dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
You're right about OLED at a low proce being a good buy, particurlay if you're realistic about lifespan.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
You're right about OLED at a low proce being a good buy, particurlay if you're realistic about lifespan.
jnemesh
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,084
Nah, the Q9FN sets from Samsung are pretty damn close to OLED in black level, and have superior brightness and color. (and Freesync support)
jnemesh
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,084
Happens ALL the time with consumers who don't know how the tech works or don't care. See it all the time...ESPN's tickers are usually the culprit, not CNN, but the effect is the same.
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
They were driven hard, but all 69 LG OLEDs installed at South Korea's Incheon Airport have been pulled and replaced with LCD. They were being used to display schedules, and showed burn in after four months or so.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,713
Sony's high end Bravias are OLED too.
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
I'm a fan of QLED, and pointed to it's advantages. But QLED at the present moment IS LCD. The QLEDs are being used as a source of backlighting for the LCD, with the advantage of better color.
So, yes, I'd get a Samsung QLED LCD for HDR over anything else at thos point. Eventually, QLED will be used emissively, and will be better still.
GameLifter
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 717
To me it makes sense that HDR would shorten the lifespan of an OLED since the pixels can be on full blast and the whole time I've owned my C6 I just assumed that HDR was shortening the lifespan of it. The question is, does it shorten the lifespan to an extent to where it matters? It would probably depend on usage and how long you keep the OLED but I'm sure for most it won't matter. The circuitry in the TV would probably die well before the panel does.
Maybe you can, but I lost the ability to focus that close many years ago. There's also the issue of binocular vision -- you can feel the muscle tension when you're looking cross eyed for a long time -- which isn't an issue at 6.5' but is at 1.3' (which is how close you'd have to be to a laptop to get an equivalent FOV).
I'm just fine focusing at 6.5' from my 65" OLED. It's especially nice because the stuff behind the TV is at around 12', and therefore out of focus. And it feels like a home theater to me, almost on par with the experience from the middle rows at Alamo Draft House theaters -- which is pretty damn good.
Hey, but feel free to believe whatever you need to believe to justify bigger-is-better, even if you don't have any science to back it.
Last edited:
SONY is making OLEDs too, now, possibly with LG panels. E.g.: https://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/a8f-series
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
Well, I'm willing to bet you're no scientist or psychoanalyst, and turning people's liking of large screens...and ther are plenty of them....into targets of ridicuule should have nothing to do with this discussion.
I mentined differences in focus, and there is also a matter of angles of how the two eyes focus, relaxation of the eyes, and probably differences in eye movement as well as the effect of bright screens close to the eyes and EM radiation. I just don't like sitting that close to a TV, and I know plenty of people who feel the same way.. And to extend the fact of my liking large screens to " my presumably thinking bigger is better" is an unwarranted and erroneous assumption, because I don't.
Your original point that there is no difference between these differing options is not scientific because it is based on only one parameter...FOV, or field of view. There is more to all of this than that.
Last edited:
You're the one that wrote "You can sit really close to your laptop, and get the effect of a large screen."
That pretty completely discredits you, don't you think? Anyone who tries it, even an idiot, will discover it isn't true.
All to justify your irrational preference for "a very good 90 inch" over "a great 65 inch" -- even though (or is it because?) the 90" LCD will cost more.
Last edited:
I'm reading through this and can't help but there are a group of people that are as resilient to technology change and quirks as when plasma dropped, as well as misinformed. Those that it was out of reach talked of it's flaws and those that it was in reach proudly enjoyed it. I love my C7 and will pump HDR thru it as much as I can because it makes the viewing experience much better. When this isn't a hypothetical maybe I'll change... maybe, but 4k HDR just looks too damn good (waiting for my Blue Planet 2 UHD to arrive tomorrow!). I have a JS9500 too which of course is much brighter but the experience is just not the same without true black contrasting against the brightness.
And to burn in, I've fallen asleep watching cable where comcast shut down to a static image from my receiver that has sat for at least 7 hours and have never even gotten ghosting. It's much different than the early plasmas which a football game could ghost the ticker... This seems like yelling fire.
And to burn in, I've fallen asleep watching cable where comcast shut down to a static image from my receiver that has sat for at least 7 hours and have never even gotten ghosting. It's much different than the early plasmas which a football game could ghost the ticker... This seems like yelling fire.
I sit exactly 8' from mine (the max optimal distance on 65") with it being in a built in (2' from the back wall) and I'm perfectly fine too. Crazy huh?
(Think we both have a C7 too but not gonna reread this thread)
Imma throw this 4K/OLED crap in the trash and while I'm at it, the SSD too--similar discussions went around when SSDs first came out--I've never looked back and don't intend to on the OLED screen either. If it burns out, I'll buy another one. Over 3300 hours now and not a burn or blip on the screen. And those amazing blacks... ! Simply spoiled to anything else. Waiting for decent OLED monitors to show up--and moar SSDs.
I believe those OLED Sony are the best tv you can buy. Super expensive but substantial better.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
HDR as it is now is mostly useless. Most devices do not have true HDR support so enabling it only makes picture worse. Perhaps in 5-10 years when everyone gets new sets of screens...
