OLED Computer Monitors?

One down.

Summary: A general overview of how slow OLED has been to develop. Concerns about its cost and the fact that only LG has surged ahead recently. General excitement about LG but concern that others aren't showing up lately with anything new. Some focus on Samsung's "pulling back" (which I mentioned earlier). A general wait-and-see, though concerned, attitude.

Scorecard:

  • Support for JeffDC's contention that WRGB is vastly inferior in general: None.
  • Support for JeffDC's contention that LG is merely masking all their dead pixels: None.
  • Criticism of WRGB at all? None.
  • Mention that Quantum Dots will spoil everything? None.
  • Anything at all that struck me as providing any evidence for particular claim by JeffDC? No.
Good read in general. But it's just an overall survey of the current field. Nothing new.

I'll get to the others. But so far this looks like part 1 of random google dump. As expected.

--H
 
Two Down

Well, if this and the last are any indication, this was indeed just a random google dump intended to distract us and give the appearance of substance where none exists.

This one is a bit better. Goes over the current state of things (as of June 2014). Is actually quite bullish on OLED despite its headline: "Today’s Most Promising Display Technology May Already Be Dead"

One suspect that JeffDC read the headline, said "bingo", didn't read the rest, and put it in his "this will show them!" file. Again, this would be easier if he would actually tell us which parts/quotes of each substantiate which one of his claims. Because so far there's nothing new in these.

Some choice quotes:
That would leave LG as the sole producer in the U.S. OLED market, at least for the short term. But according to Tim Alessi, director of new product development at LG Electronics USA, the major growing pains of large-screen OLED manufacturing may already be in the rear-view mirror.

. . .
So if LCD sets continue to close the picture-quality gap at a lower price, is OLED already dead? Not if you care about the following things.
Although LCD black levels can be improved with local-dimming features, they won’t ever be able to match OLED’s pure-black perfection until individual pixels can be directly turned on or turned off. That’s really the secret of OLED’s stunning picture quality: A pure black pixel can appear right next to a bright white pixel with no light bleed. That translates to razor-sharp contrast.


Another one of OLED’s advantages is that its pixels have a near-instantaneous response time, which translates into buttery-smooth onscreen motion. The first-generation OLED TVs currently need the same kind of motion-enhancing tweaks as your average LCD set when watching fast-moving video. This results in a “soap-opera effect” or a darker or flickering image. Still, that’s bound to improve.


Especially when compared to the full-array LCD panels that come closest to OLED picture quality, OLED sets are incredibly thin. While edge-lit LCD displays have a very slim profile, they can’t achieve the image uniformity and brightness of a full-array set, and a full-array set needs to be thicker to accommodate that beefier backlighting system. The first OLED TVs are less than a quarter of an inch thick and are bound to get even thinner.


Finally, one of the biggest checkmarks in OLED’s pros column is its wide viewing angles—if it would just get out of its own way. Several of the first OLED sets to hit the market have featured curved screens to “enhance immersion,” but that’s really only the case if one person is watching it at dead center or everyone is huddled together in the middle of the couch.

​
So, we're at two of four now and nothing so far has substantiated any of JeffDC's claims. To the scorecard!

  • Support for JeffDC's contention that WRGB is vastly inferior in general: None.
  • Support for JeffDC's contention that LG is merely masking all their dead pixels: None.
  • Criticism of WRGB at all? None.
  • Mention that Quantum Dots will spoil everything? None.
  • Anything at all that struck me as providing any evidence for a particular claim by JeffDC? No.
JeffDC, if I'm missing anything, please feel free to point it out. I'm reading fast here.
 
Three down.

Right out of the gate, this one has trouble.
"The next big premium TV is not going to be an OLED," said Paul Gagnon, director of TV research at DisplaySearch. He expects 4K (aka Ultra HD) sets to take that role instead. And the data in his Quarterly Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report (last published in March) back up that claim. For 2014, Gagnon projects the average global cost of a 55-inch LCD TV with 1080p resolution to be $988. He expects an OLED TV of the same size and resolution to cost $6,600."
​
Well, considering "Paul Gagnon" is way off the mark here at the outset, that doesn't speak well of this article. The LG 1080P 55" OLED is $3,000-3,500. Hey, he was only off by. . . a lot.

Reading. . . oh no. He's the only source for this article. You're wasting our time with this JeffDC? This was supposed to convince us all. We were supposed to get the picture, cast our heads down in shame, and condede everything to you as we "got the picture?"

