• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gaming has changed forever with OLED

Vick

Member
I'm sorry your stuck in the past with an inferior display and still watching DVDs.
Well, yes. I would not expect a blind consumer always ready to chase the next marketing gimmick and catchprases to understand, but there are people who still care about a natural, solid, organic looking picture which doesn't become SD everytime there's movement on screen. There are still people playing old gems with old consoles, still people watching movies never released beyond DVD, still people watching 1080p content of all sorts, still people enjoying 3D content, and still people who regards 99% of what's produced and put on HDR 4K discs as pure crap anyway..

Oled is objectively better in 99 percent of material. You know this.
And yet according to the comparison you posted yourself, not on 60fps content, not on Blu-Rays, not on SD content, not on dark scenes and not in general if you prefer a material organic picture vs a plasticky one.
But i guess you consider HDR 4K still frames 99% of material, so good for you.

Nobody youtuber is a nobody.
Just to be clear, i'm not that guy on Youtube so you can stop mentioning him and maybe start actually watching the videos instead.

Another one for you:



P.S. I'm also not 99% of AVSForum users, just to be even more clear.

But for the VAST majority of people and uses cases, you just need to recognize the world has moved on.
Yes, moved on to much cheaper and easier to build panels with inferior motion handling and viewing angle.
 
Last edited:
That is not a Kuro..



And what i should take from that comparison anyway, that the OLED is still losing in some categories?

I'm clearly not the one in need of education.



From the "nobody" measurements:

"I got the 3500$ MK350N Premium Spectro-Flicker meter and took some SPD readings
SPD from Pioneer KRP-500A and the Sony X950H compared.
Measurement from 100% white window on both

Basics here are:
The taller the spikes are the more intense the colors are
The more narrow the spikes are the more saturated the colors are (Less light leak)

RED color: almost the same intensity and saturation on both
With the Sony slight higher saturation for RED color

GREEN color: Higher intensity and saturation on the 500A

BLUE color: Higher intensity and saturation on the Sony

Mix these three and you got White

The C9 OLED is now sold so i cant take any measurements from one but they look the same.
Here is an typical SPD from an WRGB OLED

if you compare how colors are on this one when you know the above

RED: Low intensity and low saturation (no distinct spike)

GREEN: Same low saturation as RED but with higher intensity

BLUE: High Intensity and High saturation

But the overall distribution for RED GREEN and BLUE are completely off here
When only one color has that high intensity it changes the tone in the picture.

When the tv mix High intensity Blue with Low intensity GREEN and RED White will look more blueish. (even after calibration)

For the OLEDs its no surprise that they show an more Blueish Cold image compared to reference 6500K which is warmer.
The Dominating Blue Intensity is the problem.

The Kuros also have radiation/intensity at 700nm and also lower at 400-420nm
im not 100% sure how that effects Red color but my guess is that extra Red peak at 700nm makes Reds to look even more natural with more glow.
it probably also effects how skintones looks.

A light with an broader range of colors that covers a larger area will always look more natural.
New tvs today are so called Narrow bandwidth displays that covers a smaller part of the visible light spectrum.
all in all the Kuros have light that contains more colors compared to todays tvs.
one reason why White on an KURO still looks better than White on new tvs.

Its not strange that tvs today looks different when you see how different the Spectra Power Distributions are.
Yet the Plasma tvs and the CRT tvs are the reference here because of non existing metamerism.
Plasma tvs and CRTs looks the same for all observers while on todays tvs one tv can look correct to one person but not for another person.

info on how to minimize this problem

MK350N Premium Spectro-Flicker meter
https://www.uprtek.eu.com/products/uprtek-portable-spectro-flicker-meter-mk350n-premium"

"You always compare to reference otherwise you are lost in the pancakes.
Kuros and the 500M is still reference for SDR.
TVs today can only come close but they cant match them.
Poor LED light and Sample And Hold motion is what holds new tvs back.
Along with bad uniformity."
Plus bad viewing angles as you can see here from the C9.
Kuros picture is almost the same from any angle with no colortints or brightness drops."

