Will HDR Kill Your OLED TV

[haste.]

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.

Look above I have a C7. and a Panny GT is not shit compared to a "good" OLED cause I have one of those too. And what many consider the best LED in the last handful of years behind that Sony 900 series.

Oh sorry edit: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c7-oled

I assume that is OK since the highest I have seen on Rtings. You obviously have never viewed a high end plasma from your post... so...

 

[haste.]

The plasma I upgraded from was a Pioneer Kuro 60", the Panny OLED is better in every regard.

Kuros were fantastic. Close to a GT but usually with more bells and whistles. May I ask what made you go with an unproven Panny OLED over LG?

Edit: I can't find any reviews of a Panny OLED. What model is it?

 

[dreamwriter]

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...

Forbes

LG OLED E8 Vs Samsung Q9FN - Clash Of The TV Titans [UPDATED]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ung-q9fn-clash-of-the-tv-titans/#1afaf00658ac


"...If you were hoping for me to choose one clear winner, that is not going to happen I’m afraid. These TVs are both so good but in such different ways that it just doesn’t make sense to flat out say one is better than the other.

The point is that each has its own particular advantages that best suit different viewing environments and end-user image preferences. At the risk of sounding like a t-shirt, both amaze in their different ways...."

 

[tangoseal]

Not a clue since I do not own an OLED TV. (To expensive and my Sony Bravia 50 inch 1080p TV from 2013 is still going strong and looking good.)

I still use a Panasonic Vt25 Plasma and its using Kuro tech from long ago and it STILL puts out better black levels and ml or colors than OLED.

 

[jnemesh]

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...

You need to read the reviews that are out there and see one in person. The q9 has 480 zones of backlighting and blooming is a non issue. It's also 3 times brighter that oled and has a wider color gamut. Believe what you want, but MEASURABLE RESULTS don't lie.

 

[jnemesh]

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.

Not quite. Quantum dots are a film over the LCD panel. Red and green quantum dots are used...the blue comes from blue (instead of white) LEDs. Think of it like a color filter.

It makes a HUGE difference in the color gamut, but doesn't solve the black level issue the LEDs have. Fortunately, Samsung went back this year to fully active LED backlighting...and that DOES help with black levels! The Q9 is one of the best performing sets on the market today. Reviewers have typically said that Sony has better motion processing (which I always turn completely off anyway), and black levels are SLIGHTLY higher than the absolute blacks of OLED, but overall it has a better overall picture than any other set currently sold.

Personally, I want one for the Freesync capability. Which is HUGE for a TV! This makes the 65 Gsync monitors look like a bad joke!

 

[TripleAgent77]

I still use a Panasonic Vt25 Plasma and its using Kuro tech from long ago and it STILL puts out better black levels and ml or colors than OLED.

While I'm sure it's a great set, the bolded is false. OLED black level is ZERO. If a pixel is black, it turns off. Other PQ factors could be argued, this is fact.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Forbes

LG OLED E8 Vs Samsung Q9FN - Clash Of The TV Titans [UPDATED]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ung-q9fn-clash-of-the-tv-titans/#1afaf00658ac


"...If you were hoping for me to choose one clear winner, that is not going to happen I’m afraid. These TVs are both so good but in such different ways that it just doesn’t make sense to flat out say one is better than the other.

The point is that each has its own particular advantages that best suit different viewing environments and end-user image preferences. At the risk of sounding like a t-shirt, both amaze in their different ways...."

On AVforums.com there was an explosion of people with the same attitude when the Samsung Q9FN got a reference award for being by far the best LCD TV. Few weeks after the LG C8 got a reference award as well.

 

[dreamwriter]

On AVforums.com there was an explosion of people with the same attitude when the Samsung Q9FN got a reference award for being by far the best LCD TV. Few weeks after the LG C8 got a reference award as well.

There is also a huge thread of LG OLED owners who have experienced burn in and banding.

 

[dreamwriter]

Not quite. Quantum dots are a film over the LCD panel. Red and green quantum dots are used...the blue comes from blue (instead of white) LEDs. Think of it like a color filter.

