Support NeoGAF

[HeisenbergFX4]

You seem like a teenager. I'll just leave it at that.


"I bought an OLED and put it by a window. This thing sucks!" cmon bro lol understand what youre purchasing next time

Not what I said, reading comprehension please.

 

[JeloSWE]

So you have NEVER owned an OLED, but here you are, writing paragraphs about how you have to "baby" them.

Sit this one out bro. Maybe sit everyone out when you come from a place of ignorance. Crazy you're going this hard based off rando shit you've read online. Whats funny is if you weren't picking and choosing solely to hate it seems? there are a lot of youtube vids that back up what im saying about burn in being a very very overblown worry.

I've only stated the facts, I'm in no way saying that it's a high risk of getting burn in with normal usage. I've repeatedly stated that having static element on screen for an extended amount of time, you will eventually get burn in. If burn in wasn't an issue, the manufacturers wouldn't put pixel cleaner or ABL on the OLEDs. The manufacturers have to artificially limit the brightness of the OLEDs to minimize the risk of burn in. You can even look at the Rtings recent big ongoing burn in test and see that it indeed happens in 2023.

 

[Macaron]

Not what I said, reading comprehension please.

Literally said the amount of light coming into your house effects the tv and you refuse to get curtains for daytime use so just use it at night. No reading comprehension here bud, take your dickhead attitude and choose your words more wisely if something is miscommunicated. Cause its on your end.

 

[Macaron]

I've only stated the facts, I'm in no way saying that it's a high risk of getting burn in with normal usage. I've repeatedly stated that having static element on screen for an extended amount of time, you will eventually get burn in. If burn in wasn't an issue, the manufacturers wouldn't put pixel cleaner or ABL on the OLEDs. The manufacturers have to artificially limit the brightness of the OLEDs to minimize the risk of burn in. You can even look at the Rtings recent big ongoing burn in test and see that it indeed happens in 2023.

Why do you argue so vehemently despite never having owned a OLED?

 

[kingwingin]

OLED is out of my price range. Hopefully nanorod makes an appearance in the next few years, I’ll save up for that.

 

[CrashNBurn_281]

OLED here. LG CX since 2020. Really cannot go back to LCD.

 

[JeloSWE]

Why do you argue so vehemently despite never having owned a OLED?

It's not like I haven't seen OLEDs in my life. Owning one doesn't make me an authority on it, neither does it make you one either. Despite the tech having an mazing picture, it's also important to highlight the potential drawback in the sea of almost blind OLED worship. If it's any consolation, I'm eagerly awaiting the day I can jump to self emissive tech but it has to be brighter, without dimming algorithms and near zero risk of burn in for it be be viable for my use case.

 

[CAPSOL]

Owned a 77"LG OLED since 2020. I play tons of games for long sessions. Never "broke it in" or babied it and the TV is still good as new =)

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

QD-OLED or OLED with MLA are the best options.

Personally, I would go for an LG G3 or C3.

OLED are the best tech for gaming not only because of the inky blacks and contrast, but also for the fantastic pixel response and g2g performance.

 

[CAPSOL]

OLED here. LG CX since 2020. Really cannot go back to LCD.

Same here. Pricey but worth every penny

 

[Macaron]

It's not like I haven't seen OLEDs in my life. Owning one doesn't make me an authority on it, neither does it make you one either. Despite the tech having an mazing picture, it's also important to highlight the potential drawback in the sea of almost blind OLED worship. If it's any consolation, I'm eagerly awaiting the day I can jump to self emissive tech but it has to be brighter, without dimming algorithms and near zero risk of burn in for it be be viable for my use case.

Bro, what does seeing an OLED matter when you are arguing vehemently about the "babying" you have to do if you own one?

I think its just really, really weird you are so argumentative and sure of your stance when you haven't even owned a OLED ever.

 

[Games of Today]

OLED for gaming, movies in darker environments.

QLED for bright living rooms.