"This is SDR. Nothing beats the picture from an tweaked KRP 500. The 500M has even sharper details and better motion."

Now would you mind providing something more than mere subjective sentences? Or that's all you can do?

P.S. Enjoy some KRP results:








Perhaps you could share your C1 ones?

Congrats a Krp elitist. The V60/Z60 and Kuro elites (professionally calibrated by the man, D Nice) with black level tweak are the ones I owned. No contest between them and even the older 1080p OLEDs. There's such a thing as subjective PQ and in all but the most torture test like material when some inferior early OLED were exposed (sometimes quite badly) the OLEDs just win.

You can keep clinging to the past, and in certain circumstances, there would be very little to actually challenge your conclusions. But for the VAST majority of people and uses cases, you just need to recognize the world has moved on.
 
Well, yes. I would not expect a blind consumer always ready to chase the next marketing gimmick and catchprases to understand, but there are people who still care about a natural, solid, organic looking picture which doesn't become SD everytime there's movement on screen. There are still people playing old gems with old consoles, still people watching movies never released beyond DVD, still people watching 1080p content of all sorts, still people enjoying 3D content, and still people who regards 99% of what's produced and put on HDR 4K discs as pure crap anyway..


And yet according to the comparison you posted yourself, not on 60fps content, not on Blu-Rays, not on SD content, not on dark scenes and not in general if you prefer a material organic picture vs a plasticky one.
But i guess you consider HDR 4K still frames 99% of material, so good for you.


Just to be clear, i'm not that guy on Youtube so you can stop mentioning him and maybe start actually watching the videos instead.

Another one for you:



P.S. I'm also not 99% of AVSForum users, just to be even more clear.


Yes, moved on to much cheaper and easier to build panels with inferior motion handling and viewing angle.

Lmao, so expensive, hard to build technology is inherently superior? There's a reason they never made a 4k plasma or consumer CRTs much bigger than 40 inches The viewing angles on OLED are a literal non-issue. A 77 inch OLED makes the argument irrelevant anyway when the only Pioneer with blacks close to it was a 50 inch *rare* MONITOR.
 

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
I mean to be fair a black screen in a black room is hardly, you know, a damming indictment of the tech lolll

I've been playing mgs3 on mine, amazing my xss can't emulate it smoothly but my vita bosses the hd version

The Vita was great for the time. Especially after the PSP launched with screens that were often littered with dead pixels.
 

EekTheKat

Member
Personal experience regarding burn in and my first OLED -

Much like new buyers into OLED I spent a couple years with it on a really conservative screen setting out of pure fear of burn in. So much so that it compromised the image quality so much that I might as well have gotten a regular VA panel and not run it with terrible settings.

4 years later, I'm now looking to replace that set with one with a more modern feature set - potentially one that could double as a monitor with VRR.

That relatively expensive OLED from back then would have spent half it's time with me with the worst settings possible out of fear of burn in.

Enjoy it, use it like a regular person and it should last for quite a while and you'll get more out of it than someone like me who was obsessed with extending it's lifetime at all costs.
 
Last edited:

Vick

Member
Lmao, so expensive, hard to build technology is inherently superior? There's a reason they never made a 4k plasma


The reason is what i said it is: infinitely more expensive and resource-heavy to produce.
And also heavy af, not as thin as LEDs and much more power hungry.

Not sure what's there to argue, the fact the industry is stuck on a LG monopoly of cheaper panels with inferior motion handling and viewing angle as the only alternative to LCDs should be considered a mere fact.
 

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
Lmao, so expensive, hard to build technology is inherently superior? There's a reason they never made a 4k plasma or consumer CRTs much bigger than 40 inches The viewing angles on OLED are a literal non-issue. A 77 inch OLED makes the argument irrelevant anyway when the only Pioneer with blacks close to it was a 50 inch *rare* MONITOR.

