LG to make a 42" OLED panel in 2021!

SoCali

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
508
Let's hope it's not gimped compared to it's bigger brothers. You know, 60hz or a single HDMI 2.1 port, etc.
 

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
94
They wouldn't gimp it. OLED TVs are already in the premium TV segment. Anyone who wants a cheaper TV will get a larger mainstream panel from someone like Vizio.

The only reason smaller OLED panels haven't come to market sooner is they make OLED panels as large sheets of semiconductors. They cut those sheets into the TV-sized panels. Anything leftover is trash and wasted money. The 48 and 42 sizes didn't come neatly out of leftovers from the 55 and 65 panels so they didn't make them until prices came down or they found a way to produce them without wastage.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
602
People also need to understand that it's about tapping a market. Right now, the sweet-spot for OLED TVs in terms of sales is between 55 and 65 inches. The 48 and 77 inch variants don't sell as well.

The 42 inch is a bit of a gamble; it will mostly appeal to PC users that think 48 inches is still too big, but even then, it's still significantly bigger than the normal 27-32 inch monitors that most enthusiasts use. It will have to be priced right to penetrate the market, but seeing as the Samsung G9 Neo is priced at an eye-watering $2500, it will make a supposed 42" OLED TV/monitor seem like a downright bargain (if it hits around $1000).
 

SoCali

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
508
People also need to understand that it's about tapping a market. Right now, the sweet-spot for OLED TVs in terms of sales is between 55 and 65 inches. The 48 and 77 inch variants don't sell as well.

The 42 inch is a bit of a gamble; it will mostly appeal to PC users that think 48 inches is still too big, but even then, it's still significantly bigger than the normal 27-32 inch monitors that most enthusiasts use. It will have to be priced right to penetrate the market, but seeing as the Samsung G9 Neo is priced at an eye-watering $2500, it will make a supposed 42" OLED TV/monitor seem like a downright bargain (if it hits around $1000).
Yeah and this is exactly why I think a gimped model is a possibility.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,415
Yeah and this is exactly why I think a gimped model is a possibility.
Gimped in what way? If they aim it for the monitor market then I would expect it might have some different mitigations for burn in compared to the TVs.

Being smaller also puts more demands for things like cooling but that should not be an issue if LG just extends the back casing to cover the whole screen instead of like the bottom 1/3rd. I just hope they can avoid doing things like reducing HDR brightness.

I would not be surprised if they price it higher than the LG CX when it hit the market tho, considering how some high refresh rate monitors are sold at 1500-2000 euros with edge lit local dimming etc crap.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,983
Gimped as in A series with 60hz only would be bad; less processing/features (VRR), connectivity (HDMI 2.1) and calibration would also be bad; less smart TV features I wouldn't care too much.
 

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
94
Gimped as in A series with 60hz only would be bad; less processing/features (VRR), connectivity (HDMI 2.1) and calibration would also be bad; less smart TV features I wouldn't care too much.
The 42" model is going to be targeted to console and PC gamers, so gimping the connectivity and refresh rate would be unthinkable if that's your target demographic. If anything I think you'll see them cheap out on things like the internal processor, resulting in worse image processing and laggier TV OS menus. Neither of those features matter much to gamers and being able to use an older cheaper SoC would likely be quite desirable right now given the shortage of fab supply for higher end processes.
 

SoCali

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
508
I don't think they are targeting gamers at all. Gamers consist of a tiny portion of their sales, they are targeting people who don't want a 48" or larger display in their space that value image quality.

I dunno where this impression that LG OLED's as a brand are a PC/console gaming orientated product because they clearly aren't. It's what people have made them out of necessity due to the garbage monitor market. It's still 98% a home theater/cinema product. Just look at their product pages, tiny blurb about Gsync and 1ms, the rest is Smart TV and cinema related picture quality nonsense.
 

Mad Maxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,581
I don't think they are targeting gamers at all. Gamers consist of a tiny portion of their sales, they are targeting people who don't want a 48" or larger display in their space that value image quality.

