LG’s Wallpaper-Thin OLED TV Starts At $8,000

[Megalith]

You know, it’s not even the price that is the biggest issue for me (well, maybe the 77” $20K model is); it’s the fact that there is still going to be a panel lottery regardless of what you pay. I thought I could stop worrying about stuff like banding with OLED panels, but it looks like opening up a display will continue to be an anxiety-ridden event. Anyway, I think the actual news here is how cheap the introductory (C7) models are, which start at $2.5K. (I don’t remember any new models starting off that low in the past, though this is the first time I have paid attention to their initial costs.) Funny thing is that B&H just opened up a stock center in my state, so I have to pay sales tax from now on…

…electronics retailer B&H jumped the gun and put up the prices for LG’s 2017 OLED C7, E7 and W7 series TVs before LG could make an official announcement. As you might imagine, the new OLED TV screens are going to cost you an arm and a leg. And maybe a second arm and a second leg. Pretty much everything you’ve got, actually. The most expensive screen in this year’s lineup is the new W7 Signature Series, which comes in both 65-inch and 77-inch versions. The 65-inch version is going to sell for a gut-wrenching $7,996 (about £6,370 or AU$10,590) while the 77-inch version will come in at a take-out-a-mortgage sale price of $19,996 (about £16,000 or AU$26,500).

 

[Zohar78]

LOl.. yeah... panel lottery sucks.. why the hell the manufactures do that.

 

[NIVO]

i'd pay an extra $30 for an inspected pre purchase guaranteed defect free item. but panel lottery? nah, no thanks, we have enough of that shit as it is.

 

[mnewxcv]

where do I sign up for the mortgage on the 77" version

 

[nilepez]

All of them are cheaper than I expected. The .2mm versions are essentially the same price as the 2016 top end panels. Did the G series go away?
Also, I wouldn't want to get one of these paper thin models until someone else has beta tested them. I'm not even sure if I'd want one at all, but I'll probably go to a store and look at them when they come out.

 

[MrTryfe]

Is there a reason why an extra 12 inches equates to an extra $12k? Genuine question.

Edit- For example, the C7 variants, 55 and 65 inches, are 2500 and 4000, respectively. That's a 60% increase in price.

The E7 variants of similar size are 3500 and 5000, respectively. That's around a 45% increase.

But for the W7 series, there's a 150% increase in price from the smaller one to the larger one.

 

[Summoner]

Is there a reason why an extra 12 inches equates to an extra $12k? Genuine question.

Edit- For example, the C7 variants, 55 and 65 inches, are 2500 and 4000, respectively. That's a 60% increase in price.

The E7 variants of similar size are 3500 and 5000, respectively. That's around a 45% increase.

But for the W7 series, there's a 150% increase in price from the smaller one to the larger one.

I'd imagine it's to do with the manufacturing process to make a screen that large. Plus, I don't imagine that many people buy such a big screen, hence you can't get economy of scale like on the smaller ones.

Of course, they could just be charging that much because they can

 

[ZLoth]

Anyone remember this commercial?



This was a 42" plasma flat screen television from 1998 with a cost of $15K (although I saw one at a Good Guys! store for $10k). No wonder those dudes has such a tiny place. Anyone got the specs? I'm certain that HDMI was not part of the TV, as that didn't come until around 2002-2003.

Why am I even mentioning this? Given a few years, this type of display will drop in price.

 

[nilepez]

Is there a reason why an extra 12 inches equates to an extra $12k? Genuine question.
Edit- For example, the C7 variants, 55 and 65 inches, are 2500 and 4000, respectively. That's a 60% increase in price.
The E7 variants of similar size are 3500 and 5000, respectively. That's around a 45% increase.
But for the W7 series, there's a 150% increase in price from the smaller one to the larger one.

What Summoner said and keep in mind that 77" is just over 40% larger than 65", which is almost 40% bigger than a 55" tv.

