![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
OLED Computer Monitors?
- Thread starter TroyX
- Start date
"The BVM-F250A delivers outstanding black performance, a quick response with virtually no motion blur, and a wide colour gamut. An all-new 12-bit output digital signal processing engine provides a nonlinear cubic conversion colour-management system that delivers precise color reproduction, stunning picture uniformity, smoother-than-ever gamma performance, and picture quality consistency. New OLED panel virtually eliminates any off axis color shading."
£9,495.00
£9,495.00
There are opinions that image retention and white area level limitation might be a problem with OLED monitors. On the other hand there are claims these issues are solved in new OLED panels. LG is just starting mass production of OLED TVs to the tune of about 1 mln planned for 2015. Their focus is on big TVs but if they would dare to make a ~40" 4K (curved) OLED TV that would be ideal for testing as monitor.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
What the heck is that, it has weird ports.
Those would be serious business, as in professional grade BNC connectors. For info on how they work, formats, types, etc., you can read this article.
They've been around a long long time. But it's unlikely you'd ever see them on anything less than broadcast level displays. The closest thing to 'consumer' grade I've seen them on is the Sony FW-900, which of course is still being talked about in this display subforum.
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,537
Having used both BNC and VGA, I can say the only advantage to a home user that BNC has is if you use a CRT monitor and want to guarantee that your video card won't do scaling. BNC doesn't carry EDID and therefore, the computer won't know what's hooked up. Whereas with VGA, with new operating systems like Windows 7 or Windows 8 (Linux Mint 17 does this too), they will see the GDM-FW900 and automatically set its native resolution to 2304 x 1440 80hz (the max the display can do), call it "Native" resolution and scale any other resolution to 2304x1440 as if it were an LCD. Blurry mess.
GDM-F520, the little sibling (along with the Artisan) is even worse. "Native" resolution for those monitors is 1280x1024 - which is just silly. Beyond that though, it seems to me that BNC is a more "rugged" connector because it has locking mechanisms that keep the cable in its spot, no matter what. Personally, I see no visual differences between my DVI-BNC5 cable and my DVI-VGA adapter (scaling disabled).
Back to topic. OLED PC monitors? Bring em on! I personally feel that the positives of OLED destroy LCD so much that the few drawbacks are worth it.
GDM-F520, the little sibling (along with the Artisan) is even worse. "Native" resolution for those monitors is 1280x1024 - which is just silly. Beyond that though, it seems to me that BNC is a more "rugged" connector because it has locking mechanisms that keep the cable in its spot, no matter what. Personally, I see no visual differences between my DVI-BNC5 cable and my DVI-VGA adapter (scaling disabled).
Back to topic. OLED PC monitors? Bring em on! I personally feel that the positives of OLED destroy LCD so much that the few drawbacks are worth it.
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,537
I have around 500 hours on my 55" LG OLED TV, and have never experienced any image retention or burn in. My usage has been primarily games around 90% of the time. Many of those games also have static UI elements. LG's implementation seems decent, but the calibration can be somewhat frustrating. You can very quickly (and unintentionally) end up crushing all the beautiful inky blacks with the wrong setting.
Based on my experience thus far, I really don't feel like OLED computer displays are that far outside the realm of possibility today. I would love to see LG push into the monitor space with this technology. After using an OLED panel extensively, I can't really see myself spending the money for a regular computer monitor. They just look terrible in comparison, but a 34" 21:9 OLED panel would be a must buy for me.
When?
refresh rates, limited contrast ratio, viewing angles and input lag need to be put to rest.
there is no guarantee that oled displays dont have input lag. for the most part input lag is determined by the electronics behind the panel; the only difference between oled and lcd as far as input lag is concerned is that lcds have ~2ms or so more due to the transition time
The net result of the intentional and ridiculous abandonment of CRT technology is that professional image/video quality has been priced out of the reach of everyone except professionals. And wealthy ones at that. OLED has become a running joke in the industry, a carrot hung in front of our noses for how many years, no closer to being eaten today than it was back then. The inside word is that it's not a viable technology in its current state for anything other than smartphones and other tiny screens. Yields are on the order of 60%, and the organic materials used by the technology begin to decay as such almost immediately, e.g. blue fades 30% or more within the first few years.