This is essentially a particularly ill-timed press release by one "Paul Gagnon". . . and yet even he only allows for the "possibility" that OLED is "doomed" (as the headline asks): "Yes, there is a chance that OLED will fail to make it."

Some strange fixation on curved screens and a presumption that somehow OLED and 4K can't go together (ironically, the prior article said they're a perfect match). Oh no, OLED had curved screens first and now LCDs have them, OLED is doomed!

Holy crap that was a waste of time. Thankfully it was short. No mention of WRGB OLED at all. So far, this was the most outdated and useless of them all.

Not even going to bother with the scorecard. Obviously not a single bit of evidence supporting JeffDC's particular claims.

So we're at three of four now. Unless the fourth is something special, we've been suckered. Well played JeffDC. Well played.
 
ReaderX said:
Now you want to take this:

"Please stop talking about TVs. Request #29 I think. It's also the answer to your question. WRGB OLED flies well for TVs, I've never denied it in this thread or anywhere else."

back?

If you want to take this back, say it.
Click to expand...
Again I'm confused since I've consistently admitted WRGB is and will be a vast improvement over existing TV technologies. For whatever reason nobody seems able to understand it has zero to do with the title of this thread or the OP's question. How many affordable OLED computer monitors exist or are planned by anyone?

Stop. Answer.
 
@all the CRT fanboys, how are you going to have 3 screens on swinging arm mounts, in an office?
 
spacediver said:
What? If anything, image restore lowers G2. Where did you get the idea it bumps it up??
Click to expand...
If you've ever seen it actually lower G2 yours would be the first report I've ever read to that effect. Compared to my own experience (albeit limited: one F500R) and that posted by others in the discussion on Icrontic's forum on overly bright CRTs. I'm not sure if image restore ever lowers G2, but for every one report of it not changing there are at least two or three of it being raised, and I've seen both of those results on my monitor. In fact years ago we went through major hassles trying to undo a permanent overbrightness problem caused by it.
 
Well, I've come this far. To be honest, I'm actually hoping that #4 has something at least interesting. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for JeffDC (though I made that mistake once prior and he made me regret it).

Oh FFS. . . The Register!?! And that's the one we're "especially" supposed to read? Great, his best source is a tabloid.

Now, now, let's give it a chance. . .

"Analysis" -- In other words, one person's opinion. At least they start with that.
Samsung has said that it intends to focus on UHD TVs using LCD panels augmented by quantum dot technology, instead of pushing OLED as a commercial replacement for LCD. This is the kind of decision that might mean that OLED never takes off in the larger form factors.
​
Key word there: "might."

At least we get the return of Quantum Dot. Hey, we might have our first sighting of relevance here! Except of course for the part where we've already addressed how Quantum Dot tech likely won't mean what JeffDC asserts it will mean for OLED, he overstates/fabricates the cost differential, and Quantum Dot does not improve LCDs in the way that OLED is designed to improve the viewing experience (QD doesn't improve black levels, dynamic range, contrast, viewing angles, or response time. It just marginally improves color output.

Wow. . . just an overview of QD. And then a very obtuse overview of OLED's future. . .
So what is next for OLED? It currently has a vibrant future in smaller panels, particularly in smartphones and tablets. Laptops could be the next major growth area, but not if the industry spends no more on R&D, to get it to be the central large-screen technology.
​
Oh no. Just no. . . it then goes on a long analogy about how people will see their superior OLED-based tablets and might carry that over to their TV demands. Wow, the central premise and conclusion is that OLED might kill TVs altogether. People will just start using their tablets?
TV as a physical medium, rather than its content, is already losing ground to smaller screens, largely due to their portability and ease of use. If picture quality, the last great bastion of the TV, is also undermined by tablets, then the communal-viewing living-room dynamic is as good as dead and buried. Ironically, small form-factor OLED might end up killing the use-case it has been forecast to transform.
​
This is the analysis we were especially supposed to be interested in? It makes no mention of LG, its recent progress, its yield increases, WRGB OLED, or pretty much anything else other than Quantum Dot (with none of the specific doom and gloom for OLED JeffDC predicts), and then waxes philosophical about the ultimate fate of TVs in general.

