What is RTINGS fascination with VA Panels?

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
I generally enjoy RTINGS deep dives into display tech... but I've noticed a disturbing (for me) trend in their reporting; an unusual fascination with recommending VA panels in the 'gamer' space.

I recognize that panel choice is often very personal, but as far as I know, nothing has significantly changed from the old saw:
  • TN Panels - cheap, fast response time, fugly colors, bad off angle (esp vertical) viewing, cheap
  • IPS Panels - superior in almost every way, great viewing angles, moderate response time, off-angle backlight bleed, not as deep of contrast ratios as VA for darkroom viewing, but of the 'traditional LCD' displays, generally the best
  • VA Panels - great contrast - especially during dark room viewing, better colors than TN, slow response, weird color shifts when viewed off angle (even a little bit)
These factors - especially 'dark room' contrast and dead-straight on viewing generally make VA panels good TVs for watching movies, and acceptable for people who don't play anything other than single-player console games. TN is fine for the folks who don't care about visual goodies - who turn down all the special effects in search of the highest frames and refresh times in the competitive space (or who just don't understand/ can't afford a better panel).

Does anyone have insight into why they like VA, and why they would ever recommend a VA panel as a 'gaming monitor'?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,798
Just preference.
People that love VA are basically really into contrast. 3000:1 is common on VA. 1000:1 is common on IPS, and 1400:1 on top end displays.
The other factor is just a matter of what compromises bother you the most.
People that tend to like VA find IPS Glow to be annoying and/or unacceptable. People that prefer IPS tend to find VA color shift to be unacceptable.

I suppose the other aspect is how many of each display type there are to actually review. I don't know the numbers in the market, but are there more VA panel displays released a year than IPS? I would imagine so, at least in the TV market.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,551
Eh? Most of their "best gaming" displays are IPS panels actually. It's only in TVs where they typically recommend VA because contrast is one of the top factors in image quality and VA outperforms IPS in that regard, and the viewing angle and motion clarity problems are a none issue for people who are watching 24fps content from a far distance on a TV.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,436
VA do 5ms to 7ms response time @ 120hz, great contrast (some are near 15000:1) and have great colour volume in SDR.
HDR can go very bright and still has wonderful colour volume plus doesnt burn in.

I have a 2 yr old Q9FN TV, its a first class display for PC, gaming, TV and movies.
The only thing I would like to change is get a bigger one witn HDMI 2.1. But I'll wait for next years models.
 
Last edited:

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
I mean, most of the monitors on their recommended page are IPS unless I'm missing something. The generalizations you noted are no longer really true though. For example there are TN panels slower than some IPS panels, and VA panels faster than both. So you have to examine each monitor on its individual merits.

The bar none best gaming monitor under $1K is probably the Samsung G7 Odyssey despite its curve(and rare flicker issue), and it's a VA panel.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,084
Because some care about image quality and want their games look just as good as they want their movies look. That is why I use VA panels exclusively and why I invested in I1 Display Pro colorimeter to calibrate my screens with (TVs and monitors).
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,237
VA for Esports gaming is not a good recommendation.

VA for eye candy and beautiful gameplay is fine.

Having good response time is great, but something slow and pretty like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed or Control can REALLY benefit from higher contrast, brighter colours, and you won't notice the extra 4ms of pixel shift.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
565
I use an Eizo FG2421 on my desktop - 120 Hz VA. It's probably the first LCD monitor I laid eyes on that didn't look like total crap coming from a Sony GDM-FW900, and the contrast ratio (somewhere between 4600:1 and the advertised 5000:1 in practice, after calibration) helps a lot with that.

Motion clarity is actually pretty good if you enable the built-in strobing "240 Turbo" mode; no LightBoost hackery needed here! As I understand, ULMB mode on more modern monitors does the same thing.

Alas, it's an older monitor, long discontinued and devoid of any variable refresh rate support, and also a mere 1080p. The HDMI input also only does 60 Hz; you have to use dual-link DVI or DisplayPort for 120 Hz.