Power draw (regulations like Energy Star) and heft/weight (those 34" non-curved WEGAs were like 200lbs) are why Plasma and CRT were obsoleted.
 
Last edited:

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
Additional note on OLED burn in is that today due to the use of mitigation strategies such as ABL and screen refreshers it takes longer for it to emerge. It's NOT a non issue as many would like you to believe but these days it takes much longer before it will become visible, the aging of the pixels are cumulative of how hard and long they've been driven and will eventually show up but it could take years depending on usage but eventually the pixel refresher won't be able to restore the image fully. If you use varied content the wear will be more evenly distributed and less noticeable.

Anecdotal and all buy my 2017 E-Series (taken in Oct 2018):
 
Just the major ones. It's simple economics.

I mean, companies aren't in the business of losing money. It's an inferior technology in the current market of bright, HDR capable large screen 4k televisions. My VT60 was already quite dim in a well lit room. In order to make a 4k plasma that is even as bright (read: dim) as that, it would've been a considerable engineering feet. I don't want that in my living room these days anyway. There will always have a use case where the technology can shine (in my basement, as second or third tv). Even there it's more than arguably inferior than OLED.
 

Tschumi

Member
The Vita was great for the time. Especially after the PSP launched with screens that were often littered with dead pixels.
i'm in love with my vita, i'm under no illusions i've had a switch in the past, the vita is dated now, but jesus i just get so much value out of jailbreaking it, i seriously can hardly decide if i prefer it or my XSS. The only thing I think I could improve upon it would with be vita TV, buuuut yeah the XSS just about renders vita TV obsolete, finally

i'm so happy to have a vita, i bought a hard case and a screen wipe, a 64 GB memory card AND SD2Vita, just because lol... used to have a vita 2000 too but i just had to pull the trigger on one of them and i'm in love with the weight and 'hardness' of the 1000
 

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
I mean, companies aren't in the business of losing money. It's an inferior technology in the current market of bright, HDR capable large screen 4k televisions. My VT60 was already quite dim in a well lit room. In order to make a 4k plasma that is even as bright (read: dim) as that, it would've been a considerable engineering feet. I don't want that in my living room these days anyway. There will always have a use case where the technology can shine (in my basement, as second or third tv). Even there it's more than arguably inferior than OLED.

The inferior technology has little to do with it being obsoleted. Even in the alternative universe that plasma was wildly successful, if countries still adapted more aggressive regulations around power consumption that's going to limit your market. Bulk/Weight is more than just shipping costs as it has a knock-on effect (showroom floor space, living room space, (go look at single family homes produced in the late 90s/early 200s and you'll see cubby space above fireplaces meant to handle the heft of older CRTs and people certainly prefer the freedom of not arranging their living rooms around a massive entertainment center), cubicle space in offices). Superior technology doesn't always win out.

I'm not dogging OLED, it's beautiful. I'm hesitant to trust it again based on my experience. I still appreciate my 34" WEGA and Kuro more. They felt more like a premium experience and certainly lasted a hell of a lot longer.
 
Last edited:

ParaSeoul

Member
As someone who owns a few high end CRT's......OLED's are 'cute' better than crappy 99% of IPS monitors before OLED starts degrading that is. A few high end VA panels have amazing black levels and are just a grade below OLED without the weaknesses like burn-in. My OLED has black blotches but still looks nice shame about the weakness to oxygen. I wish SED was a thing we got robbed!

