harder to recoup dev costs.
Click to expand...

This is the final nail in the coffin of small OLED TVs. Even if LG sunk the money into the equipment to produce them, they would be unlikely to recoup it because of the small expected sales.

I can put this another way. LG is far from the only TV manufacturer. Of all the TVs that LG sells, only 15% are OLED (basing this off 2017 sales data). We can see that in terms of the overall market, demand for OLED is not big, as they make up much less than 10% of the market. So the odds of selling small but still big price OLED TVs has to be pretty minimal.

I'll finish by adding that LG does not even really compete at the bottom end of the market. You may see some closeout models that are in the same price range as TVs from brands like TCL and Element, but in general LG aims for the mid-market and up where profit margins are higher. So again, why would they make TVs in the small TV segment, which is dominated by bargain brands and models? This is the same reason Samsung doesn't bother making a QLED model smaller than 43", which they definitely could do given it is just a modified LCD panel.
 
doublejack said:
You're on to something with the demand factor. Since rear projector LCDs and DLPs were popular, consumers have been buying larger and larger televisions. At one point 42" was the floor for popular models. Now it is 50 or 55 inches.

There are other factors, though, which I'll get into in a moment.



You're completely correct that the demand just isn't there for smaller TVs. LG is the only manufacturer that continued to spend on OLED research to the point that they could even make a TV size panel the masses could afford. Samsung and the others gave up early on. Since LG is the only game in town and consumers are buying bigger TVs, it makes sense that smaller OLED TVs aren't available.

However, there are other reasons. If it was simply a matter of scale then Samsung and others that make OLED screens for phones and other small devices would be making TVs as well. They would make big versions of their small OLED displays and be in business. Turns out it is not that simple. The manufacturing process is different, the materials are different, and the demands on the tech are different.

One example is the pixel layout. Small OLED screens have very high PPI numbers, so high that our eyes can't distinguish individual pixels. As a result, many high resolution small OLED displays do not use a traditional RGB grid for their subpixels. Instead, they use what is known as PenTile, a diamond arrangement with shared green subpixels. Here's an example in the form of the Galaxy S4.

View attachment 168314

The count of the green subpixels is used to describe the resolution. So a display like the Galaxy S4's will have 1920 x 1080 green subpixels for a claimed 1080p display. That's 2,073,600 green subpixels. There are only 1,036,800 red and blue subpixels, however. Since our eyes detect green better, we are tricked into thinking the display is a true 1080p panel.

When pixels are bigger and more spread out, as they are on a TV, we do see the difference. The trick doesn't work.

The way LG TV panels work is actually completely different. Each pixel starts out as the color white with an RGB sandwich on top of it. It looks this, example on the left vs traditional RGB subpixels on the right:
View attachment 168315

So, for each subpixel the color is changed from white by manipulating the RGB filters.


Long story short, we're back at my original statement which is shrinking OLED TV panels to say 32" or 40" sizes does not result in a panel that is much cheaper to produce. LG has to do it using their big panel techniques, and not a blown up version of relatively tiny phone or tablet panels.



This is the final nail in the coffin of small OLED TVs. Even if LG sunk the money into the equipment to produce them, they would be unlikely to recoup it because of the small expected sales.

I can put this another way. LG is far from the only TV manufacturer. Of all the TVs that LG sells, only 15% are OLED (basing this off 2017 sales data). We can see that in terms of the overall market, demand for OLED is not big, as they make up much less than 10% of the market. So the odds of selling small but still big price OLED TVs has to be pretty minimal.

I'll finish by adding that LG does not even really compete at the bottom end of the market. You may see some closeout models that are in the same price range as TVs from brands like TCL and Element, but in general LG aims for the mid-market and up where profit margins are higher. So again, why would they make TVs in the small TV segment, which is dominated by bargain brands and models? This is the same reason Samsung doesn't bother making a QLED model smaller than 43", which they definitely could do given it is just a modified LCD panel.
Click to expand...


Costco has stocked sub $500 50" LG IPS based TV's for well over 18 months. There is a big a pallet by the door in my store and thry are like $469 on sale.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Costco has stocked sub $500 50" LG IPS based TV's for well over 18 months. There is a big a pallet by the door in my store and thry are like $469 on sale.
Click to expand...