The article can be effectively summed up thusly (and bares no resemblance to anything JeffDC has said): Samsung will not proceed with new OLED TVs and will focus on QD. LG is going full speed ahead but nevertheless we posit that this could mean that OLED will not make it as a TV and be relegated to tablets. And people will like movies and TV so much on their tablets because OLED is so awesome (and yet not on TVs) that it could spell the end of televisions as the primary viewing method for media. Wow.

Again, wow. . . what a waste of time. And so little resemblance to anything JeffDC has said. Once again I think JeffDC was sucked in by the headline but didn't fully process the content. Maybe he's unaware that the author of a piece generally doesn't write the headline in many journalistic institutes (does The Register count as one?). The headline is generally written by editors and often sensationalize what is actually mundane content. That is definitely the case here.

Summary of Quantum Dot content: Samsung is focusing on Quantum Dot technology and just standing firm with their OLED tech:
Kim Hyun-Seok, the head of Samsung’s TV business, told reporters that the firm doesn’t intend to change its OLED strategy this year or next – meaning that it will look to quantum dots to wring the life out of LCD instead of taking the plunge to OLED.
​
That's a far cry from the headline and subheadline: "Samsung Slams the Door on OLED. LG says will stick with it, but be ready to watch it cave in. . ."

It then mentions LG once in that they will be going full speed ahead. But no mention of any specifics. No $3K 55" LG TV mentioned. No WRGB. Nothing. Just a "Samsung says" and "LG says" at the top. Then an overview of QD. LG is not mentioned again.

Again. . . what a waste of time. Which I begin to think was the point.

Scorecard. . .

  • Support for JeffDC's contention that WRGB is vastly inferior in general: None.
  • Support for JeffDC's contention that LG is merely masking all their dead pixels: None.
  • Criticism of WRGB at all? None.
  • Mention that Quantum Dots will spoil everything? QD is mentioned and explained with none of the doom and gloom JeffDC asserts. Beyond, course, the ridiculous headline (see above about those) which the actual article does not support.
  • Anything at all that struck me as providing any evidence for particular claim by JeffDC? None. Unless you count JeffDC mentioning Quantum Dot tech and anyone else also mentioning it as supporting evidence.
JeffDC. I can't tell if you are a genius for putting me through that uselessness on purpose, or so clueless that you actually believed any of those supported your case. But, consider them read. And none of your views substantiated. If I missed something, please, by all means point it out!

Again, you would have been better served by stating your point, citing the article, and providing a quote from it. But, now that I've read them, I can see why you couldn't do that.

--H
 
JeffDC said:
If you've ever seen it actually lower G2 yours would be the first report I've ever read to that effect. Compared to my own experience (albeit limited: one F500R) and that posted by others in the discussion on Icrontic's forum on overly bright CRTs. I'm not sure if image restore ever lowers G2, but for every one report of it not changing there are at least two or three of it being raised, and I've seen both of those results on my monitor. In fact years ago we went through major hassles trying to undo a permanent overbrightness problem caused by it.
Click to expand...

given that an image restore generally is able to fix a washed out image, it clearly lowers the G2. G2 generally drifts over time, and requires periodic adjustments to reduce it. If image restore does the opposite on any given tube, it is not doing what it's supposed to. I own three FW900s, and on each of them, an image restore dramatically restored a decent black level.
 
JeffDC said:
As mentioned pages ago imo you need psychological help. Some people fly off the handle when they're exposed as Google twinkies, you're one of them. Every forum has one, or more, and I've learned to waste time with them only to limit the amounts of outright disinformation they spew. Read this thread start to finish and tell us who's been corrected. More than once. Stupid and stubborn is a cruel combination, friend.
Click to expand...
I'd like one example where you tried to correct me and it stuck. Lord knows I can and have (admittedly ad nauseum) provided such evidence of where you've been talking out of your ass.

As for me being a "google twinkie". . . you're just adorable.

I admit I overdid that last article (tl;dr). But it's actually sorta fun to "live blog" them. I love how you post them, and just ignore it when it's demonstrated that they don't substantiate anything you've said. Indeed, I would guess you only read their headlines and were suckered yourself.

But hey, anything you can do to delay the inevitable, keep on keepin' on dude! Post another four now! Why not?

P.S. My wife agrees that I need to give this a rest. I may in fact do that. If you can promise to be good in my absence.

P.P.S. This bears repeating: You would have been better served by stating your point, citing the article(s), and providing quotes from it/them. But, now that I've read them, I can see why you couldn't actually do that. Hint: None of them support you.
 