It makes a HUGE difference in the color gamut, but doesn't solve the black level issue the LEDs have. Fortunately, Samsung went back this year to fully active LED backlighting...and that DOES help with black levels! The Q9 is one of the best performing sets on the market today. Reviewers have typically said that Sony has better motion processing (which I always turn completely off anyway), and black levels are SLIGHTLY higher than the absolute blacks of OLED, but overall it has a better overall picture than any other set currently sold.

Personally, I want one for the Freesync capability. Which is HUGE for a TV! This makes the 65 Gsync monitors look like a bad joke!

The Samsung QLED is still considered LCD with QLED backlighting. An emissive QLED will have all the advantages of OLED.

The Forbes review I posted show the advances Samsung has made with blacl levels. But as a tradeoff, the contrasst of the QLED is greater because of its high brightness, and in certain instances where the scene has both bright and dark, the Samsung can produce better shadow detail.

But getting back to the thread's title, OLED will likely not be good for HDR over the long run. Burn in on an OLED is not due to a pixel being stuck, but rather due to the OLED degrading with high brightness and heat.

 

[haste.]

The UK model number is TX-65EX952, the international model number for the same screen is TX-65EX950.

The combination of an LG panel with Panny processing is a winning combination. Sure they don't do DV but the picture was better than the LG's when I compared them in the stores.

The 950/952 is very similar to the 1000/1002 which many considered the best OLED full stop in 2017, just a lot cheaper.

Ahhh that makes sense. I forgot that they pulled out of the US market so that's on me.

Good looking TV too - I love the look of the panel on the LGs but hate the stand. And wasn't willing to pay a ton more for the exact same panel with the fancy 2.1 base... which I'd never use with the HT.

 

[tangoseal]

While I'm sure it's a great set, the bolded is false. OLED black level is ZERO. If a pixel is black, it turns off. Other PQ factors could be argued, this is fact.

Plasma pixels turn completely off and no backlight is needed. Plasma is truly black level as you can get. You can't get any blacker than plasma. I think you should understand that even oled needs a backlight to push through it and HDR just has lots of individual zones of backlights. Plasma has absolutely no backlight because each pixel is a gas that emits it's own light and when not stimulated puts zero light.

Also your not correct on colors either. A plasma panel when properly calibrated can put in excess of over 8 billion. Colors. Far more than any current television can even come close. In fact Pioneer Kuro had to estimate the colors because they couldn't actually measure them all with modern equipment. This is because plasma pixels can be modulated in brightness i.e. brightness and it's the combination of all of the above that allows for such incredible colors.

It's a shame Plasma came to an end but the problem is that people didn't like huge actual glass sandwich panels and the cost to manufacture plasma was quite high.

 

[dreamwriter]

While I'm sure it's a great set, the bolded is false. OLED black level is ZERO. If a pixel is black, it turns off. Other PQ factors could be argued, this is fact.

That's true. The Kuro had great blacks, but discrete pixels being off produce pure black. This would be true of any emissive set with discrete, self emitting pixels.

 

[TripleAgent77]

Plasma pixels turn completely off and no backlight is needed. Plasma is truly black level as you can get. You can't get any blacker than plasma. I think you should understand that even oled needs a backlight to push through it and HDR just has lots of individual zones of backlights. Plasma has absolutely no backlight because each pixel is a gas that emits it's own light and when not stimulated puts zero light.

Also your not correct on colors either. A plasma panel when properly calibrated can put in excess of over 8 billion. Colors. Far more than any current television can even come close. In fact Pioneer Kuro had to estimate the colors because they couldn't actually measure them all with modern equipment. This is because plasma pixels can be modulated in brightness i.e. brightness and it's the combination of all of the above that allows for such incredible colors.