I dunno where this impression that LG OLED's as a brand are a PC/console gaming orientated product because they clearly aren't. It's what people have made them out of necessity due to the garbage monitor market. It's still 98% a home theater/cinema product. Just look at their product pages, tiny blurb about Gsync and 1ms, the rest is Smart TV and cinema related picture quality nonsense.
Check the headlines...

https://www.kedglobal.com/newsView/ked202108190017
 

Surly

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
281
I don't think they are targeting gamers at all. Gamers consist of a tiny portion of their sales, they are targeting people who don't want a 48" or larger display in their space that value image quality.

I dunno where this impression that LG OLED's as a brand are a PC/console gaming orientated product because they clearly aren't. It's what people have made them out of necessity due to the garbage monitor market. It's still 98% a home theater/cinema product. Just look at their product pages, tiny blurb about Gsync and 1ms, the rest is Smart TV and cinema related picture quality nonsense.
I think your read on this wrong. If the home theater/cinema market really wanted sub 50" displays then the 40 to 50" segment wouldnt have collapsed like it did a few years back.
 

SoCali

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
508
I think your read on this wrong. If the home theater/cinema market really wanted sub 50" displays then the 40 to 50" segment wouldnt have collapsed like it did a few years back.
40-50" segment hasn't collapsed? America is not their only market, there are lots else where who prefer a smaller TV.

Get back to me when LG's " Gaming & PC centric" TV's wake and sleep like a monitor.

I think forums/reddit have people deluded into thinking everyone and their mom is buying OLED's to game.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
602
40-50" segment hasn't collapsed? America is not their only market, there are lots else where who prefer a smaller TV.

Get back to me when LG's " Gaming & PC centric" TV's wake and sleep like a monitor.

I think forums/reddit have people deluded into thinking everyone and their mom is buying OLED's to game.
Have you gone and looked at the customer reviews for the CX48 and C1 48"?

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-48-...4k-uhd-smart-webos-tv/6453311.p?skuId=6453311
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-48-...4k-uhd-smart-webos-tv/6416732.p?skuId=6416732

Almost all of the reviewers at least mention gaming. Some of them even say that they purchased this TV as a PC monitor, first and foremost. I think you underestimate the take rate of these sets as gaming monitors.

I'm not saying that other markets buy this set primarily for gaming, but as far as I know, the United States is the largest consumer of these sets.
 

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
347

Says it's coming, and won't be gimped, (will be HDMI 2.1, VRR, Freesync Premium, Gsync compatible) and should be priced at ~$1k.
Please be full 48Gbps bandwidth! I need a new display and next year is the best I can wait!
 

Gatecrasher3000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
368

Says it's coming, and won't be gimped, (will be HDMI 2.1, VRR, Freesync Premium, Gsync compatible) and should be priced at ~$1k.
I'll wait for LG to officially say it will have the same features as the C1, right now is just a guess.
Here's to hoping.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
350
They very well could gimp it and put it in the “budget” line like the A series. Generally, the smaller the TV, the less “high end” features it will have across all brands and TV models. 99% of people can buy a 42” TV at Walmart for like $150 these days. Going to be a hard pass for most people even at $1000 range. I’m glad they’re making it though. I had to convert my setup from a PC desk to a wireless home theatre setup with a recliner to accommodate my 55” OLED and I don’t think I’ll ever go back since Recliner > Computer chair any day of the week.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,428
They very well could gimp it and put it in the “budget” line like the A series. Generally, the smaller the TV, the less “high end” features it will have across all brands and TV models. 99% of people can buy a 42” TV at Walmart for like $150 these days. Going to be a hard pass for most people even at $1000 range. I’m glad they’re making it though. I had to convert my setup from a PC desk to a wireless home theatre setup with a recliner to accommodate my 55” OLED and I don’t think I’ll ever go back since Recliner > Computer chair any day of the week.
Depends on the games you play. I haven't found a recliner yet that offers a good mouse and keyboard experience. None of the lapboards do it for me, and I like to play most of my games with M&K.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
350
Depends on the games you play. I haven't found a recliner yet that offers a good mouse and keyboard experience. None of the lapboards do it for me, and I like to play most of my games with M&K.
So I might be able to help ya here. I did dozens of hours of both online research and going into box-stores and sitting on Recliners to find what works best for me.