Since the industry has existed, I can't think of another example of mass stupidity on this scale. They've spent the last 10 years trying to recreate the same image and video quality we had in the first place with CRTs.
Since the industry has existed, I can't think of another example of mass stupidity on this scale. They've spent the last 10 years trying to recreate the same image and video quality we had in the first place with CRTs.
Not true at all. LG now makes 55" OELD TV's with 4k version releasing soon. Samsung has made OLED phone screens for ages now. We just need them to meet in the middle! Stop being so negative.
That's not true. LG stated back in September that yields were around 80% now:
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1411039923
LG is coming out with 4 new OLED models next year, so they seem to be prepping for a big push in 2015, likely with much lower prices too. Unfortunately none of them will be monitors, according to this anyway: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/lg-65ef980v-201412253967.htm
Last edited:
Read the fine print:
"As you probably know by now, LG is producing OLED displays based on a different pixel structure than Samsung. LG is using white OLED pixels with color filters, whereas Samsung is using RGB (red, green, blue) pixels. During our talk, LG told us that the company has experimented with RGB pixels for OLEDs, too, but that yields were only around 10%. Rumors say that Samsungs number is higher, but Samsung has never publicly commented on the matter."
So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices.
While I'm of the same mind about the abandonment of CRT (and SED, and that other one that was supposed to be as good). . . it seems like you're going out of your way to shit all over OLED while you choose to always believe the worst and parse any information as negatively and uncharitably as possible.
The LG 55" OLED TV is currently the best looking and performing TV CNet has ever reviewed. With absolute black possible even with bright object visible elsewhere on the screen, it lives up to the OLED hype. And, as you see in the review, this TV makes use of the technology you deem (without any apparent evidence) as "vastly inferior."
You keep referring to "industry experts" and things you've read while shitting all over it. Yet not one citation and not a single identifiable source. I realize that you (like me) miss CRT, but that shouldn't cause us to have an unreasonable vendetta against emerging technologies that might some day bring us the quality we miss so much.
"There's also more than one type of OLED display. Traditional emissive TVs like Samsung's KN55S9C OLED and most plasmas use three subpixels, one each for RGB (red, green, and blue), to create each actual pixel. LG's WRGB OLED TV system, on the other hand, uses OLED material of all three colors sandwiched together, in combination with four filters (clear [or white], red, green, and blue) for each pixel. The additional white subpixel in the LG design is said to add brightness, helping power efficiency."
. . .
"The LG 55EC9300 OLED TV's picture betters that of any LCD or plasma TV, with perfect black levels and exceedingly bright whites. It's equally adept in bright and dark rooms, showed accurate color, and looks better from off-angle than any LED LCD."
. . .
"The LG 55EC9300 lives up to the promise of OLED with the best picture quality of any TV we've ever reviewed."
. . .
OLED is everything advertised. Just like the Samsung KN55S9C I tested earlier, the LG 55EC9300 reproduced visually perfect black levels. In a completely dark room with an active screen, I couldn't tell where the black backdrop of my lab wall ended and the TV screen began.
When I was watching the one of the best scenes I've ever seen for demonstrating contrast and black level, Chapter 2 of "Gravity," the LG destroyed the other TVs in my lineup. Beginning at around 16:15, as Stone spins off into space, the shot grows darker and darker until it's just deep space, the thousands of stars of the galaxy and beyond, and the slowly dwindling lights of her helmet. None of the other sets could touch the dead-black void between the stars, the abyss of darkness in the letterbox bars, or the contrasting eye-popping clarity of the brilliant star field and helmet lights.