It's a shame Plasma came to an end but the problem is that people didn't like huge actual glass sandwich panels and the cost to manufacture plasma was quite high.

https://hometheaterreview.com/plasma-vs-lcd-vs-oled-which-is-right-for-you/

Plasma
Plasma has long been the videophile's choice for TVs, and the primary reason is its innate ability to produce a truly deep black level. Black level is a fundamental building block of a TV's picture quality. The deeper the black level, the more rich and saturated the image can look. Plasma pixels generate their own light (the gases inside the cells, when ionized by an electrical current, emit UV rays that causes the phosphors to glow), while LCD pixels rely on an external light source. Theoretically, each plasma pixel should be capable of a perfect black; however, in order to react quickly to signal changes, plasma pixels are in a primed state that does emit some light.

OLED
OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode, and the technology could combine the best of both plasma and LCD. Like plasma, OLED pixels generate their own light. An OLED consists of a thin film of organic carbon-based compounds sandwiched between two electrodes. When the compound receives an electric current, it emits light. An OLED TV can produce a true black (no electric current equals no light, and it does not need to be primed the way plasma does), yet it can also be extremely bright, like an LCD.

 

[jnemesh]

The Samsung QLED is still considered LCD with QLED backlighting. An emissive QLED will have all the advantages of OLED.

The Forbes review I posted show the advances Samsung has made with blacl levels. But as a tradeoff, the contrasst of the QLED is greater because of its high brightness, and in certain instances where the scene has both bright and dark, the Samsung can produce better shadow detail.

But getting back to the thread's title, OLED will likely not be good for HDR over the long run. Burn in on an OLED is not due to a pixel being stuck, but rather due to the OLED degrading with high brightness and heat.

Yes, it's kind of give and take...the OLED has a great picture too...but I prefer QLED because I have a plasma with image retention now, and I don't want to worry about it in a new TV (ESPECIALLY an expensive new TV). But QLEDs (especially Samsung's Q9FN series) is close enough to those deep inky blacks to win my vote..

 

[tangoseal]

https://hometheaterreview.com/plasma-vs-lcd-vs-oled-which-is-right-for-you/

Plasma
Plasma has long been the videophile's choice for TVs, and the primary reason is its innate ability to produce a truly deep black level. Black level is a fundamental building block of a TV's picture quality. The deeper the black level, the more rich and saturated the image can look. Plasma pixels generate their own light (the gases inside the cells, when ionized by an electrical current, emit UV rays that causes the phosphors to glow), while LCD pixels rely on an external light source. Theoretically, each plasma pixel should be capable of a perfect black; however, in order to react quickly to signal changes, plasma pixels are in a primed state that does emit some light.

OLED
OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode, and the technology could combine the best of both plasma and LCD. Like plasma, OLED pixels generate their own light. An OLED consists of a thin film of organic carbon-based compounds sandwiched between two electrodes. When the compound receives an electric current, it emits light. An OLED TV can produce a true black (no electric current equals no light, and it does not need to be primed the way plasma does), yet it can also be extremely bright, like an LCD.

Ok got ya. I may have been a wee bit underinformed on oled. But there is no need to scream in bold huge font at me. That's just rude brother.

 

[jnemesh]

https://hometheaterreview.com/plasma-vs-lcd-vs-oled-which-is-right-for-you/

Plasma
Plasma has long been the videophile's choice for TVs, and the primary reason is its innate ability to produce a truly deep black level. Black level is a fundamental building block of a TV's picture quality. The deeper the black level, the more rich and saturated the image can look. Plasma pixels generate their own light (the gases inside the cells, when ionized by an electrical current, emit UV rays that causes the phosphors to glow), while LCD pixels rely on an external light source. Theoretically, each plasma pixel should be capable of a perfect black; however, in order to react quickly to signal changes, plasma pixels are in a primed state that does emit some light.

OLED
OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode, and the technology could combine the best of both plasma and LCD. Like plasma, OLED pixels generate their own light. An OLED consists of a thin film of organic carbon-based compounds sandwiched between two electrodes. When the compound receives an electric current, it emits light. An OLED TV can produce a true black (no electric current equals no light, and it does not need to be primed the way plasma does), yet it can also be extremely bright, like an LCD.

I can write in big bold letters too!