 

[MadchesterManc]

Picked up a Philips OLED last year, was reduced at Currys as it was the previous years model (806) and the latest was about to drop (807). Would have had no issue getting an LCD instead so long as it was Philips (for Ambilight) as the Panasonic I had for several years before was great with some bias lighting to help black levels with HDR. Luckily the 806 dropped into my price range so I jumped on it, decent jump in features going from HDMI 2.0 to 2.1 too, but I was sold on the TV when getting home and firing up Dune in Dolby Vision for movie night. I'll probably stick with OLED until micro-LED so we can get a decent bump in dimming zones to at least get close enough to the way OLED works.

OLED for gaming, movies in darker environments.

QLED for bright living rooms.

Pretty much, just choose what's best for you. I don't get all the bickering on GAF over TV's myself

 

[iQuasarLV]

Got a surprise bonus in my paycheck and pulled the trigger on a LG C248, and omfg!

*Edit
Just some additional comments.
1: With the price of GPUs well over $800 for any significant upgrade it was high time to make a proper TV upgrade purchase and not just limp along with entry level budget models.
2: JeloSWE concerning that Rtings update on burn in, who in their right mind would watch CNN on an accumulated 16 hours a day for one year (simulated) timeline. Beyond that, who would sit in front of their TV for 16 hours a day on any average? That is what their update says; after 4 months totaling about 1 year of use with 16 hour schedules the first signs of burn-in are showing. That is a torture test! It will not happen to 97% of the owners in the world. Aside from that they are projecting a 10 year lifespan for TV and I have to ask, who holds onto their TV for 10 years this day-and-age?

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Just ascended to the OLED gang last week with a Samsung S95B. Really happy with it so far.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

Answer is always OLED.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

10 yrs ago! Vizio wasn't know for being a good brand back then, they were just cheap brand that got better sure. I should know I also still have Vizio that was 240hz bought same year but it's not the same as the Sony 3D 240hz.

my last experience with vizio (few years ago) was when HDR mode developed a pink tint, and vizio support said "yeah, that's supposed to happen".

went to corporate and got a refund.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

MadchesterManc

I also got the 806 OLED. Nothing is better than an OLED with ambilight.

 

[JeloSWE]

2: JeloSWE concerning that Rtings update on burn in, who in their right mind would watch CNN on an accumulated 16 hours a day for one year (simulated) timeline. Beyond that, who would sit in front of their TV for 16 hours a day on any average? That is what their update says; after 4 months totaling about 1 year of use with 16 hour schedules the first signs of burn-in are showing. That is a torture test! It will not happen to 97% of the owners in the world. Aside from that they are projecting a 10 year lifespan for TV and I have to ask, who holds onto their TV for 10 years this day-and-age?

This is true for the majority of users as you say. But I do sit around 8 to 16h a day in front of the TV and a lot of the time is working with a visible taskbar and mostly the same programs and UI. And when not working I also use Windows for other tasks and again the taskbar is visible a lot of the time. So it's relatively safe to say my taskbar is visible roughly 10-12h a day and the windows and other UI is occupying roughly the same locations. And I usually upgrade my TV every 3-5 years. So an OLED would most likely burn in my taskbar and other UI elements. Using an OLED as a monitor is a risky business that would require precautionary steps.

My biggest pet peeve with OLED isn't so much burn in it self, it's that the risk of it makes the manufacturers limit the light output. This is frustrating as even at 2000 nit I feel highlight are missing some of the impact even higher nits would bring. Every time I've seen OLEDs I'm always thinking they look so dim when displaying HDR.

 

[Macaron]

This is true for the majority of users as you say. But I do sit around 8 to 16h a day in front of the TV and a lot of the time is working with a visible taskbar and mostly the same programs and UI. And when not working I also use Windows for other tasks and again the taskbar is visible a lot of the time. So it's relatively safe to say my taskbar is visible roughly 10-12h a day and the windows and other UI is occupying roughly the same locations. And I usually upgrade my TV every 3-5 years. So an OLED would most likely burn in my taskbar and other UI elements. Using an OLED as a monitor is a risky business that would require precautionary steps.

My biggest pet peeve with OLED isn't so much burn in it self, it's that the risk of it makes the manufacturers limit the light output. This is frustrating as even at 2000 nit I feel highlight are missing some of the impact even higher nits would bring. Every time I've seen OLEDs I'm always thinking they look so dim when displaying HDR.