However, it gets the job done while I contemplate what my next monitor should be, most of which are significantly more expensive than the roughly $240 shipped I paid for this thing when I caught it on eBay at just the right time, and most of which still have inferior contrast if they aren't proper HDR displays.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,778
VA is what most TVs use, so if you like the way a high end TV looks, then you are probably liking VA. The contrast ratio really does it for some people, particular when you are trying for HDR content. That's part of the reason TVs like it. The disadvantages have lessened somewhat these days. Dark smearing still happens, but isn't nearly as noticeable as it once was. I have trouble seeing it on my Vizio TV. Viewing angles are an issue compared to IPS but are still not bad, and for monitors curvature actually does help solve that problem. It brings the sides more straight on with your eyes.

So while I'm an IPS fan personally, that's what I have on my desktop, it isn't hard to see why some people like VA. A modern VA panel really is pretty nice (as are modern IPS panels).
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
274
Because some care about image quality and want their games look just as good as they want their movies look. That is why I use VA panels exclusively and why I invested in I1 Display Pro colorimeter to calibrate my screens with (TVs and monitors).
Colorimeter is useless for gaming as there's no guarantee to make the colors work ingame, no reason to invest in one.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,084
Colorimeter is useless for gaming as there's no guarantee to make the colors work ingame, no reason to invest in one.

That is the case with color correction only. But you can use it to calibrate the monitor itself, get the correct color temperature and select a gamma mode that is close to the ballpark that you are aiming for. And when you make an ICC profile, even if the color correction does not apply but software color temperature and gamma adjustments do. Games tend to reset them but Displaycal can lock them.

And if you want to get really fancy you CAN get color correction by creating Reshade profiles with Displaycal and colorimeter. But even without that I use my colorimeter to calibrate my TV anyway and recheck the calibration periodically.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,551

High end Nano Cell IPS vs high end QLED VA. And this is why RTings would rather recommend VA TVs. The flagship IPS TV is extremely mediocore. Lower end IPS TVs are even worst.
 

chithanh

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
810
off-angle backlight bleed
It is not just that. It is a whole class of problems (glow/bloom/bleed) that all IPS monitors have to some degree, even the highest-end ones. With the more budget IPS monitors there can even be a considerable variation between specimens. So if you are bothered by this, then you can either plan to order and return multiple IPS monitors, or you can buy VA straight away which does not have these problems (except glow, but VA glow is not nearly as noticeable as IPS glow).
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,711
Another thing to consider is that most VA montiors are junk compared to VA TVs. A $300 vizio has much better contrast, color saturation and blending, and generally less light bleed and uniformity issues, than most VA monitors I have seen. Its kinda nuts. If it weren't for the fact that those same vizios have 2x the input lag---I would have bought one of those instead. Even without VRR.

VA viewing angles absolutely are a problem, however. And that is also kind of nuts. that you can pay a bunch of money on a VA tv and still experience drastic color and contrast shift, by simply sliding to either side of your couch. Its bad and makes sharing a show or movie really difficult.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
Another thing to consider is that most VA montiors are junk compared to VA TVs. A $300 vizio has much better contrast, color saturation and blending, and generally less light bleed and uniformity issues, than most VA monitors I have seen. Its kinda nuts. If it weren't for the fact that those same vizios have 2x the input lag---I would have bought one of those instead. Even without VRR.

VA viewing angles absolutely are a problem, however. And that is also kind of nuts. that you can pay a bunch of money on a VA tv and still experience drastic color and contrast shift, by simply sliding to either side of your couch. Its bad and makes sharing a show or movie really difficult.
I actually own both a Samsung CRG9 "QLED" and a KS7005 TV (Nordic KS8000). The KS8000 is right before they started putting the QLED label on their TVs. The image quality difference between the two is actually pretty marginal, with better contrast and depth to the image on the CRG9. HDR performance is about the same as both have crappy edge lit local dimming.

To me VA viewing angles aren't a massive issue. When sitting on a fairly big sofa that is about 2-2.5m away from the TV it looks fine from any seating position on it. It's not like a crappy laptop TN panel where just shifting your position changes the image drastically. Sure, my current OLED is perfectly viewable from an extreme angle but that is not a common use case. For VA monitors it's always going to be me sitting right in front of it and to me the CRG9 has enough curve to make it fine.

Vertical viewing angle is more of an issue on VA desktop monitors as it can alter the color from top to bottom, making it a poor choice for color critical work in image or video editing. For day to day use and gaming it's not really noticeable. It is also fine for casual graphics work where your main concern isn't perfect color accuracy.