There’s 3 distinct criteria’s you need for the recliner to work with a keyboard/mouse setup:

-Power recliner head support. You need something that just comes out to support your head/neck only. Not the entire back that pushes your shoulders and whole body forward. Leaning your head forward to type/game = very uncomfortable overtime.

-“Tight back” design. Can’t be a normal or fatty width couch, the armrests needs to be really close to your body to support your elbows 24/7. Anything “normal” width (>= 24" width) and your elbows are just suspended in the air = very uncomfortable overtime.

-The armrests needs be flat and long to accommodate a keyboard tray. Cup holders or something may get in the way. Again, need the tighter design so the keyboard tray actually has something to rest on.

This is the power recliner I currently use:

ACME Jailene Recliner - $625

https://www.amazon.com/Furniture-59...s=acme+jailene+recliner&qid=1629757308&sr=8-1

Doesn’t have great reviews, but I love it. The vinly hasn’t started peeling yet even after 2 years of heavy 12+ hour use daily (been working from home and using this a my work setup since Covid happened) + I game heavily after work. Only problem is the padding is starting to get a little flat overtime. I also use a battery pack for the recliner which lasts a good month before needing recharged. I use to have chronic lower back pain being hunched over a computer chair every day, haven’t had a single aching back ever since I started using this.

I also use this lapdesk:

3M Gel Wrist Rest for Keyboard and Mouse - $47

https://www.amazon.com/3M-Keyboard-...words=3m+gel+wrist+rest&qid=1629757487&sr=8-6

There’s other various brands/types out there. Again this has held up for years with no issues.

I’m about to upgrade to something a bit nicer. It’s real leather instead of Vinyl, and has memory foam padding instead of cheap made in china stuff. It also has cup holders (that don’t get in the way) and storage in the arm rests. You can also turn off the button LED lights (unlike the ACME) so my battery should last even longer. The only issue is the arms are slightly wider than the ACME recliner. My elbows sit on the edges (instead of dead center on the ACME) but is acceptable. If they were even just 1” wider then this would have been disqualifying for me. I actually sat on this in the store and yes I brought my keyboard tray and xbox controller like a nerd in the store:

Bob’s Discount Furntiure – Panther Black Leather Power Recliner ($1200)

https://www.mybobs.com/furniture/living-room/reclining-furniture/recliners/p/20052701003


Btw I’m a medium frame/build guy.

IMG_3193 (1).jpg



IMG_3194.JPG
 
Last edited:

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,403
They wouldn't gimp it. OLED TVs are already in the premium TV segment. Anyone who wants a cheaper TV will get a larger mainstream panel from someone like Vizio.

I personally wouldn't call $1500 premium territory, which is roughly the average for a 55 inch oled. But yeah, theres some larger, cheap sub-$1000 tvs out there.

The only reason smaller OLED panels haven't come to market sooner is they make OLED panels as large sheets of semiconductors. They cut those sheets into the TV-sized panels. Anything leftover is trash and wasted money. The 48 and 42 sizes didn't come neatly out of leftovers from the 55 and 65 panels so they didn't make them until prices came down or they found a way to produce them without wastage.

This used to be true until LG adopted multi model glass technology. Now they can cut various sizes from the same sheet.
https://wikimovel.com/index.php/Multi_model_glass_display_sizes

After it was adopted, the waste was significantly reduced. If I recall, it is around 90% utilization now. So while utilization % is higher, but the output is still pretty small, and so this is why you see the 48 inch OLED tv costing not much less than the 55 inch tv. LG can produce 2x 48 inch panels for every two 77 inch panels. This video does a good job explaining it



once Lg switches to the 10.5G fab (around 2025) you'll see prices go down by a good bit

The 42 inch is a bit of a gamble; it will mostly appeal to PC users that think 48 inches is still too big, but even then, it's still significantly bigger than the normal 27-32 inch monitors that most enthusiasts use. It will have to be priced right to penetrate the market, but seeing as the Samsung G9 Neo is priced at an eye-watering $2500, it will make a supposed 42" OLED TV/monitor seem like a downright bargain (if it hits around $1000).