Last edited:
Hurin, you've done little else in this thread except answer the OP's question about OLED computer monitors with information about OLED TVs. The overall theme of my cites is that OLED in any flavor has already been written off by manufacturers for computer monitors. In 2008 an 11" panel was $2500. Today the least expensive OLED option is an $8000 19" panel. Does that sound like something other than a bust to you?

As Paul Simon said, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Your capacity for this appears to be limitless.
 
JeffDC said:
Hurin, you've done little else in this thread except answer the OP's question about OLED computer monitors with information about OLED TVs. The overall theme of my cites is that OLED in any flavor has already been written off by manufacturers for computer monitors. In 2008 an 11" panel was $2500. Today the least expensive OLED option is an $8000 19" panel. Does that sound like something other than a bust to you?

As Paul Simon said, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Your capacity for this appears to be limitless.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep saying this. TVs are absolutely relevant to the topic. Adoption in the TV market will eventually pave the way to OLED monitors since it lowers overall production costs. Companies don't see OLED monitors as a worthy gamble right now, but that will change if/when economies of scale kick in from TV production.

On the flipside, if OLED fails in the TV space, then it's also a guarantee we won't see any consumer OLED monitors.

2015 is going to be a crucial year for the tech - LG has opened up a new fab and will be producing 4 times as many units per month. If they are successful, chances of seeing an OLED monitor next year are very good. Maybe we will even see one at CES next week, though I wouldn't bet on it.
 
x3sphere said:
I don't understand why you keep saying this. TVs are absolutely relevant to the topic. Adoption in the TV market will eventually pave the way to OLED monitors since it lowers overall production costs. Companies don't see OLED monitors as a worthy gamble right now, but that will change if/when economies of scale kick in from TV production.

On the flipside, if OLED fails in the TV space, then it's also a guarantee we won't see any consumer OLED monitors.

2015 is going to be a crucial year for the tech - LG has opened up a new fab and will be producing 4 times as many units per month. If they are successful, chances of seeing an OLED monitor next year are very good. Maybe we will even see one at CES next week, though I wouldn't bet on it.
Click to expand...

Use in TVs doesn't always indicate forward progress for PC displays. I can't recall any Plasma PC monitors, even though that tech had a number of huge advantages over TFT displays.
 
ocellaris said:
Use in TVs doesn't always indicate forward progress for PC displays. I can't recall any Plasma PC monitors, even though that tech had a number of huge advantages over TFT displays.
Click to expand...

Correct although I would say Plasma had more going against it. Mediocre brightness levels in a brightly lit room, increased heat output, and moving to higher resolutions didn't seem sustainable -- a 4K Plasma never existed outside of prototypes. Also Plasma never really caught on in the TV space either outside of enthusiasts. LCDs always dwarfed it in marketshare.

The prospects for OLED seem a lot a better to me, assuming LG gets prices down more.
 
JeffDC said:
The overall theme of my cites is that OLED in any flavor has already been written off by manufacturers for computer monitors.
Click to expand...
Odd, since I don't think computer desktop monitors were mentioned in a single one of those "cites." It's pretty odd of you to post four citations that don't mention computer monitors and just assume we'd all read them and arrive at the conclusion that manufacturers have "written them off" forever.

And as others have pointed out, computer monitors are only likely to begin becoming economical when they can start cutting out four 1080p panels from one originally intended to be a 4K panel. Declaring them as written off based on four articles that never mention them just as we're reaching the point where they could start considering them seems. . . let's go with: Odd.

I await your response. . . *looks at your current status*. . . oh, nevermind. :eek:

I feel like I should apologize to everyone in the thread for being so dogged here. Sorry for my end of all the drama.

--H
 
ocellaris said:
Use in TVs doesn't always indicate forward progress for PC displays. I can't recall any Plasma PC monitors, even though that tech had a number of huge advantages over TFT displays.
Click to expand...

x3sphere said:
Correct although I would say Plasma had more going against it. Mediocre brightness levels in a brightly lit room, increased heat output, and moving to higher resolutions didn't seem sustainable -- a 4K Plasma never existed outside of prototypes. Also Plasma never really caught on in the TV space either outside of enthusiasts. LCDs always dwarfed it in marketshare.

The prospects for OLED seem a lot a better to me, assuming LG gets prices down more.
Click to expand...
Plasma couldn't be adopted for computer displays because the technology has a minimum pixel size that rendered it impossible. Or so we've been told (and I have no reason to doubt).
 