As always, all display tech have their pros and cons. VA on gaming displays just got really good this year with the new Samsung G7/G9 monitors and I expect some of that would trickle to the TV side as well.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,711
I actually own both a Samsung CRG9 "QLED" and a KS7005 TV (Nordic KS8000). The KS8000 is right before they started putting the QLED label on their TVs. The image quality difference between the two is actually pretty marginal, with better contrast and depth to the image on the CRG9. HDR performance is about the same as both have crappy edge lit local dimming.

To me VA viewing angles aren't a massive issue. When sitting on a fairly big sofa that is about 2-2.5m away from the TV it looks fine from any seating position on it. It's not like a crappy laptop TN panel where just shifting your position changes the image drastically. Sure, my current OLED is perfectly viewable from an extreme angle but that is not a common use case. For VA monitors it's always going to be me sitting right in front of it and to me the CRG9 has enough curve to make it fine.

Vertical viewing angle is more of an issue on VA desktop monitors as it can alter the color from top to bottom, making it a poor choice for color critical work in image or video editing. For day to day use and gaming it's not really noticeable. It is also fine for casual graphics work where your main concern isn't perfect color accuracy.

As always, all display tech have their pros and cons. VA on gaming displays just got really good this year with the new Samsung G7/G9 monitors and I expect some of that would trickle to the TV side as well.
Well the CRG9 costs as much as a very nice TV. I would expect it to be generally better quality than most monitors.

I should have been more specific. I could not find a 27-32 inch VA monitor in the $300-$400 range, which looked better than a 32-40 inch Vizio TV ($300-$350). and that's just really annoying. and even near doubling the monitor price to ~$600-$700, VA panel monitors don't really come across as much better quality. Sure, more features, high refresh rates. But they still have light bleed issues, uniformity issues, and a lot lower contrast than a similarly priced TV.

And yeah, viewing angles don't matter---until they do. probably a non-issue for one person. but in my experience, even two people sharing a VA screen, can be annoying. and a living room with a small family or friend group ---- awful. Especially considering the price of some of these TVs.

There are some occasional exceptions with VA tvs using extra layers in the panel, specifically to boost viewing angles. But also lowers contrast. and every now and then a VA panel comes out which is strictly a little better with viewing angle. But overall, its still quite bad.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
Well the CRG9 costs as much as a very nice TV. I would expect it to be generally better quality than most monitors.

I should have been more specific. I could not find a 27-32 inch VA monitor in the $300-$400 range, which looked better than a 32-40 inch Vizio TV ($300-$350). and that's just really annoying. and even near doubling the monitor price to ~$600-$700, VA panel monitors don't really come across as much better quality. Sure, more features, high refresh rates. But they still have light bleed issues, uniformity issues, and a lot lower contrast than a similarly priced TV.

And yeah, viewing angles don't matter---until they do. probably a non-issue for one person. but in my experience, even two people sharing a VA screen, can be annoying. and a living room with a small family or friend group ---- awful. Especially considering the price of some of these TVs.

There are some occasional exceptions with VA tvs using extra layers in the panel, specifically to boost viewing angles. But also lowers contrast. and every now and then a VA panel comes out which is strictly a little better with viewing angle. But overall, its still quite bad.
That's what you get when you compare the desktop monitor vs TV markets. TVs can be cheaper due to economies of scale. The difference between the two is blurring more and more every year as TVs start to have low input lag etc. That said, most smaller TVs are not particularly good either, they just might be better than the monitors. Most TV manufacturers have significantly better TVs when you get above the 50" size but those are not that great for desktop use due to being so big. I am happily using the LG CX 48" OLED TV as my main monitor now but would not mind a smaller one.

Personally I have not had issues looking at the same VA screens with several people. It was a noticeable problem with a 27" 1440p TN panel though.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
Having read through this - I'm again reminded of how subjective each viewing experience is. The use - case scenario is as much a factor as personal perception and taste.

Case in point: I'm searching for a new monitor. My reading, in-person viewing and research is focused on monitors. I'm quite sensitive to the color shifting of VA panels when viewed from the distance I sit from the screen. (My parents have two VA panel monitors and they drive me nuts). I also have a TN that I dislike, and a quality HP IPS that I like but have outgrown. Every experience I have with monitors tells me that IPS is my must-have technology (for the balance of features I want vs the concessions I have to accept) and given that I rarely ever change monitors it's worth it to me to buy a good one (avoids the cheap panel problems). For all of these reasons - whenever I see a VA monitor recommended, even in the 'cheaper alternative' space... It bugs me.