Let me set you straight. OLEDs are capable of "infinite black" because they can completely turn off each individual pixel, but Samsung's QLED sets are BRIGHTER, have BETTER color, and the black levels of the Q9FN with 480 zones of active LED backlighting can come VERY close to the performance of the OLEDs in overall black level. WITHOUT having the drawbacks of OLED (phosphor wear over time and screen burn).

https://hdguru.com/review-samsung-qn65q9fn-offers-game-breaking-black-levels/

If you like OLED, great! But it's not necessarily the best option available now. At least not for everyone.

For me, the combination of active backlighting, quantum dot color, and FreeSync sold me on the Samsung. I also have a living room that isn't completely dark, so the QLED will work better in my space than an OLED anyway.

 

[Budwise]

Jeez, it's not that hard. When people ask me I just say "Bright room with lots of windows? QLED. Not a bright room or windows can be darkened? OLED." Saying OLED is only good in a completely dark room is just as assinine as saying QLED is only good if you live on the surface of the sun. They both look phenomenal in general viewing...

 

[polonyc2]

OLED technology has started to plateau in terms of performance as they are struggling to get to 1000 nits of peak brightness and 100% DCI/P3 color coverage...the future is quantum-dot OLED but who knows if that will ever get to market...

 

[dreamwriter]

Not quite. Quantum dots are a film over the LCD panel. Red and green quantum dots are used...the blue comes from blue (instead of white) LEDs. Think of it like a color filter. QUOTE]

You are right, jnemesh, and your post made me go back and read more about QLEDs.

The QLEDs themselves become the color filters, and are active rather than passive as in convemtional LCD.

The good thing about QLEDm as mentioned before, is that they don't suffer burn in, and the new metal sheath used by Samsung since 2017 slows their oxidation and aging,

 

[TripleAgent77]

Ok got ya. I may have been a wee bit underinformed on oled. But there is no need to scream in bold huge font at me. That's just rude brother.

Just pointing out the parts that matter. No malice intended.

 

[dreamwriter]

OLED technology has started to plateau in terms of performance as they are struggling to get to 1000 nits of peak brightness and 100% DCI/P3 color coverage...the future is quantum-dot OLED but who knows if that will ever get to market...

Just to correct terminoloy, the future may be emissive QLED with discrete self emitting QLEDs. The O in OLED stands for organic, whereas QLEDs are inorganic,

There is also MicroLed, which can have discrete emitting pixels, and the new kid on the block, OLET...Organic Light Emitting Transistors. The latter has potential because of advantages in fabrication. OLEDs are spray coated on the film used in displays, but you still need to integrate it with a switching mechanism. OLETS can be made in an active matrix configuration, so no additional switching layer needs to be made.

 

[haste.]

I can write in big bold letters too!

Let me set you straight. OLEDs are capable of "infinite black" because they can completely turn off each individual pixel, but Samsung's QLED sets are BRIGHTER, have BETTER color, and the black levels of the Q9FN with 480 zones of active LED backlighting can come VERY close to the performance of the OLEDs in overall black level. WITHOUT having the drawbacks of OLED (phosphor wear over time and screen burn).

https://hdguru.com/review-samsung-qn65q9fn-offers-game-breaking-black-levels/

If you like OLED, great! But it's not necessarily the best option available now. At least not for everyone.

For me, the combination of active backlighting, quantum dot color, and FreeSync sold me on the Samsung. I also have a living room that isn't completely dark, so the QLED will work better in my space than an OLED anyway.

I have both. OLED is in the home theater. The Sammy is amazing, but I found that OLED motion control is much closer to Plasma, feels more natural to me, than Samsung's solution. Don't get me wrong, both are fantastic, but after viewing for quite a while both me and my wife (who matters of course) decided to relegate the Sammy to the master bedroom. And yes I have a 65" with marantz slimline and surround in our master cause I'm a nerd.