Also "HDTVTEST settings" ? there are better choices like actual professionals(QTV) who are also youtubers who give honest opinions and not shills for tv companies....HDTVtest's tv of the year (among other things) lets me know I cannot take that dude seriously

OLED isn't perfect but deserves better than HDTVTEST
Looking at some these replies and this one I can't even tell if this a joke
 

01011001

Member
Every time you go to a black loading screen:


it wasn't even that bad for me. I had a few lines and of course the slight glow.

it simply was not a good screen. the LED Vita 2000 is superior imo. and I don't really get why people love that Vita 1000 screen so much... even now people can't stop gushing about it. all it had really going for it was the popping colors, but like, that is also not really that amazing, some games look way too saturated on that thing
 
Last edited:

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
it wasn't even that bad for me. I had a few lines and of course the slight glow.

it simply was not a good screen. the LED Vita 2000 is superior imo. and I don't really get why people love that Vita 1000 screen so much... even now people can't stop gushing about it

Mine was about that bad. I never tried out the LED Vita.
 

ParaSeoul

Member
I had an OLED Vita from 2014-2017,didn't notice any screen issues but then again I only played like 5 games on that thing tops
 

01011001

Member
Mine was about that bad. I never tried out the LED Vita.

it's a typical LCD screen of the time. not crazy good but a good LCD screen. no weird blotches when the screen is black, no weird rice paper effect on solid colors, bright, more energy efficient... it was just better because it did not have any glaring issues
 

DavidGzz

Member
Hmmm, this is hyperbolic imo. I've had a CX since they released and I can easily go from a monitor to a cheap Hi Sense tv without much thought. Games look better on my OLED but nothing drastic.
 

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
Hmmm, this is hyperbolic imo. I've had a CX since they released and I can easily go from a monitor to a cheap Hi Sense tv without much thought. Games look better on my OLED but nothing drastic.

It's probably a time and place type of thing. I'll always have found memories of playing MGS2 on a 34" XBR VEGA or playing Planet Earth on my Kuro.
 

01011001

Member
Hmmm, this is hyperbolic imo. I've had a CX since they released and I can easily go from a monitor to a cheap Hi Sense tv without much thought. Games look better on my OLED but nothing drastic.

I also never got that big wow effect tbh. I play on a friend's LG C9 a lot (every time we hang out at his place basically) but even tho I the pure black in dark scenes is really nice, I feel like a lot of people really overstate how great OLED is.

the best OLED feature for me is honestly the fast pixel response time more than anything. the colors on a Quandtum Dot LCD TV are also extremely intense, plus they get WAY brighter than any OLED.

so the benefits for OLED are quick pixel response and dark blacks. Quantum Dot LCD TVs on the other hand have the higher peak brightness. in terms of colours I really think OLED and good LCDs are basically on par at this point, unless you want super unnatural overly saturated colours, then I guess OLED is better, but who wants that?
 
Last edited:

Coolwhhip

Neophyte
As long as you didn't buy them before 2020...

I'm trying to get 2 2019 OLED tvs fixed now because of ruined panels. The shop repair said €800 repair for each... Now trying LG.
 

rofif

Member
As long as you didn't buy them before 2020...

I'm trying to get 2 2019 OLED tvs fixed now because of ruined panels. The shop repair said €800 repair for each... Now trying LG.
because there is no repair. Just panel replacement.
If my c1 survives 2-3 years, I am fine with that if it's a price for the quality.
That said - I will get c2 probably anyway :p
 
Last edited:

Bramble

Member
I've been on the OLED train since 2017 with an LG 65 inch B7. I got it as a replacement for a faulty Sony 9005H, but I have to admit I was never really happy with it. B7 lacks dynamic tone mapping and gets pretty dim in game mode. I also experienced pretty nasty burn in after about 3 years. For the past couple of months I've been reading reviews and a few weeks back I looked at some models in a nearby store and no matter how much I like a bright picture, no LED tv matches the infinite contrast of an OLED.

So I went on and got in contact with LG. I got a quote for fixing the screen and got in contact with the shop I got it from. They decided to pay for the repair or I could get it as discount on a new screen. Say that again. :)

So I got myself a brand new LG 65 inch G1 that's been rocking my living room since last Monday and it's been absolutely magnificent. This is one of the brighter OLED currently available and the new more energy efficient Evo panel also reduces the chances of burn in. Input lag is superior to most tv's and my PS5 games look day and night different.