In this scene the screens of the LCDs appeared cloudy and indistinct next to the OLED, with dimmer stars and brighter space, and while the plasmas were better -- they're the two best TVs I'd ever tested prior to the LG, mind you -- they still didn't compare. In this scene their black areas looked dark gray next to the lightless void of OLED.
Just for fun I turned up the OLED's light output and, as expected, the blacks stayed perfect and the stars got even brighter, for even more sweet, sweet contrast. Meanwhile the LCDs' blacks brightened along with the stars...and the plasmas, particularly the ZT60, stayed the same, because they were already essentially at maximum light output. Advantage, OLED, in a landslide."
So. . . if all of that is "vastly inferior" according to your reading. . . I guess you can sign me up for more of that "vastly inferior" technology at ever-decreasing prices. Because that sounds freakin' awesome to me.. . .
"The LG 55EC9300 OLED TV's picture betters that of any LCD or plasma TV, with perfect black levels and exceedingly bright whites. It's equally adept in bright and dark rooms, showed accurate color, and looks better from off-angle than any LED LCD."
. . .
"The LG 55EC9300 lives up to the promise of OLED with the best picture quality of any TV we've ever reviewed."
. . .
OLED is everything advertised. Just like the Samsung KN55S9C I tested earlier, the LG 55EC9300 reproduced visually perfect black levels. In a completely dark room with an active screen, I couldn't tell where the black backdrop of my lab wall ended and the TV screen began.
When I was watching the one of the best scenes I've ever seen for demonstrating contrast and black level, Chapter 2 of "Gravity," the LG destroyed the other TVs in my lineup. Beginning at around 16:15, as Stone spins off into space, the shot grows darker and darker until it's just deep space, the thousands of stars of the galaxy and beyond, and the slowly dwindling lights of her helmet. None of the other sets could touch the dead-black void between the stars, the abyss of darkness in the letterbox bars, or the contrasting eye-popping clarity of the brilliant star field and helmet lights.
In this scene the screens of the LCDs appeared cloudy and indistinct next to the OLED, with dimmer stars and brighter space, and while the plasmas were better -- they're the two best TVs I'd ever tested prior to the LG, mind you -- they still didn't compare. In this scene their black areas looked dark gray next to the lightless void of OLED.
Just for fun I turned up the OLED's light output and, as expected, the blacks stayed perfect and the stars got even brighter, for even more sweet, sweet contrast. Meanwhile the LCDs' blacks brightened along with the stars...and the plasmas, particularly the ZT60, stayed the same, because they were already essentially at maximum light output. Advantage, OLED, in a landslide."
--H
"The BVM-F250A delivers outstanding black performance, a quick response with virtually no motion blur, and a wide colour gamut. An all-new 12-bit output digital signal processing engine provides a nonlinear cubic conversion colour-management system that delivers precise color reproduction, stunning picture uniformity, smoother-than-ever gamma performance, and picture quality consistency. New OLED panel virtually eliminates any off axis color shading."
£9,495.00
We don't need this grade of oled, like someone said, the screen on a new samsung tablet, like the newest tab S would make us really happy and it can't cost that much to make a 30 inch version...
The history speaks for itself. We have ten years of vaporware and marketing bullshit, and jack squat available that anyone except very rich people can afford. Meanwhile the world continues going blind on shit flatpanels.
As for the reviews on OLED TVs, they've got zilch to do with the title of this thread, or my claims.
This is the forum equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah."
You said that LG's fabrication technique was "vastly inferior" according to your "reading" (would love those citations!). . . yet a TV that is now on the market uses that "vastly inferior" technology and has perfect black levels and is currently the best performing TV available? And you don't see where that affects your "claims?"
As for something being "vaporware" for ten years. . . is ten years now a long time from concept, to prototype, to refinement, to release? And can you call something that is actually out and being purchased by the public "vaporware?"