Just use an OLED TV as a monitor? The lg ones are around 3k$, not that expensive, the high end plasma tv's were priced comparably.

Most tv's have a gaming mode with reasonable input lag after all. If you are after responsiveness and motion reproduction, why even bother with picture quality then?
 
Pechendko said:
Just use an OLED TV as a monitor? The lg ones are around 3k$, not that expensive, the high end plasma tv's were priced comparably. Most tv's have a gaming mode with reasonable input lag after all. If you are after responsiveness and motion reproduction, why even bother with picture quality then?
Click to expand...

All LG OLED TV models of this year will be 4K which is ideal for sizable computer monitors.

But there is a problem since the smallest OLED TV on offer is 55" which is too big for a typical desktop use. This is kinda ironic: there were times people complained TVs are not big enough, now it is opposite :eek:. At least due to the mass production and prices going down there will be good test field to see how those new OLEDs perform and what kind of artefacts they may have (image retention being of course the most important from the monitor point of view). If all goes well LG may later be inclined to produce smaller 4K OLED panels.
 
Hurin said:
Plasma couldn't be adopted for computer displays because the technology has a minimum pixel size that rendered it impossible. Or so we've been told (and I have no reason to doubt).
Click to expand...
The closest we got was back in 2008, it was a 32" Vizio plasma: www.amazon.com/Vizio-VP322HDTV10A-Class-Plasma-HDTV/dp/B001D7Q03U/

It mentions "Computer monitor (RGB) up to 1366 X 768 WXGA". I don't know if those were actual pixels, or just an adressable resolution. I've heard that it's contrast ratio wasn't the highest for plasma, and this model had capacitor issues.

Almost forgot: Panasonic made a Professional series monitor for a few years, but those were a bit large, low on pixels or pixel density, and expensive.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
The problem with dedicated OLED monitors (as opposed to repurposed TVs) is pricing and market size. The market for > $1500 (even > $1000) monitors is quite small. You will notice that almost every last one of the regular monitors currently in this price range is aimed at professionals, because the enthusiast market (or at least the perceived enthusiast market) is quite small at these price ranges.

Besides that however, the real shame in not having more OLED monitor choices is that OLED should be even better as a consumer monitor than as a TV (or even as a professional monitor). Why?

- Very high refresh rates / utlra low blur
TVs only really support 60hz input, monitors could support much higher refresh rates over DisplayPort. I would be interested in trying true 240hz refresh rates at 1080p, even over a higher resolution (for gaming). OLED is so fast, you could even use very low persistence Blank Frame Insertion (BFI) to get rid of smearing caused by all sample and hold displays, without the hit to brightness and colors that current scanning backlight LCDs have.

- Even higher dynamic range
At a smaller size, you have less concern about total power usage at a smaller size. OLED TVs (like plasmas) tend to use circuitry to curtail total brightness when you have a very high brightness (technically called APL) frame, such as a fade to white, or a pan to the sky. With a monitor in the 24 - 27" size, you could hit peak brightness over 800 nits, which would be useful for commercial displays, and also would go hand in hand with expanded (10 bit) images which games can produce quite easily, compared to movies to produce real high dynamic ranges. True High Dynamic Range gaming (as opposed to simulated HDR) - now that would push some monitor sales.

I can't wait until we have real OLED monitors available, but I think we're still a couple of years away before they come down to the 1K price range, and still 5 years away before they are price competitive with a good IPS at equivalent prices. TN price parity? Who knows.
 
Last edited:
Well that turned out better than I expected.
JeffDC = banned LOL.
Praise the [H] mods!

sethk:
4k 40" LG TVs (not OLED) are selling for $600 now.
Not too long ago they were almost as expensive as the 55" LG 4K OLED (I think?).

I am very hopeful that within a year or two we will have 40" 4K OLEDs for less than $1000.
Hope being the key word I admit but it does seem reasonable.
I mean right now my 55" LG is 2x the cost of a comparable 40".
So that makes me think if they released a 40" 4K OLED tomorrow it might cost $1750 (50% of the 55").
So not too much of a price drop is needed to hit $1000 for a 4K 40"OLED!

What did 40" 4K TVs cost when they first came out, and how long ago was that?
I honestly don't remember.

I use a 32" LG (IPS 1080p) TV as a monitor and I love it.
A 40" LG (4K OLED) TV would be a huge upgrade IMO and I would gladly pay $1000 for one.

It's a great time to be into HUGE computer screens!
 