As far as the W screens, those are the top of the line models. The people that are buying those are the same ones that paid 25 grand for a Sony 4k projector a few years ago.

 

[nilepez]

Anyone remember this commercial?



This was a 42" plasma flat screen television from 1998 with a cost of $15K (although I saw one at a Good Guys! store for $10k). No wonder those dudes has such a tiny place. Anyone got the specs? I'm certain that HDMI was not part of the TV, as that didn't come until around 2002-2003.

Why am I even mentioning this? Given a few years, this type of display will drop in price.

I don't recall the specs, but they didn't look very good. I remember seeing them at Fry's. As I recall, they also had a huge box sitting under them, but maybe that was part of a stand...i always thought it was the power supply.

That said, the only Plasma sets I saw that I thought were remotely watchable cost 10 grand or more. The rest all had visible pixels that drove me crazy (but I had friends/family that loved them). Personally I was a fan of LCOS, but that died when the push for thin took over.

 

[Shintai]

Maybe I am old fashion. But I would prefer a thicker TV if I could then avoid having a silly extra box to the TV. And if my TV is 2-3cm thick or 1mm is pointless.

 

[Quartz-1]

They may be $20K now, but in a decade or so they'll be cheap as chips. Cheap enough to hang on the wall not as a TV but in place of paintings.

 

[Makeroflostsouls]

Yea I really don't understand the push for thinner , I mean really once it's on the wall who cares. Granted I don't want it at foot thick lol but a few inches to keep me from having a separate box and it being easier to mount makes more sense to me. I mean he'll the mount for my 60 inch is thicker then the TV. But if you want it to tilt at all it has to be thicker. People that design this stuff have no idea how stuff gets installed and used in the real world. If you flush mount a TV over a fire place with no angle down it's going to suck to watch. Not ever one has a ideal place to hang a TV flush on the wall. Engineers that near live in the real world lol

 

[Nytegard]

When I purchased my e6, I had terrible luck from Amazon, with two defective panels. I just gave up trying to purchase it through Amazon, and went to a high end A/V store (the store served mostly multi millionaires+, i.e. people who don't care what the price of the TV is). I paid $200 extra for calibration and quality control check, but it was well worth it, as it removed the panel lottery question (as they guaranteed quality panels), and it turned out to be cheaper than Amazon's base price, even after the calibration fee.

 

[aces99]

Yes the price on the new LG OLED wallpaper thin TV's are a little pricy, especially the 77". $20K for the 77" is a little overkill compared to the 65" for 8K. The 77" should be about 12K tops. The one major downer for me about the new TV's is they are not 3D. For the price they are charging for the new TV's they should be 3D and should be glasses free. Then I would buy one for sure. Til then sorry but they will be losing me as a customer. Maybe the next ones will have that feature.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Yes the price on the new LG OLED wallpaper thin TV's are a little pricy, especially the 77". $20K for the 77" is a little overkill compared to the 65" for 8K. The 77" should be about 12K tops. The one major downer for me about the new TV's is they are not 3D. For the price they are charging for the new TV's they should be 3D and should be glasses free. Then I would buy one for sure. Til then sorry but they will be losing me as a customer. Maybe the next ones will have that feature.

3D has gone the way of the dodo. But you pay the price for the new way they implemented Oled the wallpaper would even be at a premium price few years from now since LG is the only one that makes them

 

[aces99]

3D has gone the way of the dodo. But you pay the price for the new way they implemented Oled the wallpaper would even be at a premium price few years from now since LG is the only one that makes them

I know but I liked the 3D. I watch quite a bit of 3D movies on my LG TV. The new LG OLED wallpaper thin TV's are nice but it is not worth the extra premium they charge for them because last years LG, Samsung and Sony TV's are already thin enough and don't really make much of a difference and take much more real estate than the LG's do. I rather buy last years top of the line 3D TV than this years LG wallpaper thin TV. Plus next year everyone else will have them as well. I won't be buying one until it has 3D in it. But that's just me. I am in the market for a new 75" to 77" but not going to pay 20K for one when I can get last years model for less than half that. I think 3D would take off a lot more if they had a glass less 3D version where you didn't need to wear 3D glasses. I think that's what is holding it back a lot.