However - my wife and I hung out with another couple recently who had bought, and wanted to show off, a new large screen TV. Sportsball and movies looked great on it - and I was surprised later to discover that it was a VA panel. But after thinking about it - it makes sense. They have a large room, and I sat about 15 feet from the screen. The normal head movement that makes a VA panel unacceptable (to me) at 30 inches has almost no effect on the image from @ 5x that distance. I did not think about seeing how the image looked from different parts of the room - because that's not how we experience TV. If I move my head 6 inches to the right, at 30 inches - that is a considerable shift in the viewing angle - but at 180 inches, it's negligible.

Back to monitors - I can see not being bothered by VA color shifts for people who primarily watch video (movies, etc), because with constantly changing images you don't notice it as much... But when you are doing design work, and the image remains static for long periods, the color shift (for me) is distracting.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,436
Having read through this - I'm again reminded of how subjective each viewing experience is. The use - case scenario is as much a factor as personal perception and taste.

Case in point: I'm searching for a new monitor. My reading, in-person viewing and research is focused on monitors. I'm quite sensitive to the color shifting of VA panels when viewed from the distance I sit from the screen. (My parents have two VA panel monitors and they drive me nuts). I also have a TN that I dislike, and a quality HP IPS that I like but have outgrown. Every experience I have with monitors tells me that IPS is my must-have technology (for the balance of features I want vs the concessions I have to accept) and given that I rarely ever change monitors it's worth it to me to buy a good one (avoids the cheap panel problems). For all of these reasons - whenever I see a VA monitor recommended, even in the 'cheaper alternative' space... It bugs me.

However - my wife and I hung out with another couple recently who had bought, and wanted to show off, a new large screen TV. Sportsball and movies looked great on it - and I was surprised later to discover that it was a VA panel. But after thinking about it - it makes sense. They have a large room, and I sat about 15 feet from the screen. The normal head movement that makes a VA panel unacceptable (to me) at 30 inches has almost no effect on the image from @ 5x that distance. I did not think about seeing how the image looked from different parts of the room - because that's not how we experience TV. If I move my head 6 inches to the right, at 30 inches - that is a considerable shift in the viewing angle - but at 180 inches, it's negligible.

Back to monitors - I can see not being bothered by VA color shifts for people who primarily watch video (movies, etc), because with constantly changing images you don't notice it as much... But when you are doing design work, and the image remains static for long periods, the color shift (for me) is distracting.

It appears the lesson for you is, get a larger screen and sit further back.
 

vick1000

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
2,077
It appears the lesson for you is, get a larger screen and sit further back.
That does not work. Whether it's a smaller display at closer range, or larger at further away, the gamma shift is the same, considering desktop use. There are some better VA panels out there, where gamma shift is concerned, but they have other drawbacks. The QLED with correction filter are good, but they lose contrast and black uniformity, and perform more like IPS in that regard, with the typical VA negative of smearing. OLED is the closest to a perfect display that we have, and we all know the drawbacks of the current OLED market.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,436
That does not work. Whether it's a smaller display at closer range, or larger at further away, the gamma shift is the same, considering desktop use. There are some better VA panels out there, where gamma shift is concerned, but they have other drawbacks. The QLED with correction filter are good, but they lose contrast and black uniformity, and perform more like IPS in that regard, with the typical VA negative of smearing. OLED is the closest to a perfect display that we have, and we all know the drawbacks of the current OLED market.
My Q9FN TV is a bit over 2m away and I dont see any gamma shift.
Maybe there is a slight variation that I cant see. But thats the point, what you cant see doesnt matter.
It is a damn good display for PC, for everything.
 

vick1000

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
2,077
My Q9FN TV is a bit over 2m away and I dont see any gamma shift.
Maybe there is a slight variation that I cant see. But thats the point, what you cant see doesnt matter.
It is a damn good display for PC, for everything.
I'm happy for you, truly. I am not so lucky as to be able to ignore that which cannot be,,,,unseen.
 

hhkb

n00b
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
24
I generally enjoy RTINGS deep dives into display tech... but I've noticed a disturbing (for me) trend in their reporting; an unusual fascination with recommending VA panels in the 'gamer' space.