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Still using consumer LG panels as far as I know
Or did you mean the ones for the professional market ?
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
That is an extreme user case scenario for those panels 4 months not to bad.
The problem lies with Oled how much use is going to determine how fast it is going to slowly show their marks after 2880 hours it is bound to fail but only at extreme use. As a consumer you might never get to this if you buy a TV every 3 years and have casual use. Then again people buying Oled prolly not in the casual boat but if you are watching Indy/nascar car F1 all day (8 or 12 hour period) for a good amount of time you might get there earlier (lets say 3 days out of the week).
I will say, my B6 did suffer from a bout of image retention when I left it on with a bright blue (non-HDR) background up for about an hour or so. Went away after an hour or two, but it can happen.
Note I did go into the dev menu and kill both the auto-dimmer and the pixel shifter; no one to blame for that but me. Desktop background is now just black to avoid that from happening again.
But yes, the image quality is far and away better then what LCD can offer. I do expect first gen OLED's to need replacement within 5 years or so, but fully expect the tech to improve in the meantime.
motomonkey
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,490
Which is exactly what people said about HD. doesn't mean it was a fad just because there were no devices capable of playing HD content.
I'd rather have a stack of HDR or Dolby Vision mastered movies sitting around I could not watch yet, than an HDR capable TV with no content. I just happen to have both right now, and yes, a Good HDR movie on an HDR capable OLED is simply awesome. so, no, it's not a fad, it's just something most people cannot take advantage of yet. sort of like 1080p HD was years ago.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
Maybe in the States, but in the UK, the Sky Q TV package, satellite and also uses some of your internet connection and can be had for a mere £20 quid per month, depending on the package you pick.
There is loads of UHD movies, OTA and via on demand, also on demand UHD boxsets and also TV programmes, OTA and on demand, F1 and Football is also screened in UHD.
Granted, HD is still the most numerous out of the two and SD just wont fuck off and die quietly, but in the UK UHD is really starting to pick up.
< would love to get an OLED TV.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
The annoying part is that HDR is forced in Netflix for example even if you don't want to use it.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
OLED 4 LIFE
No HDR doesn't even begin to change the equation.
No HDR doesn't even begin to change the equation.
TripleAgent77
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Messages
- 291
I'll take my chances. This thing is too good. HDR is just gravy. OLED is S-Tier.
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
The following article not only talks about burn in, but also how QLED is more color accurate than OLED, and can be driven to higher brightness levels than OLED, if HDR is the concern.
Within two or three years QLED will like be used as a stable emissive display, rather than as baclighting...meaning perfect blacks and high brightness. And Micro Led will probably emerge as well, possibly both available from Samsung.
https://www.techradar.com/news/5-reasons-why-qled-not-oled-might-be-the-future-of-tvs
Within two or three years QLED will like be used as a stable emissive display, rather than as baclighting...meaning perfect blacks and high brightness. And Micro Led will probably emerge as well, possibly both available from Samsung.
https://www.techradar.com/news/5-reasons-why-qled-not-oled-might-be-the-future-of-tvs
That's not an extreme usage case. Four months?
What do you think happens after about a year with the Netflix front menu up? Or the video timeline slider? Stuff that is always in the same place on the screen.
One of the major advantages of LCD was no burn-in. It was one of the things that made CRT worth giving up. We don't need those issues back.
In fact, my 74" DLP is still showing strongly when put up against these issues, in everything except that it isn't 4k.
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
I was a fan of DLP, and was sad tp see them disappear in rear projection. Those sets produced zero eye fatigue, something that can't be said about many newer sets. They could have made 4K RPs as well, but the market fell out when people realized they could hang flat screen on the wall.
This thread, of course, is about will HDR Kill an OLED screen, not a "Am I happy with my 65" LG OLED" If I had one I'd be happy because they produce a fantastic picture, but owners should be aware of potential burn in as well as the consequemces of driving these sets at 1000 nits.
QLEDs, by the way are capable of 1500 to 2000 nits peak luminance, which impacts HDR performance. and 100% Color Volume, meaning they can express all colors at any level of brightness.
At this point of time, OLEDs are sharper, because each pixel is discretely driven, with no sharpness degrading halo. Emissive QLED and MicroLed will eventually provode that as well.
I could see a desktop burning in on an LCD
. From what I have read the 7 series do a bit better with imagine retention - and not sure if the 6 series have the screen refresh feature, but that is supposed to help with retention quite a bit as well albeit it takes an hour to run and the TV must be off. I panicked and ran it once when we left the TV on for 12+ hours away from the house with nothing but the yamaha guitar on the display... didn't see any retention but gave me peace of mind.Edit: Checked Rtings and the temp retention on the 6 series got a 1.6 and on the 7 series a 7.3. Both it's just temp and takes a little viewing time to eliminate, 6 just takes it on faster. Just like Plasma both suffer badly from permanent burn in if you really fuck up tho.