The only thing I would disagree with is the better color comment. I'm not sure that it's truly better color, but more so that it is much brighter that makes the colors pop a lot more. I calibrate to more muted colors to give a natural look so it may just be my preference in how I calibrate, but it's definitely not an extreme difference. Again probably how I prefer my displays - natural vs. wow factor. If I put them both on the demo settings the Sammy will be much brighter and more vibrant than the LG, but no one should be watching anything on demo settings.

The other big reason that the LG is in the home theater is a scene in Stranger Things in which a flashlight was used against a pure black setting and the contrast with HDR to the "infinite black" literally hurt my eyes which the qled couldn't do - it sold me.

 

[tangoseal]

Ok no worries

Just pointing out the parts that matter. No malice intended.

 

[jnemesh]

The Samsung QLED is still considered LCD with QLED backlighting. An emissive QLED will have all the advantages of OLED.

The Forbes review I posted show the advances Samsung has made with blacl levels. But as a tradeoff, the contrasst of the QLED is greater because of its high brightness, and in certain instances where the scene has both bright and dark, the Samsung can produce better shadow detail.

But getting back to the thread's title, OLED will likely not be good for HDR over the long run. Burn in on an OLED is not due to a pixel being stuck, but rather due to the OLED degrading with high brightness and heat.

No such thing as "QLED" backlighting. Again, the quantum dots are placed in a FILM over the LCD panel. The backight is LED, specificially BLUE LEDs.

And there are always outlier scenes that look better on one set than another. With most content, shadow detail is actually BETTER on the Samsung. (assuming it's been properly calibrated)

 

[dreamwriter]

No such thing as "QLED" backlighting. Again, the quantum dots are placed in a FILM over the LCD panel. The backight is LED, specificially BLUE LEDs.

And there are always outlier scenes that look better on one set than another. With most content, shadow detail is actually BETTER on the Samsung. (assuming it's been properly calibrated)

I think this thread suffers from quantum time displacement. As I wrote earlier, you are entirely right about this, as the QLEDs are used as active filters rather than backlighting. I learned something new today.

 

[dreamwriter]

Yeah, I didn't want a base either for the very same reason. Would look stupid with a fixed soundbar on the wall when I have a 9.1.6 sound system in the room.

By the way, Oleds are capable 0f 0.00cd/m² (pure black), whereas the best plasma black level was 0.003cd/m² for the Panasonic ZT60. I doubt that anyone could humanly see the difference.

 

[jnemesh]

By the way, Oleds are capable 0f 0.00cd/m² (pure black), whereas the best plasma black level was 0.003cd/m² for the Panasonic ZT60. I doubt that anyone could humanly see the difference.

From the review link I posted earlier:
"Black levels were especially impressive. We measured 0.0061 nits of luminance measuring a target pattern of concentric circles of ever darkening shades of gray with a pure black center. We measured an OLED-matching 0 nits in the center of a black test pattern with 1% white windows in each corner of the screen."

 

[jnemesh]

I have both. OLED is in the home theater. The Sammy is amazing, but I found that OLED motion control is much closer to Plasma, feels more natural to me, than Samsung's solution. Don't get me wrong, both are fantastic, but after viewing for quite a while both me and my wife (who matters of course) decided to relegate the Sammy to the master bedroom. And yes I have a 65" with marantz slimline and surround in our master cause I'm a nerd.

The only thing I would disagree with is the better color comment. I'm not sure that it's truly better color, but more so that it is much brighter that makes the colors pop a lot more. I calibrate to more muted colors to give a natural look so it may just be my preference in how I calibrate, but it's definitely not an extreme difference. Again probably how I prefer my displays - natural vs. wow factor. If I put them both on the demo settings the Sammy will be much brighter and more vibrant than the LG, but no one should be watching anything on demo settings.

The other big reason that the LG is in the home theater is a scene in Stranger Things in which a flashlight was used against a pure black setting and the contrast with HDR to the "infinite black" literally hurt my eyes which the qled couldn't do - it sold me.