I recognize that panel choice is often very personal, but as far as I know, nothing has significantly changed from the old saw:
  • TN Panels - cheap, fast response time, fugly colors, bad off angle (esp vertical) viewing, cheap
  • IPS Panels - superior in almost every way, great viewing angles, moderate response time, off-angle backlight bleed, not as deep of contrast ratios as VA for darkroom viewing, but of the 'traditional LCD' displays, generally the best
  • VA Panels - great contrast - especially during dark room viewing, better colors than TN, slow response, weird color shifts when viewed off angle (even a little bit)
These factors - especially 'dark room' contrast and dead-straight on viewing generally make VA panels good TVs for watching movies, and acceptable for people who don't play anything other than single-player console games. TN is fine for the folks who don't care about visual goodies - who turn down all the special effects in search of the highest frames and refresh times in the competitive space (or who just don't understand/ can't afford a better panel).

Does anyone have insight into why they like VA, and why they would ever recommend a VA panel as a 'gaming monitor'?

I think people just parrot what they are told by a small few, and so for a long time people said IPS was best (this started when IPS was actually good, when it used polarizers in the NEC early days). In my opinion, modern IPS is basically garbage for gaming and should be the last thing you pick as a gaming screen. It only looks decent in bright light. Soon as it gets dark all you see is the horrible grey glow everywhere. Blacks are super important for content such as games and movies.

My advice would be that IPS is only really suitable for office work or color critical purposes. Otherwise you should be playing on either a TN (competitive gaming) or VA screen (casual/comp). Or OLED if you can afford it!
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
I think people just parrot what they are told by a small few, and so for a long time people said IPS was best (this started when IPS was actually good, when it used polarizers in the NEC early days). The reality is, in my opinion, nowadays IPS is basically garbage for gaming. It only looks decent in bright light. Soon as it gets dark all you see is the horrible grey glow everywhere, and it's been like that on pretty much every IPS except the old ones with polarizers. Blacks are super important for any content including games and movies.

So in my opinion, IPS is only really suitable for office work or color critical purposes. Otherwise you should be playing on either a TN (competitive gaming) or VA screen (casual/comp). Or OLED if you can afford it!

OLED would be quite interesting - if only there was even a hint of it coming out in a 4k 32". Anything larger - to me - is not really a good fit for desk use, although it is fine for consoles, movies and the like.
The burn in and expected lifetime of oled is also a concern - but I understand they're working on it.
 

hhkb

n00b
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
24
OLED would be quite interesting - if only there was even a hint of it coming out in a 4k 32". Anything larger - to me - is not really a good fit for desk use, although it is fine for consoles, movies and the like.
The burn in and expected lifetime of oled is also a concern - but I understand they're working on it.
Yeah a 32" or smaller gaming OLED would probably invalidate every LCD monitor. In theory it could even do 1000Hz refresh rates given the response time characteristics of an OLED - true "retina" refresh. It would be the ultimate competitive monitor. I'm not sure we'll ever see this though, it is probably too niche. I think most people are happy with bad looking TN high refresh rate monitors for gaming and don't want to spend 1k+ for a gaming screen. OLED TVs are only possible because there is a large market of people who will spend all their money on big TVs and want the best PQ. We are lucky LG even made a 48" as that is already a pretty niche size for a TV, and fortunately it is actually a usable size for PC gaming (but probably at the max limit).
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
Yeah a 32" or smaller gaming OLED would probably invalidate every LCD monitor. In theory it could even do 1000Hz refresh rates given the response time characteristics of an OLED - true "retina" refresh. It would be the ultimate competitive monitor. I'm not sure we'll ever see this though, it is probably too niche. I think most people are happy with bad looking TN high refresh rate monitors for gaming and don't want to spend 1k+ for a gaming screen. OLED TVs are only possible because there is a large market of people who will spend all their money on big TVs and want the best PQ. We are lucky LG even made a 48" as that is already a pretty niche size for a TV, and fortunately it is actually a usable size for PC gaming (but probably at the max limit).
.
So... As I posted (I think in my 32 inch thread) some pundits in the industry are forecasting a surge in large monitor, high pixel, high refresh rate production in the next couple of years - due entirely to the new consoles

While this makes me hopeful - I'm not sure how seriously to take this. My experience with console players is fatting around on the couch with a slice of pizza on their lap while staring at the TV and thumb dancing with the controller

Very few console players seem civilized enough to put the pizza on a plate next to the mouse while they stare at a proper monitor on the desk
 

flegg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,056
Just chiming in to say that none of you seem to understand the drawbacks of OLEDs. Burn in is not a thing anymore (most likely) due to LG only using blue/yellow and producing the rest with filters. The life of an OLED has never been an issue to my knowledge if there is no burn in (indeed, OLED probably has longer life than other tech, even a 5 year old OLED with some color fade still has better colors).