And. . . $3k for a premium TV is hardly only for the "very rich". . . I spent $2k for my plasma and I'm nowhere near "rich". . . much less "very."
You appear to just be here to shit on OLED and ignore good news when you aren't disingenuously claiming that it's irrelevant.
OLED has arrived. Which is more than can be said of every other CRT-quality technology over the last 15 years. Now that it's here, and actually in people's living rooms for ~$3k, we can expect it to become cheaper, and scale to other sizes. Just as every other TV technology has done once it has actually made it into production.
All of that is only irrelevant to your "claims" if you bizarrely see released televisions as "vaporware" and bizarrely see no relation between a television and and a computer monitor. If you want to pretend that's a reasonable point of view in order to retain any semblance of a valid argument, I can't stop you. But it's silly and merely exposes your bizarre hostility and bias.
--H
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,537
This.
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,537
Also this. Now that OLED is actually here, I can get one and see if it lives up to the hype. I'm also giddy about calibrating the screen to have a good white point and saturation to really make it look amazing.
First of all, if you believe $3k or even $2k is somehow viable for a computer monitor, you're delusional. Second, I have nothing against TV reviews but it's not what this topic is about. I'm just saying, after all this time, exactly zero affordable OLED options exist for computer monitors, and unless you've heard otherwise, nothing is even in view down the road for one. Post all the $3k TV reviews you wish, if you believe it's relevant to the topic.
You write all of this as though the first step in there being a viable OLED computer monitor isn't a viable OLED television.
Or that posting the real-world, fantastic performance reviews of a manufacturing technique you deemed "vastly inferior" doesn't severely undercut that unsubstantiated assertion. TV or not.
In other words. . . it's pretty obvious that you're being willfully obtuse now rather than just admitting that while your pessimistic attitude might have been warranted a few years ago, there's now reason to be cautiously optimistic.
I have a Sony f 520 crt with bnc inputs. The guy I brought it from said that he paid over $2500 for it when it was new.
Maybe if he paid full retail price, with sales tax and shipping. MSRP on them was $1800.I have a Sony f 520 crt with bnc inputs. The guy I brought it from said that he paid over $2500 for it when it was new.
I paid $1200 for my Mitsubishi 2040u in 2000, after 14 years it's not only still running, it still outgamuts any flatpanel under $2k. Gotta wonder how many superior panels you guys have gone through in 15 years.
I keep pointing out no affordable OLED monitors exist or are planned to exist, you keep spouting the glories of $11,000 TV sets with fake OLED technology.
Instead of accusing me of being obtuse, crack your brain a little and do a little reading. Especially the parts about OLED already being doomed as a technology, how the good is the enemy of the best etc. And that last part is especially true. Think China, and think LG and their $11,000 TV sets.
What a complete load of crap. They haven't been trying to recreate the same image quality. They've been trying to build larger, lighter, and cheaper screens, which is what most people apparently want. We have 60"+ screens that weigh around 40 pounds. Do you realize how ridiculously large and heavy 60" CRTs would have been (if they were even feasible to make)? They wouldn't have even been worth the cost to ship them around. LCDs blow penis in many ways, but they weren't a complete loss. They ARE better than projection/DLP screens, which was seemingly all the industry could come up with during the CRT era to make screens bigger.
Having said that, I've had enough of LCDs at this point and can't wait until a technology with an acceptable amount of motion blur and black quality (along with the size and weight improvements LCD brought to the table) arrives.
Sorry, but you are being obtuse.
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...TF8&qid=1419823149&sr=8-1&keywords=lg+oled+tv
You can order it right now. You could have it in your house on Tuesday. Calling anything that doesn't fit your ignorant, bullshit definition of "true OLED" a "fake OLED" screen and thus invalid is nothing but mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you're full of shit.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Read my link. You're claiming cadmium is an organic material?
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Did you even read your own link? It talks about cadmium being used in QD (Quantum Dot) displays, not OLED.