So we went from "you have to baby OLEDs", something you said despite never owning one, to "oh yeah its just me when I run a static image 8h a day everyday"

And of course despite this admission, you still tried to find flaws, again despite never owning an OLED, in your last few sentences. I dont get you bruh, why are you even in this thread? lol

 

[JeloSWE]

So we went from "you have to baby OLEDs", something you said despite never owning one, to "oh yeah its just me when I run a static image 8h a day everyday"

And of course despite this admission, you still tried to find flaws, again despite never owning an OLED, in your last few sentences. I dont get you bruh, why are you even in this thread? lol

You are obviously a OLED fan, a little much so even. Why are you in here defending it this vehemently. Just acknowledge OLEDs flaws and we are good.

Also. I'm in this thread because it literally says, to OLED or not to OLED.

 

[keefged4]

You bought a dim TV. Its so dim that our Mini LEDs in SDR mode get brighter than that TV does in HDR. And no, I don't want black out blinds to make up for a TV being dim.

Have you ever seen an OLED? There is times I need to turn the brightness down on my C1 as it can be blinding. And I am in a fairly well-lit room. Calling OLED's "dim" hahaha wut

 

[Macaron]

You are obviously a OLED fan, a little much so even. Why are you in here defending it this vehemently. Just acknowledge OLEDs flaws and we are good.

Also. I'm in this thread because it literally says, to OLED or not to OLED.

Yes i'm an OLED fan. Considering I have owned one for awhile, I think I belong in here, considering its a OLED discussion.....

But you're in here, never owned one, just blabbering nonsense. Some of which you're already backtracking once someone else joined in calling you out. I'm genuinely just curious whats the point of you being active in this thread? You've never owned one, already had to backtrack on your "have to baby OLED" statement, don't you have other threads you can be in where you can speak from a place of less ignorance than you're doing in here?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Have you ever seen an OLED? There is times I need to turn the brightness down on my C1 as it can be blinding. And I am in a fairly well-lit room. Calling OLED's "dim" hahaha wut

Anyone that knows anything about TVs know OLEDs are on the dim side.

Look at even the run down for the C2 from Rtings

The best mid-range TV we've tested is the LG C2 OLED. It's a premium TV that delivers stunning picture quality, especially in dark rooms; thanks to its near-infinite contrast ratio, there's no blooming around bright objects. It looks fantastic in dark rooms, whether you're watching movies or gaming. It gets bright enough to fight glare even in moderately-lit rooms, and the reflection handling is incredible, but it doesn't use quantum dot technology, so colors aren't as bright as the Samsung S95B OLED or the Samsung QN90B QLED.

It's an excellent TV for watching various content because it doesn't have issues upscaling lower-resolution content, from DVDs to native 4k content. Its built-in webOS system is also easy to use if you stream your favorite shows and movies. It's best suited for a dim or dark room, so if you're looking for a mid-range TV with better brightness to overcome glare, the QN90B is a great alternative.

I have owned the C9 since they launched and tried a 42" C2 on my desk for awhile and currently have the LG 45" 240Hz OLED monitor on my desk so I know what OLEDS can and can not do

If an OLED works great for you in your setting thats great but they are in fact a dim TV

 

[Macaron]

Anyone that knows anything about TVs know OLEDs are on the dim side.

Look at even the run down for the C2 from Rtings

The best mid-range TV we've tested is the LG C2 OLED. It's a premium TV that delivers stunning picture quality, especially in dark rooms; thanks to its near-infinite contrast ratio, there's no blooming around bright objects. It looks fantastic in dark rooms, whether you're watching movies or gaming. It gets bright enough to fight glare even in moderately-lit rooms, and the reflection handling is incredible, but it doesn't use quantum dot technology, so colors aren't as bright as the Samsung S95B OLED or the Samsung QN90B QLED.

It's an excellent TV for watching various content because it doesn't have issues upscaling lower-resolution content, from DVDs to native 4k content. Its built-in webOS system is also easy to use if you stream your favorite shows and movies. It's best suited for a dim or dark room, so if you're looking for a mid-range TV with better brightness to overcome glare, the QN90B is a great alternative.