The drawback of OLED is the pixel response being TOO fast which won't be remedied until BFI greatly improves from its current state.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
Just chiming in to say that none of you seem to understand the drawbacks of OLEDs. Burn in is not a thing anymore (most likely) due to LG only using blue/yellow and producing the rest with filters. The life of an OLED has never been an issue to my knowledge if there is no burn in (indeed, OLED probably has longer life than other tech, even a 5 year old OLED with some color fade still has better colors).

The drawback of OLED is the pixel response being TOO fast which won't be remedied until BFI greatly improves from its current state.
You are correct - I only know what I read... The other thing I read is that OLED isn't the greatest for text.

Or rather - the currently smallest available TV that people have tried to use as a PC monitor does not have crisp text

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_cx_oled.htm
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
Just chiming in to say that none of you seem to understand the drawbacks of OLEDs. Burn in is not a thing anymore (most likely) due to LG only using blue/yellow and producing the rest with filters. The life of an OLED has never been an issue to my knowledge if there is no burn in (indeed, OLED probably has longer life than other tech, even a 5 year old OLED with some color fade still has better colors).

The drawback of OLED is the pixel response being TOO fast which won't be remedied until BFI greatly improves from its current state.
Burn in is still a possibility though advances in LG OLEDs has made it far less likely. LG has a lot of burn in mitigation tech built into their displays so they are clearly concerned. So far neither of my OLED TVs has shown any sign of burn in, temporary or permanent but I have had my C9 only about a year and my CX for half that.

Pixel response time is not an issue. While it can cause judder in movies, in my experience it has not been an issue even playing console games at 30 fps.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
You are correct - I only know what I read... The other thing I read is that OLED isn't the greatest for text.

Or rather - the currently smallest available TV that people have tried to use as a PC monitor does not have crisp text

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_cx_oled.htm
LG OLEDs have a non-standard pixel structure but this is not an issue in Windows or MacOS. I look at mine on both operating systems all day and would not do that if I felt the text quality wasn’t fine.

From TFT Central review:
The panel uses an RGBW (Red/Green/Blue/White) pixel layout although this seems to have little impact in our re-testing. With the HDMI input set to PC mode in the home dashboard you get very clear text and it looks normal, like a desktop monitor would which is great news.
 

chrcoluk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,219

High end Nano Cell IPS vs high end QLED VA. And this is why RTings would rather recommend VA TVs. The flagship IPS TV is extremely mediocore. Lower end IPS TVs are even worst.

question why can I tell the difference on the blacks when they show the space scene on my ips? how can I see the black as black :)
 

chrcoluk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,219
Yeah a 32" or smaller gaming OLED would probably invalidate every LCD monitor. In theory it could even do 1000Hz refresh rates given the response time characteristics of an OLED - true "retina" refresh. It would be the ultimate competitive monitor. I'm not sure we'll ever see this though, it is probably too niche. I think most people are happy with bad looking TN high refresh rate monitors for gaming and don't want to spend 1k+ for a gaming screen. OLED TVs are only possible because there is a large market of people who will spend all their money on big TVs and want the best PQ. We are lucky LG even made a 48" as that is already a pretty niche size for a TV, and fortunately it is actually a usable size for PC gaming (but probably at the max limit).

They make OLED for phones, and TV's but not 27 inch monitors, I think its because the PC market has shifted to response times first sort of thing and it can be catered too for lower cost in TN/IPS.

I tried to find a HDR600 display for £400, I dont consider £400 budget but rather mid range sort of pricing, and its practically non existant, and seems to be exclusive to VA screens. I now know why it isnt a thing on IPS, but I dont know if I could go to VA, I dont have the luxury of putting one in front of me to compare and test. I value viewing angles, and am satisfied with my current blacks (even if they are of poor standard). But that doesnt mean I am not concerned, I recognise what people are saying, films absolutely love dark scenes, and I remember watching the last couple of episodes of game of thrones on my monitor where it didnt look great. But never at the time considered the problem may have been my display as so many on the internet were moaning about how dark they were as well.