That LG OLED TV isn't a quantum dot screen. I don't even know what you're talking about. You can buy an OLED TV for around 3 grand right now.
QD sucks anyway. It might help with the black levels, but it doesn't change the fact that the response time on OLED screens is way better. QD LCDs will still be slow, and you wouldn't be able to reduce motion blur on them significantly.
I give up. You people keep talking about 55-60" TVs that have jack squat to do with my point, or the title of this discussion. We've been waiting ten years for something to replace CRT technology for COMPUTER MONITORS, we have nothing affordable and there are no announced plans from any manufacturer to produce such products.
Yes, and it says QD monitors will be 1/20th the price of OLED. Enjoy your fake OLED.
Why couldn't I use that 55" OLED TV as a computer monitor if I wanted to? It's just HDMI. This isn't like the CRT era where there was a big difference between a computer monitor and a TV. You honestly think that nobody is going to make a 30" OLED TV? From what I can see, a lot of people are using LCD "TVs" as computer monitors right now.
No idea what you're on about with this "fake OLED" talk. I give up.
IMO it's easily the dumbest voluntary abandonment of technology in PC history.
I think we can blame a lot of this on the shift to mobile. Look around. Everyone's on a laptop, phone, or tablet. The desktop is getting its ass kicked, and that's why it seems to be the last place to get any new display technology. Display technology is driven by the market just like anything else, and the market is all mobile right now. Even high end development has basically shifted into mobile territory (what's the Oculus Rift besides a phone OLED thrown into some goggles?).
Everyone goes where the money is, and the money is increasingly not in the desktop. TV watching is still pretty big, though, so some of the focus is still there. It's sad, Jerry. It's a sad state of affairs.
Okay, so you're just simply not serious. Or, at least, not intellectually honest.
I've directed you to a $3K television that you can buy today. You assert that I'm "spouting the glories" of an $11K one.
I point out that the television I'm actually referring to uses the fabrication technique you decry as "vastly inferior", and yet the television performs superbly and exactly as we'd expect OLED to perform. Yet, unmoved, you just assert that it's "fake OLED". . . thus arbitrarily making the decision for everyone about which OLED technique is "true" and which one is "fake."
Your position that OLED is simply "vaporware" might have seemed plausible a year or three ago. But since there has been progress, and retails releases, and drops in price, just as we'd hope and expect as the technology makes its way to the computer monitor sector. . . makes that same view today seem simplistic at best. OLED may in fact not ever flourish. But the evidence currently indicates that there's progress and forward momentum. . . which you seem almost pathologically incapable of even acknowledging.
So, my friend. You are quite simply just talking out of your ass. Which wouldn't be so bad except that you keep vaguely referring to "industry" experts and your vast amount of reading and research. . . yet there's never anything substantive presented.
You are, quite simply, making an ass of yourself. But since I now begin to suspect that you're just here to piss people off and/or entertain yourself by shitting on things unnecessarily, I don't think that particularly bothers you.
--H
55" TV would not make satisfactory computer monitor if used in standard way (desktop, close viewing distance), it is simply too big. Note also that computer monitor of size bigger than 35"+ has to be 4K, 4K OLED TVs will appear in quantities in a near future.
OLED TV panels could be adapted easily to the monitor requirements since OLED is inherently very fast. But manufacturers keep TVs and monitors in separate product lines.
Now the most important thing: the problem with OLED as computer monitor, apart of the price, was/is image retention and ABL (automatic brightness limitation). LG - the only manufacturer of bigger OLED panels now - claim they largely solved this problem. But this may concern TV applications. Monitors are often left with static pictures for very long time, there may still be a problem with image retention. ABL is also inconvenient since panel brightness is automatically changing to limit the power, this may be tolerable in TVs but not in monitors. There were also reported other artefacts in OLED panels making them questionable for monitors, e.g. green tint, black level crush etc.
Anyway, new LG TVs will be produced in substantial quantities in 2015. We will hear how they perform.