I have owned the C9 since they launched and tried a 42" C2 on my desk for awhile and currently have the LG 45" 240Hz OLED monitor on my desk so I know what OLEDS can and can not do

If an OLED works great for you in your setting thats great but they are in fact a dim TV

I am far from broke and can promise you for my setting my C9 OLED does not get near bright enough with the amount of light streaming into my house

Anyone who owns a OLED also knows not to put it in a spot where light from a window is gonna hit it hard

I mean, you put your problem in bold yourself. What you perceive as "dimness" is what helps achieve perfect blacks which makes the color more vibrant than any other type of tv/monitor.

 

[ANDS]

I mean, I'm a luddite on a lot of this stuff and often buy cheap because I can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference between the OLED I have (LGC2) and the old TV (TCL 6 series which is I guess not a TERRIBLE TV). Absolutely not cheap and not even close to worth getting if you don't invest in other bells and whistles to go along with it given that there are good budget alternatives.

. . .but for sure there is no reality in which I would call this TV "dim" - I'm literally looking at it with a full on no-cloud day barring through the downstairs windows and the thing is bright as shit.

 

[keefged4]

Anyone that knows anything about TVs know OLEDs are on the dim side.

Look at even the run down for the C2 from Rtings

The best mid-range TV we've tested is the LG C2 OLED. It's a premium TV that delivers stunning picture quality, especially in dark rooms; thanks to its near-infinite contrast ratio, there's no blooming around bright objects. It looks fantastic in dark rooms, whether you're watching movies or gaming. It gets bright enough to fight glare even in moderately-lit rooms, and the reflection handling is incredible, but it doesn't use quantum dot technology, so colors aren't as bright as the Samsung S95B OLED or the Samsung QN90B QLED.

It's an excellent TV for watching various content because it doesn't have issues upscaling lower-resolution content, from DVDs to native 4k content. Its built-in webOS system is also easy to use if you stream your favorite shows and movies. It's best suited for a dim or dark room, so if you're looking for a mid-range TV with better brightness to overcome glare, the QN90B is a great alternative.

I have owned the C9 since they launched and tried a 42" C2 on my desk for awhile and currently have the LG 45" 240Hz OLED monitor on my desk so I know what OLEDS can and can not do

If an OLED works great for you in your setting thats great but they are in fact a dim TV

How bright do you want a display to be? I'll take infinite contrast over looking directly at the surface of the sun anyday

 

[Madjako]

OLED Sony A1 since 2017 and never bored about it. Still surprises me everyday !!

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Anyone who owns a OLED also knows not to put it in a spot where light from a window is gonna hit it hard

I mean, you put your problem in bold yourself. What you perceive as "dimness" is what helps achieve perfect blacks which makes the color more vibrant than any other type of tv/monitor.

I mean around 160 nits in 100% window of the C2 vs 650 nits of the QN90B is not "perceived" as you call it its actually measured.

How bright do you want a display to be? I'll take infinite contrast over looking directly at the surface of the sun anyday

Lets start with around 4000 nits and see where we go from there.

 

[Macaron]

I mean around 160 nits in 100% window of the C2 vs 650 nits of the QN90B is not "perceived" as you call it its actually measured.


Lets start with around 4000 nits and see where we go from there.

lol. You're aware the OLED produces perfect blacks which other TVs do not right?

https://ultravisionledsolutions.com/blogs/news/what-are-nits-1#:~:text=To get the best picture,usually around 100-300 nits.

Heres an article to educate yourself, and maybe help you understand there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to nits in order to achieve vibrant colors and deep blacks.

If you literally only care about brightness, then sure, keep talking about nits like the higher the number the better

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

lol. You're aware the OLED produces perfect blacks which other TVs do not right?

https://ultravisionledsolutions.com/blogs/news/what-are-nits-1#:~:text=To get the best picture,usually around 100-300 nits.

Heres an article to educate yourself, and maybe help you understand there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to nits in order to achieve vibrant colors and deep blacks.

If you literally only care about brightness, then sure, keep talking about nits like the higher the number the better

I don't mind if you love your OLED and under the right circumstances I do as well but how did we switch from peak brightness to perfect blacks?

I never disputed OLEDs don't have perfect blacks I have said all along they don't get bright enough

Please try to follow along

Anyhow we have both said our peace and I am done beating this dead horse with you

 

[Macaron]

I don't mind if you love your OLED and under the right circumstances I do as well but how did we switch from peak brightness to perfect blacks?

