Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Displays' started by Omegaferrari, Jan 8, 2019.
Thanks for all your informative posts in this thread and for test driving that monitor for us.
Smart money is on getting a C9 and waiting.....that was my plan....then I ordered the AW55 with every intention of returning due to its obscene price. After a weekend with it I can never go back!
I still have a huge backlog of games in my Steam library and have them all categorized by SLI & HDR support.
If I had the money, I probably would have bought the AW55" and specifically only played games that didn't support HDR, then sell it once the HDMI 2.1 GPU's come out then use a LG C9/C10 for that HDR goodness.
I don't think I could stomach the loss though. I got my 55" C9 for $1400. I'm not paying $2,600 EXTRA for a freaking Display Port. My two 2080 Ti's cost that much. I also think the Alienware would also be a lesser product too than even a C9 OLED once HDMI 2.1 GPU's drop. I bet this thing would only sell for <$1500 in the year 2020 as even 2019 LG OLED's will outperform it.
You're right in your posts though. We don't even 100% know if Nvidia HDMI 2.1 GPU's will come out anytime soon and you're paying for that 120HZ goodness now. But an extra $2,600 for a lesser product that doesn't even have HDR & HDMI 2.1 for future console use is just too bad of an "investment" for me to stomach.
I have a C9, but its collecting dust in my bedroom because 60hz is chlamydia on the eyes. I'm not worried over the lack of HDR, if I want that I'll swap out the C9 from my bedroom when HDMI 2.1 gpus come out.
My intent with the AW55 was to buy it, try it, then return it for a refund....using similar rational logic as you just put forward. Upon setup, I noticed a defect of 15 pixels on the screen, which made the decision to return it back to Dell even easier....UPS was able to come pick it up the next day, however, I was too busy to pack it up and made the mistake of playing with it over the weekend.....
Soooooo by the time Monday rolled around I made the horrid realization that I could not live without it! 4k120VRR OLED is AMAZING and takes things to the next level!
I'm flat out tired of LCD tech, which basically means there is no other gaming display on the market which interests me. Its tempting to compare the AW55 to the C9's, however, those are TVs and the AW55 is a monitor....which means the AW55s electronics have been engineered to trim as much fat as possible and this thing feels like its got ZERO input lag....its the most amazing gaming display I have ever tried and I have pretty much tried em all.
Smart money says get a C9 and wait.....however, how long will that be? Also, I'm developing a sports video game, so its useful for me to be able to test it on the AW55 to prepare for what my customers will experience on the C9s in the future.
I have this display, why do I need to look at the stars at the Amazon? Text is razor sharp with no artifacts whatsoever. Maybe their screens are uncalibrated or sharpness is set too high? I set the H V sharpness to 0 and I don't have any propblem with text. And I wouldn't even compare the perfect image reproduction of the C7 OLED with this shitload Asus monitor. The weak point of the C7 OLED display are size and 60Hz limit with no frame rate sync, but for stationary image quality - this is the fucking top. Nothing compares to it. Asus is not even in the same leage.
LG's OLED "Sharpness" setting should be set to 20 to be neutral.
Should it? I have it set to 0 on my C8 if I remember correctly and there is no image softening that I can tell.
Apparently the C9's tech is slightly different and it's menu is a little different now for some things too...
They calibrated their sharpness settings to 10 in that review btw. They also calibrated for SDR not HDR (don't think you can even calibrate proper for HDR with ABL and white boost turned on (white oled causing color desaturation at higher brightnesses) anyway).
Just checked and my sharpness is set to 10. I don't remember ever adjusting it. Maybe I'll play around with 0 and 20 just to see if there's a difference, but the stars on Amazon (and everything else) have looked fine to me for 2 years now lol.
Ah ya RTINGS updated their info:
They originally said 20 but changed it back to 0. Not sure if it was a firmware update or test changed.
If I remember correctly
Anything above 0 artificially sharpens the image. I tested it myself. Don't feel like believing me? Here is rtings' take on it (from C7 calibration guide, that I just googled):
Gotta be faster.
Know your tech.
On the page for the C8 the do recommend 20 in PC mode. I've never hooked my PC up to it, so I don't know if that's true.
Now I need to try my hand at calibrating my C7...
Haven't messed with it much, had it hooked up for a 4k desktop... once, but I do have a Spyder 5, so
You're going to have to calibrate it manually or create a software profile. C7s don't support hardware calibration, unfortunately.
Review by my future wife (she just doesn't yet know how desperately she wants me )
My comment obviously went over your head as I had already updated the information before you posted. Once again, too slow.
On this page they updated the test:
When in PC Mode, Sharpness should be set to '20' for no added sharpness or softening. (underlined is a strike-through on their site). Color was left at 50 and Tint at '0', since they were the most accurate settings for both.
Update 02/18/2019: We have retested the sharpness, and found that '0' is the true no-sharpness mode in all picture modes.
Like I said, not sure if 20 on an old firmware was neutral sharpness or if their first test was inaccurate.
Well, you should be less slow in correcting your mistakes, so that people don't get confused by your ignorance.
You were the only one confused. Try and keep up next time by reading all of the posts before trying to get in your two cents.
You just chek your facts before posting, so that me or anyone else wouldn't have to correct your mistakes and waste time bitching with an arrogant pilot. K? This is my last message to you on this topic. You may now shut it and go play some game on your C9 OLED 1440p 120Hz display. Hunt some Russians in COD or something...
I did check my facts. That's why I posted an update before you, hence nothing to correct. Let me introduce you to a thing called time and linearity of events. You must grasp that concept first before further discussions can be had.