Last edited:
Only thing I hate from your post is Panny OLED and not Panny Plasma. RIP plasma. Panny was the best.
Sony is making amazing TV's these days. I almost bought the 900 series 100lbs monster over my JS9500 but my wife didn't want a 100 lbs monster that was 2" thick or to spend the extra 1k on it. It was the most impressive set I had seen at the time though. Zero motion blur on standard settings without soap opera. Thing was a behemoth tho. I'll be interested to see what they push out in the OLED sector. FYI about 10-15 years ago I had a tiny OLED monitor from Sony that was awesome for what it was at the time. Paper thin and made the office look pretty neat.
disemboweler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 132
You can pretend all you want that HDR is shit because you don't want to buy a new TV, but it's not a fad like 3D was. It's a bigger and better innovation than 1080p => 4K is, and it's about time someone finally decided to make the picture quality and color range/accuracy more of a focus than just merely "MOAR PIX3LZ & a diagonal size almost as big as my dick!"
Also, this article is pure, and highly flawed, speculation. For one, 4K/HDR OLEDs are not that much more expensive these days - look for a sale and you can get a 55" or so for under $1000 - highly worthwhile, even if it won't last 20 years like some LEDs might. In my experience though, TVs these days fail for other reasons long before they become too dim or burnt in. Not to mention, OLED's picture quality is WAY more important to me than extreme longevity that I won't use, since TVs (like phones, game consoles, etc these days) are advancing much faster and the average buyer is replacing their set more often than 10-20+ years ago - because they want the new features, not because their old set failed. Also, the author is kinda dumb and possibly not even an OLED owner, as he doesn't seem to realize that HDR TVs operate at half the max brightness (approximately, or less) when in HDR mode, which means the panels are actually pumping out a dimmer image overall than in SDR mode at max "backlight brightness" - they compensate for the need to make certain parts extremely bright by dimming the overall image, due to technological constraints.
I don't regret my OLED purchase AT ALL. It's by far the best TV I've ever owned, and I paid less for it than I did some previous LED sets that were not nearly as impressive a technological leap.
Don't let poor, exaggerated fear-mongering make you make a bad decision like buying an LED set over an OLED unless you're on a small budget or don't care about the picture quality for your use case. OLEDs are far too beautiful to even compare to LCD/LED/CRT/Plasma/etc.
And for the poster who keeps insisting that emissive LED is better than OLED, it's simply not true or even possible yet. There is a reason they're not available yet (or even planned concretely yet, AFAIK), and that is very likely price vs. performance.... just like OLED was a few years ago, it was likely coming, but the tech wasn't there yet for a reasonable consumer price.
Last edited:
disemboweler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 132
You haven't owned a good OLED yet, have you? Because if you had, you'd realize they're simply next gen Plasma without some of the major issues, including burn in (which is really NOT an issue on the OLEDs I know of, and temporary at worst - on LG's panels, at least), and dimness. Any plasma still in existence is BLOWN AWAY by a nice 4K/HDR smart OLED - they're better in every way, and that's not simply subjective. I'd challenge anyone to make an argument as to why a very old Plasma would in any way compare to a high-end OLED today... even if they released a new Plasma (assuming they were similar in tech/features compared to the last models made) with 4k/HDR, it would still be shit compared to an OLED.
Last edited:
Mad Maxx
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 7,317
I had a Panasonic ST60 plasma, many years ago. It had an amazing picture, but like most plasmas it ran quite hot and buzzed constantly. It got damaged in a move and I never saw as good a picture until my current LG B7A OLED. The fact that it's taken so many years for any other technology to catch and even surpass plasma is all you need to know about how great those TVs were.
They always made amazing TVs. They just expensive for their good TVs.
disemboweler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 132
FYI, the "soap opera" effect is always controllable in the settings of every TV I'm aware of. And everyone who cares about picture quality simply turns off the effect - no one likes fake extra frames at the cost of latency and an acceptable level of consistency (which I have yet to see with the TruMotion or whatever equivalent "soap opera" branded feature that's available so far - they look smoother for a few frames, then jump and skip for a few frames... and the effect overall is very jarring if you pay attention).
disemboweler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 132
Agreed. And what's even more concerning for their "best in the market" brand reputation of the past is now gone - quite often, these days, you're paying a lot more for the Sony brand and it's STILL not as good overall as a cheaper competitor (or equivalent to a cheaper competitor). Which is why they're losing money big time in the AV market these days - how far they've fallen!
dreamwriter
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 264
And Plasmas had tremendous viewing angles.
disemboweler
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 132
I can't see any reviewer worth their salt saying that they're better than OLED in picture quality, in any way. They still have relatively few LEDs for the local-dimming backlight, which causes ugly and distracting bloom on dark backgrounds with a light spot, like a mouse cursor on a black background. For $3800 that's LAUGHABLE when you can get a 65", basically-top-of-the-line OLED for half the price elsewhere. But if you need LCD for some reason, I guess they're the best around, but not anywhere near the best around when considering value for the price...
Of course. You just turn down motion smoothing. But that Sony had everything off and was crystal clear. As good as a Panny GT.