I never disputed OLEDs don't have perfect blacks I have said all along they don't get bright enough

Please try to follow along

Anyhow we have both said our peace and I am done beating this dead horse with you

Because you do not seem to understand the "dimness" is from the OLED's ability to achieve perfect blacks, and you have this ignorance about nits as if the higher the number the better. You literally said "lets start around 4000 nits" when talking about ideal brightness

I linked you an article to educate yourself if you wish to be smarter about what you're talking.

 

[THE DUCK]

I have both Oled and mini LED, both are very good. Generally prefer the picture on the OLED. LG for speed and response, more 120hz inputs, or Sony for most of the same but with better picture IQ. Both are amazing.
Samsung may have some compelling Oled's this year.......

 

[Mister Wolf]

Have you ever seen an OLED? There is times I need to turn the brightness down on my C1 as it can be blinding. And I am in a fairly well-lit room. Calling OLED's "dim" hahaha wut

You must have poor eyesight. I've owned two OLEDs. They're dim. My current TV(QN90A) produces over 1000 Nits while viewing SDR content. The C1 is measured at 302 Nits. Big difference.

 

[keefged4]

You must have poor eyesight. I've owned two OLEDs. They're dim. My current TV produces over 1000 Nits while viewing SDR content. The C1 is measured at 302 Nits. Big difference.

That's very nice. I'll take my apparent 302 nits with perfect blacks and near infinite contrast over your holier than thou sanctimonious attitude any day.

 

[JeloSWE]

Because you do not seem to understand the "dimness" is from the OLED's ability to achieve perfect blacks, and you have this ignorance about nits as if the higher the number the better. You literally said "lets start around 4000 nits" when talking about ideal brightness

I linked you an article to educate yourself if you wish to be smarter about what you're talking.

It's always fun to argue on forums but you come of as a smug, condescending and actually not well educated on the subject yourself by laughing at, 4000 nit. The official HDR standard, FYI is designed with a maximum of 10.000 nit in mind. While it's a lofty goal that is technically challenging for a consumer TV it's far below what your eyes are used to outside on a regular day. Sony built a concept one that could do this and showed it of at a CES a couple of years back and people seeing it said the brightness was not painful and the experience was like looking through a real window. Things just looked so right and real.

Here are some number for you:

"The ambient brightness of a sunny day with clear blue skies is between 7000-10,000 nits (between 3000-7000 nits for overcast skies and indirect sunlight).
A bright sunny day can have specular highlights that reach over 100,000 nits. Direct sunlight is around 1,600,000,000 nits.
10,000 nits is also the typical brightness of a fluorescent tube - bright, but not painful to look at.
So I'm pretty sure you are not going to go blind watching a bright TV screen.

Also, bear in mind that those maximum nit values usually only apply to "specular highlights" (small areas of the screen) and are only present in some scenes not all - the overall brightness level of the entire movie will still be around 100-120 nits. This means that the APL (Average Picture Level) of an HDR movie will not be significantly different than for an SDR movie."

-King Richard (AVSForum)

---

Secondly, perfect blacks and dimness is not related, OLEDs are simply dimmer than a good LED TV.

 

[Zathalus]

Because you do not seem to understand the "dimness" is from the OLED's ability to achieve perfect blacks, and you have this ignorance about nits as if the higher the number the better. You literally said "lets start around 4000 nits" when talking about ideal brightness

I linked you an article to educate yourself if you wish to be smarter about what you're talking.

Higher nits are better when having a display in a room that is very bright or near direct sunlight. In that case the perfect blacks of a OLED is not going to mean much. I'd rather have OLED in a dim room or at night, but if a room was bright (say a entertainment lounge that is used for daytime viewing) then a very bright LCD (mini LED of course) will likely be superior.

My lounge is terrible for OLED during the day for this exact reason, but I went with OLED for it simply because I don't really use the TV during the day. But not everyone is me.

 

[Hardensoul]

my last experience with vizio (few years ago) was when HDR mode developed a pink tint, and vizio support said "yeah, that's supposed to happen".

went to corporate and got a refund.