Flat screen tech replaced CRT and even now all these years later the kinks are still there trying to be fixed, the one tech that seems can almost do it OLED is a smartphone and for the rich only with screen burn in.
 

flegg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,056
You are correct - I only know what I read... The other thing I read is that OLED isn't the greatest for text.

Or rather - the currently smallest available TV that people have tried to use as a PC monitor does not have crisp text

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_cx_oled.htm

Burn in is still a possibility though advances in LG OLEDs has made it far less likely. LG has a lot of burn in mitigation tech built into their displays so they are clearly concerned. So far neither of my OLED TVs has shown any sign of burn in, temporary or permanent but I have had my C9 only about a year and my CX for half that.

Pixel response time is not an issue. While it can cause judder in movies, in my experience it has not been an issue even playing console games at 30 fps.

Text is unquestionably excellent on my CX though I have heard of other users having to play around with their settings a bit.

Hopefully I don't get judder in game again but I had the issue though it admittedly could have been from one of the other plethora of issues instead of sample and hold
 

hhkb

n00b
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
24
The drawback of OLED is the pixel response being TOO fast
I assume you are talking about more noticeable stutter from viewing low framerate content? But that's not really OLED's fault. I don't think you can reasonably argue that motion blur and smearing is a good thing. PIxel response time is the best thing about OLED.

You can simulate motion blur yourself w/ the user interpolation mode on the TV, try setting it to User mode and deblur to 0 and dejudder to 1 or 2 which will simulate the effect and works pretty decently. "Real cinema" mode also works pretty amazingly for 24p content.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,778
They make OLED for phones, and TV's but not 27 inch monitors, I think its because the PC market has shifted to response times first sort of thing and it can be catered too for lower cost in TN/IPS.
It's partially because of cost, there seems to be less of a high end market for monitors than for TVs (and remember cost scales with sales numbers) but also because PCs are worst case scenario for OLED. Things like the task bar, navigation bars, desktop icons, etc. Where you have an image that is totally static and can remain so for hours and hours on end. Also when you have large static areas so shifting a pixel or two isn't going to change anything, the whole area is white (or whatever). That is the sort of thing most likely to cause burn in and it is what people do with PC monitors all the time. Well that is going to make it a problem. If you sell a really expensive display, and then it has issues after only a few years, people are going to be pissed. They are, rightly, going to expect that a $2000-4000 monitor ought to last a long time.

Phones, not such a big deal. Not only do they not tend to be on as many hours a day as a desktop, but people treat them as most disposable. Nobody keeps a phone 10 years, so who cares if the display has issues after that time?
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
They make OLED for phones, and TV's but not 27 inch monitors, I think its because the PC market has shifted to response times first sort of thing and it can be catered too for lower cost in TN/IPS.

...
It's partially because of cost, there seems to be less of a high end market for monitors than for TVs (and remember cost scales with sales numbers) but also because PCs are worst case scenario for OLED. Things like the task bar, navigation bars, desktop icons, etc. Where you have an image that is totally static and can remain so for hours and hours on end. Also when you have large static areas so shifting a pixel or two isn't going to change anything, the whole area is white (or whatever). That is the sort of thing most likely to cause burn in and it is what people do with PC monitors all the time. Well that is going to make it a problem. If you sell a really expensive display, and then it has issues after only a few years, people are going to be pissed. They are, rightly, going to expect that a $2000-4000 monitor ought to last a long time.

Phones, not such a big deal. Not only do they not tend to be on as many hours a day as a desktop, but people treat them as most disposable. Nobody keeps a phone 10 years, so who cares if the display has issues after that time?
Its all about the yields - they're all made on (I forget the proper term) something like a 'mother glass' and then cut down; the sizes chosen are all those designed to maximize yield. So you can get a ton of phone sized glass; but the big panels for monitor sizes are, apparently odd... and the numbers they sell of fast response (monitors) vs 60hz (tvs) is totally skewed in favor of TVs.

Now; that said, 4k gaming in the Console space is supposed to put a little demand pressure on panel makers for things like fast refresh 32s. That's the anticipated change; its just not happening 'soon'
 
Top