I always turn the motion BS completely off. I don't want the set trying to interpolate frames or "smoothing" the image. I want the image on the disc, displayed as accurately as possible. I turn off motion compensation, edge "enhancement", noise reduction, dynamic contrast...EVERYTHING. Essentially I run my set in "game mode" 100% of the time. That gives you the best results, even if you do see judder on horizontal pans in a 24fps movie...(that's how it was on FILM, that's how it should look on TV!)

 

[dreamwriter]

From the review link I posted earlier:
"Black levels were especially impressive. We measured 0.0061 nits of luminance measuring a target pattern of concentric circles of ever darkening shades of gray with a pure black center. We measured an OLED-matching 0 nits in the center of a black test pattern with 1% white windows in each corner of the screen."

Limitations and differencesin the test equipment would likely explain these micro-discrepancies.

Plasma did use a lot of energy, OLEDs much less, but still power consumers, and QLED the least.

 

[jnemesh]

Limitations and differencesin the test equipment would likely explain these micro-discrepancies.

Plasma did use a lot of energy, OLEDs much less, but still power consumers, and QLED the least.

Multiple reviews have all come up with similar black levels measured. And yes, LED uses MUCH less power than plasma or OLED. My point, though, was that black levels on the latest QLEDs are comparable to OLED. There are still PLENTY of fanboys out there who can't accept that (just read through the thread), but OLED isn't king of the roost any longer. They are nice sets, and no one is going to be disappointed owning one, but QLEDs have caught up and even surpassed OLED performance.

 

[haste.]

Yeah, I didn't want a base either for the very same reason. Would look stupid with a fixed soundbar on the wall when I have a 9.1.6 sound system in the room.

Nothing like 9.1.6, but I did an Atmos 5.2.2 setup which is pretty neat and more than sufficient! Do have an active uncontrolled sub in the center that brings out the low end for dialogue which I really like.

 

[haste.]

I always turn the motion BS completely off. I don't want the set trying to interpolate frames or "smoothing" the image. I want the image on the disc, displayed as accurately as possible. I turn off motion compensation, edge "enhancement", noise reduction, dynamic contrast...EVERYTHING. Essentially I run my set in "game mode" 100% of the time. That gives you the best results, even if you do see judder on horizontal pans in a 24fps movie...(that's how it was on FILM, that's how it should look on TV!)

I find the QLED to be choppy without any of the "advanced" settings active. I definitely shut down dynamic, judder, noise, etc. immediately, but did leave some of the smoothing features on very low and tweaked as necessary. OLED I didn't have to leave anything on was my point in that post. Was able to love the natural signal without any post proc and very happy with the PQ. I also am a low color, warm setting person for a natural look to my TVs, so it's a preference thing.

Edit: I have a UHD player on both TVs. Waiting for my wife to get home and the sun to set so I can fire up Blue Planet 2. I'll shut everything off on both and report back

 

[dreamwriter]

Multiple reviews have all come up with similar black levels measured. And yes, LED uses MUCH less power than plasma or OLED. My point, though, was that black levels on the latest QLEDs are comparable to OLED. There are still PLENTY of fanboys out there who can't accept that (just read through the thread), but OLED isn't king of the roost any longer. They are nice sets, and no one is going to be disappointed owning one, but QLEDs have caught up and even surpassed OLED performance.

The Forbes review of particular models would suggest that QLED is near but not at the full nullity that defines the OLEd's blacks. But its contrast is much greater, and in scenes which combine light and dark elements, the QLED can be capable of greater shadow detail, particularly with HDR. Until QLED is a emissive, I think OLED will have the advantage with blacks. QLED does have backlighting behind the Quantum dots, after all.

But QLED undoubtedly is more stable, more resistant to aging, and as you say (and I commented on earlier), much less energy consuming. With regard to the subject of this thread, it's hard to make an argument that anything is better than QLED for HDR.

 

[haste.]

The Forbes review of particular models would suggest that QLED is near but not at the full nullity that defines the OLEd's blacks. But its contrast is much greater, and in scenes which combine light and dark elements, the QLED can be capable of greater shadow detail, particularly with HDR. Until QLED is a emissive, I think OLED will have the advantage with blacks. QLED does have backlighting behind the Quantum dots, after all.