I'm surprised both my TVs still working 13 yrs later. Especially the Vizio but I did have to get new remote 3 yrs in.

 

[Vasto]

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

You must have poor eyesight. I've owned two OLEDs. They're dim. My current TV produces over 1000 Nits while viewing SDR content. The C1 is measured at 302 Nits. Big difference.

It's always fun to argue on forums but you come of as a smug, condescending and actually not well educated on the subject yourself by laughing at, 4000 nit. The official HDR standard, FYI is designed with a maximum of 10.000 nit in mind. While it's a lofty goal that is technically challenging for a consumer TV it's far below what your eyes are used to outside on a regular day. Sony built a concept one that could do this and showed it of at a CES a couple of years back and people seeing it said the brightness was not painful and the experience was like looking through a real window. Things just looked so right and real.

Here are some number for you:

"The ambient brightness of a sunny day with clear blue skies is between 7000-10,000 nits (between 3000-7000 nits for overcast skies and indirect sunlight).
A bright sunny day can have specular highlights that reach over 100,000 nits. Direct sunlight is around 1,600,000,000 nits.
10,000 nits is also the typical brightness of a fluorescent tube - bright, but not painful to look at.
So I'm pretty sure you are not going to go blind watching a bright TV screen.

Also, bear in mind that those maximum nit values usually only apply to "specular highlights" (small areas of the screen) and are only present in some scenes not all - the overall brightness level of the entire movie will still be around 100-120 nits. This means that the APL (Average Picture Level) of an HDR movie will not be significantly different than for an SDR movie."

-King Richard (AVSForum)

---

Secondly, perfect blacks and dimness is not related, OLEDs are simply dimmer than a good LED TV.

Higher nits are better when having a display in a room that is very bright or near direct sunlight. In that case the perfect blacks of a OLED is not going to mean much. I'd rather have OLED in a dim room or at night, but if a room was bright (say a entertainment lounge that is used for daytime viewing) then a very bright LCD (mini LED of course) will likely be superior.

My lounge is terrible for OLED during the day for this exact reason, but I went with OLED for it simply because I don't really use the TV during the day. But not everyone is me.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

Because you do not seem to understand the "dimness" is from the OLED's ability to achieve perfect blacks, and you have this ignorance about nits as if the higher the number the better.

peak brightness is a known issue with OLEDs.
even in dark rooms, it has negative impacts, esp. with HDR content and scenes with a lot of bright imagery.
peak brightness issues have nothing to do with OLED perfect blacks (i.e., being able to turn off pixels).

you put an OLED next to a $10k mastering monitor, and you say "yup, the OLED isnt bright enough".

manufacturers know this and are trying to make OLEDs with higher peak brightness.

that said, LCD NEVER AGAINNNNNN

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

I'm surprised both my TVs still working 13 yrs later. Especially the Vizio but I did have to get new remote 3 yrs in.

13 years is a long time! tv tech has matured and evolved a lot in the last 10 years or so.

grab an OLED on sale if you can (or even a modern LED LCD... just be careful about which one you choose).
it'll be a substantial upgrade.

 

[MadchesterManc]

peak brightness is a known issue with OLEDs.
even in dark rooms, it has negative impacts, esp. with HDR content and scenes with a lot of bright imagery.
peak brightness issues have nothing to do with OLED perfect blacks (i.e., being able to turn off pixels).

you put an OLED next to a $10k mastering monitor, and you say "yup, the OLED isnt bright enough".

manufacturers know this and are trying to make OLEDs with higher peak brightness.

that said, LCD NEVER AGAINNNNNN

The issue with the HDR discussion these days is that its all about brightness, yet if you pick up an UHD Blu-ray it mentions 3 things: Deeper blacks, Brighter whites & Wide colour. Irrespective of the panel type you buy, you're only getting 2/3 of those so everyone is getting a compromised HDR experience in some way. Micro LED is said to be the holy grail as it really combines the best of both so this constant bickering on GAF over TV's is kinda moot, but that's some way off still I guess

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Miniled is the future. Don't listen to these OLED cultists when your TV has burn in damage they won't send you money to buy a new one.