I wouldn't call it a gamble. Due to how these panels are cut, LG isn't going to leave that much behind as waste (assuming they cut some from the same sheet as their 83 inch panels). They will use it one way or another. Either under their own brand or selling to some other company.
 
Last edited:

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,323
So one guy's tiny house in downtown Monaco is somehow normal for the rest pf the world?

I can post an more useful image, also!

large_GOBW5na4673WOujXcA11RP2IM1ByQcXEn41xngviKpQ.jpg


Monaco has the exact same population density as Manhattan Island...but the density of the rest-of the state of NY drops like a rock (1/20th the density).

There are very specific locations where there is enough money and need, but for most homes in the rest of the world, the sizes of 55-65 inches are a lot more feasible!
 
Last edited:

oledguy1

Weaksauce
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
75
I am really looking forward to the 42" OLED for my PC. I think it would have all the same specs as the regular 'C' series OLED TVs that LG has come out with these past several years. The only thing that annoys me is that LG will probably announce the 42" at CES this January but then you wont be able to actually purchase it until May or June of next year like the 48" was this year. So these are still effectively just under a year away. It always seems like the display I want is always a year away....
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,851
I am really looking forward to the 42" OLED for my PC. I think it would have all the same specs as the regular 'C' series OLED TVs that LG has come out with these past several years. The only thing that annoys me is that LG will probably announce the 42" at CES this January but then you wont be able to actually purchase it until May or June of next year like the 48" was this year. So these are still effectively just under a year away. It always seems like the display I want is always a year away....

Don't get your hopes up. In the 43" Samsung QN90A thread it was discovered that Samsung had decided to strip the 43" model of 120Hz and VRR while leaving the 50" sizes and up with it, that basically makes the 43" DOA as a PC monitor as nobody is going to pay $1300 for a 60Hz no sync display. LG might just do the same thing and remove 120Hz + VRR from the 42" OLED. Not saying it's gonna happen, but I wouldn't rule it out completely.
 

oledguy1

Weaksauce
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
75
Don't get your hopes up. In the 43" Samsung QN90A thread it was discovered that Samsung had decided to strip the 43" model of 120Hz and VRR while leaving the 50" sizes and up with it, that basically makes the 43" DOA as a PC monitor as nobody is going to pay $1300 for a 60Hz no sync display. LG might just do the same thing and remove 120Hz + VRR from the 42" OLED. Not saying it's gonna happen, but I wouldn't rule it out completely.
I doubt LG would suddenly segment their TVs like that. Even the B1 OLEDS still get VRR and HDMI 2.1 The 48" C1 still has all the same features as its larger versions.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,851
I doubt LG would suddenly segment their TVs like that. Even the B1 OLEDS still get VRR and HDMI 2.1 The 48" C1 still has all the same features as its larger versions.