But QLED undoubtedly is more stable, more resistant to aging, and as you say (and I commented on earlier), much less energy consuming. With regard to the subject of this thread, it's hard to make an argument that anything is better than QLED for HDR.

and jnemesh - I have to ask, do either of you own both? Or more than demoed both? Or are you going off what you read on the internet? Just curious as both of you seem to be experts on these panels.

Full disclosure I have the first TV Samsung advertised as Quantum dot display and know that it's inevitable there have been advancements in the technology (input lag was a huge problem with the JS9500), but side by side with my OLED a lot of what you are saying doesn't match up to what I actually view. A MSRP $8k Samsung from 2 years ago still pumps out a pretty damn great picture today, destroyed the KS series from 2017 in every aspect, and now we have the Q9F as the champ. It looks like they solved the few quirks on the JS9500, especially input lag at 4k and ramping up the processor, but everything I'm reading is that the Q9F is identical to the JS9500 in black levels - it's the same tech (full array local dimming QLED).

Not trying to be malicious, just curious where you are getting your opinions from - reading or actually viewing?

Edit: I did just find a review that shows greater black uniformity on the Q9F but not by a great deal... again it's inevitable that 2 years of R&D in this market would result in somewhat better results.

 

[dreamwriter]

and jnemesh - I have to ask, do either of you own both? Or more than demoed both? Or are you going off what you read on the internet? Just curious as both of you seem to be experts on these panels.

Full disclosure I have the first TV Samsung advertised as Quantum dot display and know that it's inevitable there have been advancements in the technology (input lag was a huge problem with the JS9500), but side by side with my OLED a lot of what you are saying doesn't match up to what I actually view. A MSRP $8k Samsung from 2 years ago still pumps out a pretty damn great picture today, destroyed the KS series from 2017 in every aspect, and now we have the Q9F as the champ. It looks like they solved the few quirks on the JS9500, especially input lag at 4k and ramping up the processor, but everything I'm reading is that the Q9F is identical to the JS9500 in black levels - it's the same tech (full array local dimming QLED).

Not trying to be malicious, just curious where you are getting your opinions from - reading or actually viewing?

Edit: I did just find a review that shows greater black uniformity on the Q9F but not by a great deal... again it's inevitable that 2 years of R&D in this market would result in somewhat better results.

Viewing in stores. If I had the cash right now, and wanted a large screen HDR I would buy the Samsung QLED without hesitation. But my main points have to do with the stability and aging issues, which are not based on anything subjective. As an early proponent of OLED, it's clear to me that there are some real issues that have to do with the chemistry of OLEDs. Recemty I skim read a very technical article about how one of the more common substrate materials is prone to degradation.

Consumers need to depend not on the marketing materials of companies, because they are generall self serving. Companies want to sell things, and the trend towards products with limited lifespans has clearly replaced the old ethos of things being built to last. And of course there are always price.performance considerations. OLEDs were a major advance in PQ over anything that came before, but other technologies are not standing still. At the price they are selling at they are rational purchase, given the very fine PQ, but there are issues.

As I said, check out the very lon burn in and banding thread on AVS and you will see this is not a small issue. Samsung, it should be noted, is the largest producer of OLEDs, albeit for smaortphones (and probably RGB), and they are throwing their investment behind other technologies.

The very fact that OLEDs in HDR are limited at peak to 1000 nits should tell you something about their limitations in terms of how hard they can be driven to produce high brightness.

 

[haste.]

Viewing in stores. If I had the cash right now, and wanted a large screen HDR I would buy the Samsung QLED without hesitation. But my main points have to do with the stability and aging issues, which are not based on anything subjective. As an early proponent of OLED, it's clear that there are some real issues that have to do with the chemistry of OLEDs. Recemty I skim read a very technical article about how one of the more common substrate materials is prone to degradation.

Consumers need to depend not on the marketing materials of companies, because they are generall self serving. Companies want to sell things, and the trend towards products with limited lifespans has clearly replaced the old ethos of things being built to last. And of course there are always price.performance considerations. OLEDs were a major advance in PQ over anything that came before, but other technologies are not standing still. At the price they are selling at they are rational purchase, given the very fine PQ, but there are issues.