Play nice guys. We all just want some good displays and knowledge on how to squeeze the most out of them. Besides, in my opinion posting something "wrong" or outdated can sometimes be just as helpful as long as it gets the right follow up answers and clarifications into the threads in one way or another so others can learn from it and it gets nailed down more definitively. It can bring something fuzzy into focus and otherwise solidify it for people or give a heads up on some better intel.
The petty bickering should be taken to PM so we don't clutter up the thread with a page full of "Nuh-uh, you!" posts.
On a side note, I adjusted my sharpness value from 10 down to 0 yesterday. Not sure I can tell much difference - sometimes it seems like text might be a smidge sharper, but it's minor enough that it could probably just as easily fall under "placebo effect." I'll leave it at 0, but for anyone wondering the difference isn't night and day by any means. You're not missing much if your slider is a little off from the recommended value.
No, it's not night and day difference, of course. I had to zoom in text and icons by several hunderds percents to clearly see the difference and making clear to myself, and now to you, that 0 is the way to go for sharpness on the LG C7 OLED. And probably on newer models too. Though I wouldn't insisnt on it. The common knowledge at the time was that it's actually 10 that is neutral. I think, on AVS forums. But my tests showed that it was actually 0. Which is logical, since 0 is 0, meaing zero amplification. The way it should be, I think.
Also, I must admit, that Vega was one of the first to accomadate a 55" OLED TV as a computer monitor at the time. Yeah, and by the way, there is one problem with OLEDs that nobody mentions - banding. Now this one OLED problem is real. On the other hand, look at the gaming monitors - every other IPS and VA model suffers from it, if not every single one of them, just people not admitting it? This banding was my last drop with trying the gaming monitors, and I moved to OLED TVs, that warmely welcomed me with the same banding issue. But at least, the image quality is just perfect. If the 37.5" LG does not have banding, nor other visual artifacts, nor bad rendering, if it has configurable sRGB mode, I swear, I will post my balls online.
I have a C9 coming which cost me basically what the XG438Q did after tax. PC monitor market pricing is pretty crazy. I intend to use it as a dedicated monitor and am going in with the attitude of it being a disposable display in return for the PQ.
Wish I could wait another year for the 48" model but we don't even know if it will be a C version with Gsync support (B9 is not listed on Nvidias site).
B9 uses an older processor to cut down costs. That's why it's not at least initially getting support for G-Sync despite having HDMI 2.1. Who knows how it will be for next year's B10.
I mean historically that's what LG has done to segregate the B from C for a few years now and that carries over with Gsync compatibility (there's 0 reason the B can't do it too).
Since the 48" is targeting the mainstream TV consumer, I don't think they'll even offer a C and it will sell as B model only for the first year. Wild prediction I know.
They might well offer one with their flashier trims, but if they do it'll cost more than the 55B10, so it'll be a hard sell.
If its not curved then its a POS ,,, period....
If I'm being honest with myself, at that size, you may have a point. A curve helps bring the parts of the screen that are farther away from you closer. Personally, my favorite ultrawides are not only curved, but have the most aggressive curves. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "POS" for not having a curve, though. It's an appreciated feature, but not a must have.
There are some big flaws on this display, but not being curved is a non-issue imho.
bigger issues as i see them:
less than optimal overdrive
Once we go above around ~32", say 34"+, curved monitors start to become desirable. The larger the monitor, the more curve you'd want, just to keep as much of the viewing surface of the panel at the same distance from a desktop eyepoint as possible.
For displays at the smaller end, the curve doesn't need to be strong, of course. Just a little bit will help.
I agree with this. My Samsung CRG9 at 49" really needs that curve to make the very edges of the display comfortable. It's only 1800R curved but could definitely be more. If it was flat I would most likely also see VA viewing angle issues on it.
If they were flexible oled maybe. Curves are one shape and one focal point so they lack modularity for different usage scenarios and different games, different seating distances. Also media playback when not in the pilot's seat so to speak. A 43inch is not so big at ~ 3' to your eyeballs that it requires a curve at all. Perhaps if you were viewing a 8k resolution 55inch, 65inch etc up very close a curve would be more warranted since the ppi would allow you to sit closer with a bigger screen.
I have two 43inch and a 32 inch at 3feet away. One 43inch is about the focal zone at that distance, perhaps a little height is outside. As it is, I can view the 32inch in the center and 30 to 40 percent of each side, which are "curved" at an angle on monitor arms but at a custom angle. If I had a 43 gaming one in the middle it would be fine flat.
Could you manually flex an OLED display though? Wouldn’t it more or less stay the way it came out of the box?
The issue would be less the OLED 'panel' itself, and more toward ensuring that the supporting structure could handle changing shape within a limited range while remaining durable and eliminating possible artifacts. I'd say that it could be done, but it wouldn't be cheap.
Ah, like that wallpaper TV. Yeah, that's really cool, futuristic stuff. I'd want it too, but it wouldn’t be cheap at all.
Yes my point was that with any static curve there is a static focal point so it's not as modular and really only optimal at a set seating distance "in the pilot's seat". Where a flat screen can be moved up closer for a racing game or father away for an isomteric, 3rd person game, rts, etc and can be viewed even father away for media playback, a curved screen is really for one locked in position focal point that is defined by the degree of curvature.
Agreed, though with wide viewing angles retained, perhaps the curve won't be spherical but ovoid. The curve could increase from the center to the horizontal edges in order to provide a wider 'sweet' spot and a wider 'good enough' spot.