That is pretty cheap. It is not a small TV, though, and it is still a bit more than the bargain brands. You can get a 50" TCL Roku 4k TV on Amazon for less than $300 shipped ($279 as I write this). Element's model is $350. So even on sale for $470 LG is still more, granted we're not talking about a huge dollar amount. As a percentage the price difference has significance. LG is not going to settle for making $20 per TV and hope to earn bigger profits through volume, they like to have profit margin built into every sale.

-edit
Also I realize the Element and TCL are not IPS panels. They are probably VA, but the average bargain consumer isn't going to know the difference.
 
I have serious buyers remorse tbh, I bought the B8 (iirc) in December for 2k. It’s not the cost mind you, it’s the HDMI 2.1 support for 120hz/VRR. You’d be crazy to get one now that you know that the latest model has it.
 
next-Jin said:
I have serious buyers remorse tbh, I bought the B8 (iirc) in December for 2k. It’s not the cost mind you, it’s the HDMI 2.1 support for 120hz/VRR. You’d be crazy to get one now that you know that the latest model has it.
Click to expand...
I bouth a 65" C8 for about 2k on black friday. I have no regrets. The price I paid is maybe 100 more than this deal, so I feel like I did well. In a few years, if I buy get a new set, it'll likely have all kinds of new stuff. If I make it 5 or 6 years, we'll probalby have 8k, which might get me to the point where a TV has a PPI that's as good as my old 24" 1200p monitor. Obviously if you're someone who sits 10 or 15 feet from your TV, then you probably don't need anything more than 1080, but the only time i'm that far away is if I'm at someone else's house.
 
mikeo said:
4k120 via hdmi 2.1 on the c9, but i'm not aware of any hdmi 2.1 sources yet, until some displayport 1.4 to hdmi 2.1 adapters are released there isn't really a way to push that over any existing video cards.
Click to expand...
That's right - but this is the most "future proof" TV out there right now with not just wide range VRR (much wider than the Samsungs) but also 4k120, auto low latency mode, eARC and quick mode switch. Now we just need the GPU makers to update their cards!
 
Upcoming deal at Costco: Deal is scheduled to start October 27, 2021 and lasting through November 21, 2021 or while supplies last

48" LG C1 OLED TV: $1099.99
55" LG C1 OLED TV: $1299.99
65" LG C1 OLED TV: $1799.99
77" LG C1 OLED TV: $2999.99
83" LG C1 OLED TV: $4999.99
 
illli said:
Upcoming deal at Costco: Deal is scheduled to start October 27, 2021 and lasting through November 21, 2021 or while supplies last

48" LG C1 OLED TV: $1099.99
55" LG C1 OLED TV: $1299.99
65" LG C1 OLED TV: $1799.99
77" LG C1 OLED TV: $2999.99
83" LG C1 OLED TV: $4999.99
Click to expand...
I like that you can buy a 77" and 65" for less than the 83" still. I guess only LG can charge 2k for 6" these days. :D

Reminds me of back in 2006 when I paid $4600 for my 46" Sony XBR2. Don't think I'll ever be that stupid again though, until after I'm retired at least. I got my C9 for less than that C1 still a couple years ago on a BF deal though and am good with it still.
 
Last edited:
illli said:
Upcoming deal at Costco: Deal is scheduled to start October 27, 2021 and lasting through November 21, 2021 or while supplies last

48" LG C1 OLED TV: $1099.99
55" LG C1 OLED TV: $1299.99
65" LG C1 OLED TV: $1799.99
77" LG C1 OLED TV: $2999.99
83" LG C1 OLED TV: $4999.99
Click to expand...
Damn I just bought three of these TVs for hundreds of dollars more each than that lol
 
illli said:
Upcoming deal at Costco: Deal is scheduled to start October 27, 2021 and lasting through November 21, 2021 or while supplies last

48" LG C1 OLED TV: $1099.99
55" LG C1 OLED TV: $1299.99
65" LG C1 OLED TV: $1799.99
77" LG C1 OLED TV: $2999.99
83" LG C1 OLED TV: $4999.99
Click to expand...
Just a heads up to the veterans around here the prices are still slightly lower at the NX and PX.

This is a smoking deal for everyone though.
 
Krazy925 said:
Maybe it’s because I’m California. The 55” is a better deal from Costco for sure.
Click to expand...
Well there is good news about that. From the website
The NEX will match the shelf pricing on any wholesale club (i.e., Sam’s Club, BJs, Costco) merchandise for an identical item
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top