 

[nilepez]

Yes the price on the new LG OLED wallpaper thin TV's are a little pricy, especially the 77". $20K for the 77" is a little overkill compared to the 65" for 8K. The 77" should be about 12K tops. The one major downer for me about the new TV's is they are not 3D. For the price they are charging for the new TV's they should be 3D and should be glasses free. Then I would buy one for sure. Til then sorry but they will be losing me as a customer. Maybe the next ones will have that feature.

It's the same price as the thicker 2016 77" model. It's aimed at buyers that don't care about the price. Eventually the price will come down, just like 4K sets have. As I said earlier, Sony's started at 25k (and I bet they still have a 20k+ set somewhere).

 

[gunbust3r]

For the megabucks thin model being tied to the gumpy sound bar is perplexing. If you can afford a TV like that you can redo your wall to recess a thicker TV and you would also have your own sound setup.

 

[CSI_PC]

This year does look more promising to get OLED into houses at a more reasonable prices when considering the cheaper models are below $3k, and we have later this year both Sony and Panasonic (using LG tech but makes sense as they have the best patent it seems), which according to reports there both provided better visuals than the LG.
Downside is they are split on which HDR is supported.
Also thank F$% there are no curved screens this year as that really is the lottery.
Cheers

 

[Pieter3dnow]

This year does look more promising to get OLED into houses at a more reasonable prices when considering the cheaper models are below $3k, and we have later this year both Sony and Panasonic (using LG tech but makes sense as they have the best patent it seems), which according to reports there both provided better visuals than the LG.
Downside is they are split on which HDR is supported.
Also thank F$% there are no curved screens this year as that really is the lottery.
Cheers

HDR is not an issue in general HDR10 is supported the rest is an extra stream which does not screw over with any of the other HDR "standards". There is an excellent interview with the people behind Dolby Vision about this from AVforums youtube channel (2015) which explains how it exactly coexists.

Oled will never be cheap and the problem is unless you own HDR content or have a big wallet to support the habit it is never a cheap option since cable TV content is not going to support it for the next few years even tho they finalized the streaming and broadcast standards for HDR.

 

[CSI_PC]

HDR is not an issue in general HDR10 is supported the rest is an extra stream which does not screw over with any of the other HDR "standards". There is an excellent interview with the people behind Dolby Vision about this from AVforums youtube channel (2015) which explains how it exactly coexists.

Oled will never be cheap and the problem is unless you own HDR content or have a big wallet to support the habit it is never a cheap option since cable TV content is not going to support it for the next few years even tho they finalized the streaming and broadcast standards for HDR.

I guess it is all relative, if it is around $2k to $2.6k for the cheapest models and they are still up to what OLED is about, then to me that is cheap for OLED (yeah another 14 months and one should expect the prices to lower more).

Sony supports Dolby Vision and not HDR10 for their OLED, while LG has implemented both HDR10 and Dolby Vision, while Panasonic I think is only HDR10.
It depends how much Sony puts its studio weight behind Dolby Vision, along with if other studios will fall in (so far Warner Brothers and Universal), but worth noting it is not technically compatible with HDR10; the code 'stream' is Dolby Vision and 'legacy'.
So this is where the headache comes from if looking beyond LG, along with the various entertainment that will be a mix.

Cheers

 

[Armenius]

The C-series is less expensive than I was expecting. I'm in for one of the 55" models.