 

[Macaron]

It's always fun to argue on forums but you come of as a smug, condescending and actually not well educated on the subject yourself by laughing at, 4000 nit. The official HDR standard, FYI is designed with a maximum of 10.000 nit in mind. While it's a lofty goal that is technically challenging for a consumer TV it's far below what your eyes are used to outside on a regular day. Sony built a concept one that could do this and showed it of at a CES a couple of years back and people seeing it said the brightness was not painful and the experience was like looking through a real window. Things just looked so right and real.

Here are some number for you:

"The ambient brightness of a sunny day with clear blue skies is between 7000-10,000 nits (between 3000-7000 nits for overcast skies and indirect sunlight).
A bright sunny day can have specular highlights that reach over 100,000 nits. Direct sunlight is around 1,600,000,000 nits.
10,000 nits is also the typical brightness of a fluorescent tube - bright, but not painful to look at.
So I'm pretty sure you are not going to go blind watching a bright TV screen.

Also, bear in mind that those maximum nit values usually only apply to "specular highlights" (small areas of the screen) and are only present in some scenes not all - the overall brightness level of the entire movie will still be around 100-120 nits. This means that the APL (Average Picture Level) of an HDR movie will not be significantly different than for an SDR movie."

-King Richard (AVSForum)

---

Secondly, perfect blacks and dimness is not related, OLEDs are simply dimmer than a good LED TV.

You linked me to a forum post from 2017 by same random guy

I linked you an actual article on how it works dude. If you wanna keep being argumentative and dumb, so be it

 

[Macaron]

Higher nits are better when having a display in a room that is very bright or near direct sunlight. In that case the perfect blacks of a OLED is not going to mean much. I'd rather have OLED in a dim room or at night, but if a room was bright (say a entertainment lounge that is used for daytime viewing) then a very bright LCD (mini LED of course) will likely be superior.

My lounge is terrible for OLED during the day for this exact reason, but I went with OLED for it simply because I don't really use the TV during the day. But not everyone is me.

The perfect blacks is the exact reason why a OLED reflects worse/works best in a dark room. There is nothing "superior" about LED except the fact the reflection is not as bad. Thats it. Nits literally mean nothing but pure brightness and the higher the number does not = better unless you're a complete donce like previous guy.

If you are someone with OLED complaining about these things, why would you not look into it beforehand? Its not secret knowledge. I dont get it, yet heres this other fool talking about how he needs 4000 nits cause windows near oled = bad, no shit lol

peak brightness is a known issue with OLEDs.
even in dark rooms, it has negative impacts, esp. with HDR content and scenes with a lot of bright imagery.
peak brightness issues have nothing to do with OLED perfect blacks (i.e., being able to turn off pixels).

you put an OLED next to a $10k mastering monitor, and you say "yup, the OLED isnt bright enough".

manufacturers know this and are trying to make OLEDs with higher peak brightness.

that said, LCD NEVER AGAINNNNNN

I should add context the OLEDs I have had are either very small (15 inch laptop) or very big (78 inch tv). Besides the donce "my OLED is by a window this sucks" complaint, maybe I could see the perfect blacks feeling "less bright" on a mid size monitor? Idk, its not that I dont completely get what youre saying, you literally can't achieve color vibrancy and perfect blacks if OLEDs had nit count like other tvs, I just can't see a reason to turn it to a complaint. My TV is better than a movie theatre.

 

[JeloSWE]

You linked me to a forum post from 2017 by same random guy

I linked you an actual article on how it works dude. If you wanna keep being argumentative and dumb, so be it

Doesn't make the facts any less relevant the same way Newton discovered the laws of motion over 300 years ago. Your immature condescension makes it pointless to argue this issue any further with you.

Have a good day kiddo.

 

[Banjo64]

I’ve only got an Oled phone and Switch but it is so obviously the superior panel type it’s not even a contest. LCD just has too many issues, with backlight bleed being the most unforgivable.

 

[Macaron]

Doesn't make the facts any less relevant the same way Newton discovered the laws of motion over 300 years ago. Your immature condescension makes it pointless to argue this issue any further with you.

Have a good day kiddo.

Dude. What facts? The facts from rando forum poster from 2017? You're actually defending that as a source?! lmaooooo oh man

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Buy OLED. Best TVs available.