Last edited:
An industry expert quoted in an article:

Q: A few weeks ago we discussed the possibility of an OLED monitor or OLED laptop. It'll be interested to hear your views on why there isn't such a product on the market yet and when should we expect one?

I do not see much (any) upside to the notebook or monitor markets and displays are not being promoted as a differentiator. In the large display category, it is video where OLEDs outshine LCDs, so unless you are addressing cinematic monitors, I don’t think the OLED panel makers will spend much effort until OLED panel costs at these sizes are comparable to or less than LCDs.
Click to expand...

http://www.oled-info.com/barry-young-oled-association-gives-us-his-views-oled-market

As I have stated in another thread I disagree completely with this guy, but gray old men run the world until they die and are replaced by new gray old men.
 
svalbard said:
Well that turned out better than I expected.
JeffDC = banned LOL.
Praise the [H] mods!

sethk:
4k 40" LG TVs (not OLED) are selling for $600 now.
Not too long ago they were almost as expensive as the 55" LG 4K OLED (I think?).

I am very hopeful that within a year or two we will have 40" 4K OLEDs for less than $1000.
Hope being the key word I admit but it does seem reasonable.
I mean right now my 55" LG is 2x the cost of a comparable 40".
So that makes me think if they released a 40" 4K OLED tomorrow it might cost $1750 (50% of the 55").
So not too much of a price drop is needed to hit $1000 for a 4K 40"OLED!

What did 40" 4K TVs cost when they first came out, and how long ago was that?
I honestly don't remember.

I use a 32" LG (IPS 1080p) TV as a monitor and I love it.
A 40" LG (4K OLED) TV would be a huge upgrade IMO and I would gladly pay $1000 for one.

It's a great time to be into HUGE computer screens!
Click to expand...

Excellent, The "Report Post" feature does work. You hit the nail on the head for me. I currently use my 55" OLED TV as a fourth "display" and play games on it quite frequently. I would love to be able to add a 4k 40" OLED TV as a main monitor.

Corvette said:
An industry expert quoted in an article:



http://www.oled-info.com/barry-young-oled-association-gives-us-his-views-oled-market

As I have stated in another thread I disagree completely with this guy, but gray old men run the world until they die and are replaced by new gray old men.
Click to expand...

I also read this, and do find it somewhat disappointing but fully expect that to be a short term decision. Smaller 4K OLED TV's will be the stop-gap for contrast conscious PC gamers. It probably won't end up satisfying the twitch gamers out there unless they get the input lag down though.
 
I'm deeply offended that there are no true high end gaming monitors for the PC. I want Nvidia to get into the hardware display industry. I think it'd be WAY more interesting and valuable than crap like the Shield and other goofy hardware they're making. We need more improvements in bread and butter products. Gsync is nice, but it's not enough. SOMEONE needs to make gaming monitors that don't suck again.
 
Hurin said:
...

. . .

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."...
Click to expand...


Wow, very descriptive elucidation about the vast superiority of oled displays... which is depressing because of how long it will probably take to get oled monitors.


We'll have oculus well before then, and reports are we'd need to get to 8k mobile displays (who the f knows how long THAT would take) before the sharpness will compare to high def tvs from afar.
 
Panasonic has had 20" 4k Plasmas some years ago already, but back then those were too expensive, also the IQ suffered, at least what I saw back then was not compelling, especially for a four digit figure asking price.
In any case the point is not about the small size of the plasma pixels but rather production and operating costs, both which made plasma unfeasible as a computer screen for the mass market.

I will look forward to testing LGs 2015 OLED lineup, really hoping for a smallish sub-50 inch set to appear.
 
bigbluefe said:
I'm deeply offended that there are no true high end gaming monitors for the PC. I want Nvidia to get into the hardware display industry. I think it'd be WAY more interesting and valuable than crap like the Shield and other goofy hardware they're making. We need more improvements in bread and butter products. Gsync is nice, but it's not enough. SOMEONE needs to make gaming monitors that don't suck again.
Click to expand...
Nvidia may be an option. If they want an edge to push Gsync over DP Adaptive Sync, they could corner the initial market for OLED monitors. Take a process that can produce 4k 50" panels, and chop those panels into quarters to get 25" 1080p panels. Drive than at 240Hz or above.

OLED cannot economically compete with LCD, so it needs do do something LCD cannot, and do it well enough that it is worth the premium. "Be more black" is not worth a big price premium, but "refresh twice as fast as anything on the market" may be.
 