As I said, check out the burn in and banding thread on AVS and you will see this is not a small issue. Samsung, it should be noted, is the largest producer of OLEDs, albeit for smaortphones (and probably RGB), and they are throwing their investment behind other technologies.

The very fact that OLEDs in HDR are limited at peak to 1000 nits should tell you something about their limitations in terms of how hard they can be driven to produce high brightness.

I am aware of the degradation and other aspects of owning an OLED. I also don't plan to own it for more than 5 years. The brightness is fine in a dark room and when I am doing any "viewing" (not just background noise) it's at night in a perfect setting. I like QLED, but after 100s of hours of viewing both sets I prefer the OLED. Plasma had similar complaints and admittedly is dead now, but was by far the best viewing experience compared to LCD of the time. QLED is great, I have one, but OLED is better than the late 2016 iteration.

Also always remember that when you are in store demoing it's setup to demo settings. Generally in a bright setting. Settings that you will never use at home unless you like staring at the sun. It's not a great way to get a true perspective of the quality of the set. Here is a comparison between my last year OLED model to Samsung's current flagship Q series on rtings (who have never steered me wrong and I've been using their opinion for quite a while) - https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c7-vs-samsung-q9fn/421/599#usage*4854!threshold*0.1

Of course there are trade offs between the technologies, but the adamant blind criticism of OLED vs QLED is kinda silly. I will edit and say that when I compared the QLED to the OLED last night watching Blue Planet 2, the stutter is evident on the OLED. Not so much to bother me, but the QLED was smoother. It's the Plasma effect where there is no smoothing between frames and therefore you get stutter. QLED was silky. (read the comparison I linked lol)

 

[dreamwriter]

I have viewed these not in bright showrooms, and again, I am more concerned about degradation. You will probably know in three years or so...or maybe sooner...whether these displays lose brightness over time in line with expectation.

Out of curiosity, how long is the LG OLED warranty, and do they cover burn in?

 

[haste.]

I have viewed these not in bright showrooms, and again, I am more concerned about degradation. You will probably know in three years or so...or maybe sooner...whether these displays lose brightness over time in line with expectation.

Out of curiosity, how long is the LG OLED warranty, and do they cover burn in?

It's 1 year. and of course they will never cover burn in, but I've stated in this thread either me or my wife have been dumb and let the Yammy splash screen sit for many hours. Never had any burn in or even image retention. I had the first 3D Sammy Plasma flagship and after putting ESPN on for a FF draft had the ticker for around 3 days retained. Current OLED isn't even comparable.

I had a Sony OLED monitor over a decade ago and it was running in my moms office until I gave it to a friend maybe 5 years ago we she redid her house. I think the demise of OLED is being a bit over exaggerated...

 

[dreamwriter]

It's 1 year. and of course they will never cover burn in, but I've stated in this thread either me or my wife have been dumb and let the Yammy splash screen sit for many hours. Never had any burn in or even image retention. I had the first 3D Sammy Plasma flagship and after putting ESPN on for a FF draft had the ticker for around 3 days retained. Current OLED isn't even comparable.

I had a Sony OLED monitor over a decade ago and it was running in my moms office until I gave it to a friend maybe 5 years ago we she redid her house. I think the demise of OLED is being a bit over exaggerated...

I don't think we're talking about the demise of OLED, but on the AVS thread, which has over 2000 posts, there are a lot of people with burn in and banding. I also read that LG does not consider banding to be "ou of spec" and won't cover it. Are you a moderate or heavy user, and do you watch HDR?t

Here's a Samsung review from techradar which states that it delivers the best 4K HDR picture they've seen.

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-q9fn-qled-tv-qn65q9fn

The Achilles heel of QLED is viewing angle, where you need to stay with 30 degrees horizontally, wheres OLED has no viewing angles issues att. When QLED are fully emissive displays, they will match OLED's viewing angles...but not now.