I don't think either but just saying if Samsung actually did it then who knows.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
962
I still want my 38" hardware gsync, but if LG eventually comes up with a 42" 120hz VRR OLED, it will be extremely difficult for me to neglect it in favor of a 38" 175hz from Acer or MSI. (msi even has a built-in human machine interface in there 38". 😲)
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,766
So if the 42" ends up not happening due to the lack of light output from the smaller pixels required for 4k at 42" (from this post), then just hypothetically speaking, what about 1440p? A 32" 1440p 16:9 would have an identical pixel pitch as the 48" 4k. Or a ~40" ultrawide with 3440x1440 resolution. It's the same pixel pitch as 24" 1080p, but over a bigger screen so you'd sit farther back, making the lower resolution less noticeable. Honestly, for gaming/media I don't think I'd mind a lower resolution if that's what it takes to achieve decent HDR performance on an OLED that size, especially at a lower price point. What do you think, would you guys go for something like that?
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,851
So if the 42" ends up not happening due to the lack of light output from the smaller pixels required for 4k at 42" (from this post), then just hypothetically speaking, what about 1440p? A 32" 1440p 16:9 would have an identical pixel pitch as the 48" 4k. Or a ~40" ultrawide with 3440x1440 resolution. It's the same pixel pitch as 24" 1080p, but over a bigger screen so you'd sit farther back, making the lower resolution less noticeable. Honestly, for gaming/media I don't think I'd mind a lower resolution if that's what it takes to achieve decent HDR performance on an OLED that size, especially at a lower price point. What do you think, would you guys go for something like that?

Hmmm is that why the 32" OLED monitor has such a low peak brightness? I believe it's like 400 nits peak or something.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,766
Hmmm is that why the 32" OLED monitor has such a low peak brightness? I believe it's like 400 nits peak or something.
The 32" is inket printed, so it's a bit apples and oranges. But that could be part of it.

For the same PPI as the 48", a ~45" 3840x1600 ultrawide is also possible. Essentially just a cut down 48" panel. IMO that would be a compelling option as well.
 

Attachments

  • 48 vs 45 UW.png
    48 vs 45 UW.png
    5.2 KB · Views: 0
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
672
The 32" is inket printed, so it's a bit apples and oranges. But that could be part of it.

For the same PPI as the 48", a ~45" 3840x1600 ultrawide is also possible. Essentially just a cut down 48" panel. IMO that would be a compelling option as well.
At that point why not just run a custom resolution? With the OLED having true blacks it’s not that different than having the top and bottom cut off. And the desk space used would be about the same anyway
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,766
At that point why not just run a custom resolution? With the OLED having true blacks it’s not that different than having the top and bottom cut off. And the desk space used would be about the same anyway
With less height it makes it more feasible to use on your desktop, rather than having to mount it somewhere behind the desk. It'd also have more space above/below if you needed it.

I might even prefer a UW 45" over the 42" - it's wider, but not as tall, which I feel is generally more comfortable to use as a desktop monitor.
 

Attachments

  • OLED 42 vs 45 UW.png
    OLED 42 vs 45 UW.png
    4.8 KB · Views: 0

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,415
With less height it makes it more feasible to use on your desktop, rather than having to mount it somewhere behind the desk. It'd also have more space above/below if you needed it.

I might even prefer a UW 45" over the 42" - it's wider, but not as tall, which I feel is generally more comfortable to use as a desktop monitor.
Running a 3840x1600 custom resolution on my LG CX 48", the issue becomes the lack of curvature. It feels nowhere near as nice to use as a curved monitor. Of course OLEDs would be pretty good at the curved thing so it would not be impossible to make or anything.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
523
42 inch on a monitor arm without a stand is what I'm planning. The 48 inch without stand is right around 30 pounds, the 42 inch hopefully is closer to 25 pounds. Then I can use my current arm.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,415
42 inch on a monitor arm without a stand is what I'm planning. The 48 inch without stand is right around 30 pounds, the 42 inch hopefully is closer to 25 pounds. Then I can use my current arm.
I had the 48" model on a Multibrackets VESA HD arm. Because of the size of the display the tilt would buckle unless really cranked, same as my Samsung CRG9 which currently uses the arm. Even at the smaller 42" size you might run into those issues even if on paper your arm can hold it up.

42" is sort of at the maximum for what you might reasonably use on a desktop arm. I put the 48" on a floorstand because on the arm I could not get it far away enough. Maxed out at about 80 cm viewing distance, now I have it at 1m.
 

Mad Maxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,581
I have my 43" Samsung on a monitor arm while the TV rests directly on the desk top. It's worked quite well for me.

PXL_20210505_200313118.PORTRAIT~2.jpg
 
Top