It seems LG will unveil new OLED TV's today.

LG Electronics is pleased to kick off the 2015 International CES® Press Day. At its invitation-only press conference, LG will unveil new consumer electronics, home appliances and mobile phone products for 2015 with global and U.S. executives providing market insights. *INVITATION ONLY*
Click to expand...
 
^ lol almost all of the big stuff always gets revealed a couple of days before CES even starts. it's the same with most electronics shows/conventions now. bet those four days on location are just for doing business (I've been at IFA once and this was mostly the same schedule 1. announcements, 2. private conferences and real business, 3. grand opening, 4. business for petty companies and peasants + party hard, 5. your dead body on the plane back home)
Sorry for OT post. ^^
 
Richard Jones said:
^ lol almost all of the big stuff always gets revealed a couple of days before CES even starts. it's the same with most electronics shows/conventions now. bet those four days on location are just for doing business (I've been at IFA once and this was mostly the same schedule 1. announcements, 2. private conferences and real business, 3. grand opening, 4. business for petty companies and peasants + party hard, 5. your dead body on the plane back home)
Sorry for OT post. ^^
Click to expand...

That's because CES is for the industry not consumers (don't let the name fool you). They wish to create a little buzz first to help the retail buyers get hyped about the products. Go to an auto show or fashion show or CES and you will see how it works. It is far more about the hype than anything else.
 
Black Octagon said:
Where do they refer to OLED TV's in what you quoted?
Click to expand...
Though unverified, there have been several credible (I guess) reports that LG will have 55", 65", and 73" OLED TVs at CES. Some as 4K (IIRC).

I think the prior post assumed familiarity with those rumors and merely intended to point out that "today is the alleged day." ;)
 
Hurin said:
Though unverified, there have been several credible (I guess) reports that LG will have 55", 65", and 73" OLED TVs at CES. Some as 4K (IIRC).

I think the prior post assumed familiarity with those rumors and merely intended to point out that "today is the alleged day." ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. Hopefully there will be 40/50/55" 4K OLED TVs.
Those that already exist are too big and expensive to be used as monitor.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-65EC9700-oled-tv

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-77EG9700-oled-tv

Someone on another forum wrote that Samsung true RGB OLED is better then LG's WRGB OLED and more expensive to make, is that correct or not?
 
=)(= said:
Someone on another forum wrote that Samsung true RGB OLED is better then LG's WRGB OLED and more expensive to make, is that correct or not?
Click to expand...
Open to debate (though I personally don't think the end user is going to care in the end). Samsung doesn't use the white subpixels to compensate for the blue subpixel longevity issues (LG puts colored filters over the white subpixel). They just use the straight R G and B OLED pixels (which is why they're more expensive). Personally, I consider it a bit pedantic to argue that Samsung is "better" if the end result is the same (and the review of LG's WRGB OLED TV would seem to indicate that there's no downside in performance apparent to the viewer while the longevity of the screen is perhaps drastically increased. . . win/win).

Of course, we've seen unsubstantiated claims by one (now "lost") poster here that LG WRGB while pixels are only serving as a "mask" over dead pixels and that this is how (and the only way how) LG has increased its yields and brought down costs where Samsung has not. When it was asked how that's a problem if the end result is still a stunning display, we were told that we wouldn't be able to proof video or color correct video and would have trouble calibrating any WRGB display. But again, without evidence.

I would point out that all such claims of WRGB OLED deficiency came about as an always unsubstantiated "drip, drip, drip" as each prior attempt at dismissing the stunning real-world results of WRGB were presented. It seemed more like grasping at undocumented/unsubstantiated and theoretical/hypothetical straws that were just pulled out of nowhere than actual documented claims (even by Samsung, WRGB's primary foe).

Regardless, it looks like it will be moot. Samsung has put "True OLED" on indefinite hold. So LG and WRGB is the only one left standing and they're going full steam ahead by all accounts. Which doesn't bother me none. Because if we get the WRGB OLED displays like the ones currently out as televisions on our desks some day, even in the (imo, highly unlikely) event that we won't be able to perfectly calibrate them due to "masked" dead pixels, I'll still enjoy the heck out of one. I mean, I just don't see how 95% of enthusiasts could argue with these results.
 
OLED I remember getting horrible eyestrain from a Microsoft Zune I tired out.
I don't think my eyes could adjust to the contrast took it back the next day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top