 

[aces99]

3D has gone the way of the dodo. But you pay the price for the new way they implemented Oled the wallpaper would even be at a premium price few years from now since LG is the only one that makes them

Yes but for the price they charge for these new TV's it wouldn't of killed them to have the 3D option in them. Especially what they are charging for the 77" model. This way it would be a feature that sets them apart from the rest and more people would buy there TV's over other manufacturers and would justify the price they are charging. I am currently looking to buy a new 75"-77" OLED 3D TV and was going to buy LG as I have a LG 3D TV and love it. But I moved to a new place and the TV is way to small for the new place. LG just lost a sale for their new TV. Now I have to look elsewhere because I won't buy a new TV unless it has 3D

 

[CSI_PC]

The C-series is less expensive than I was expecting. I'm in for one of the 55" models.

Yeah 55" seems the price sweet spot.
Cheers

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Sony supports Dolby Vision and not HDR10 for their OLED, while LG has implemented both HDR10 and Dolby Vision, while Panasonic I think is only HDR10.
It depends how much Sony puts its studio weight behind Dolby Vision, along with if other studios will fall in (so far Warner Brothers and Universal), but worth noting it is not technically compatible with HDR10; the code 'stream' is Dolby Vision and 'legacy'.
So this is where the headache comes from if looking beyond LG, along with the various entertainment that will be a mix.

Cheers

If you checked the Dolby Vision interview you would have known that it is compatible with HDR 10 You can run any Dolby Vision content (on HDR 10 devices)but their own "effects" are not visible.

 

[CSI_PC]

If you checked the Dolby Vision interview you would have known that it is compatible with HDR 10 You can run any Dolby Vision content (on HDR 10 devices)but their own "effects" are not visible.

That does not help those with Panasonic TVs and HDR10
And that is what I meant by Dolby Vision streams its native content and 'legacy' non HDR (this was in a Dolby interview 2016).
Or if LG cannot represent Dolby Vision as well as it is meant to (seems some discrepencies in past when both were checked in reviews).
And listening to various interviews from Dolby themselves some of their staff say it is not compatible with HDR10 decoders and in another interview an HDR player will still show HDR10 from a Dolby Vision HDR coded film....

Sony will have models that are Dolby Vision+HDR10 (upper ones with the X1 Extreme processor) but are intent on pushing Dolby Vision, and others that are only HDR10, while Panasonic is only HDR10.
So who can say how this will pan out longer term with what studios pump out.

Cheers

 

[Meeho]

I can't seem find where the panel lottery is mentioned in the source. Could someone expand on that? What exactly are they doing?

 

[gunbust3r]

I can't seem find where the panel lottery is mentioned in the source. Could someone expand on that? What exactly are they doing?

Just like with any manufacturing tech its hard to get a product completely uniform. Especially on the surface area you are talking about with 65"+ sets. If they reject too many panels it's money lost so really picky consumers will often buy and return a number of sets until they get a "perfect" specimen from the lottery.

 

[Zohar78]

Just like with any manufacturing tech its hard to get a product completely uniform. Especially on the surface area you are talking about with 65"+ sets. If they reject too many panels it's money lost so really picky consumers will often buy and return a number of sets until they get a "perfect" specimen from the lottery.

it doesnt help they often will use panels from different manufactures. alot of times the lottery is based on getting that particular manu screen. i think it was samsung that had their tvs with three different screen manufacturs. and the best one to get was the sammy one.. this is akin to buying a ford mustang 5.0 and ford putting a 4.8 or 5.0 engine but they both produce the same horsepower and torque. now imagine if the 4.8 had a different power/torque curve then the 5.0 and that resulting in different to slightly different 0-60. its a crappy thing to do.

I think alot of people wouldnt mind as bad if the the panels themselves werent at times quite different. Ive also heard some people have much better luck with early sets of the TVs then the latter manufacturing ones.. samsung seems to be the one they question the most with this tactic. New set launches. To build early hype and good reviews, they would use the best (probably more expensive panel) panel. Then when prices drop, as all new things prices drop, they start using a lesser aka cheaper panel bring the manu cost down.. thus now a panel lottery.

for the majority of people, they probably dont know. But like many things tech, the people that really care about best performance are the ones that really take issue and thus since thats a minority, manufactures do almsot nothing about it.