And I have to add to that: Vincent Teoh is a cool dude and all, but I wouldn't take his settings as gospel. He suggests using HGiG for HDR gaming, but that looks just like my old B7. Absolutely dark without any pop. I'm just using DTM instead. He also suggests not to force HDR within the PS5 settings and uses Fortninte as an example for a non-HDR game, but it looks like a completely other game. I absolutely don't care about the "creator's intent" when the picture just looks like shit. I need that pop and color. It's my tv, my settings.

The other site has a cool thread with calibrated LG OLED settings, if you're interested.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
I mostly used the HDTVTEST settings aside from using warm 10 instead of warm 50 because I'd rather have less accurate colors instead of everything being orange.
Also, as recommended to me by someone else here, if you are using the built in speakers I've found the "cinemema" settings sounds nicer than the game mode one
Your eyes get used pretty fast to warm 50 and nothing is gonna look orange after a while.
 

ParaSeoul

Member
I've been on the OLED train since 2017 with an LG 65 inch B7. I got it as a replacement for a faulty Sony 9005H, but I have to admit I was never really happy with it. B7 lacks dynamic tone mapping and gets pretty dim in game mode. I also experienced pretty nasty burn in after about 3 years. For the past couple of months I've been reading reviews and a few weeks back I looked at some models in a nearby store and no matter how much I like a bright picture, no LED tv matches the infinite contrast of an OLED.

So I went on and got in contact with LG. I got a quote for fixing the screen and got in contact with the shop I got it from. They decided to pay for the repair or I could get it as discount on a new screen. Say that again. :)

So I got myself a brand new LG 65 inch G1 that's been rocking my living room since last Monday and it's been absolutely magnificent. This is one of the brighter OLED currently available and the new more energy efficient Evo panel also reduces the chances of burn in. Input lag is superior to most tv's and my PS5 games look day and night different.

And I have to add to that: Vincent Teoh is a cool dude and all, but I wouldn't take his settings as gospel. He suggests using HGiG for HDR gaming, but that looks just like my old B7. Absolutely dark without any pop. I'm just using DTM instead. He also suggests not to force HDR within the PS5 settings and uses Fortninte as an example for a non-HDR game, but it looks like a completely other game. I absolutely don't care about the "creator's intent" when the picture just looks like shit. I need that pop and color. It's my tv, my settings.

The other site has a cool thread with calibrated LG OLED settings, if you're interested.
Most SDR games forced to HDR don't look good at all
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Oleds are okay, 2022 models with hopefully perfectly working vrr are gonna be even more ok.
 
Last edited:

b0uncyfr0

Member
As a long-time 1080p TV LCD user, I can concur. But it ain't perfect.

VRR is still relatively new and hasn't been implemented properly or uniformly.

OLEDs also need to get brighter (esp for hdr). The first LG/Samsung OLED to break 1000 nits will be a banger for sure.
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
Man you really are a special one, are you?

It means dark scenes are better, DVDs look better, Blu-Ray's (which are all 24p) look better, 60fps looks better, organic look vs a plasticky electronic one..

Well enjoy your TV, and keep acting like a child i guess.
I'll give you DVDs, it's the only one where one could argue that plasma is better (but still not universally better). Everything else is wrong though.

The low brightness alone kills the plasma.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Although I don’t have an oled, the lack of inverse ghosting is a plus for me. I got a Samsung qled last year and the ghosting at 120hz is nasty. I meant to change it, but I am still uncertain about an oled because of burn in, and the fact that my kids have roblox and other games playing with huds galore.

I don’t know what to do at the moment
 

ParaSeoul

Member
Although I don’t have an oled, the lack of inverse ghosting is a plus for me. I got a Samsung qled last year and the ghosting at 120hz is nasty. I meant to change it, but I am still uncertain about an oled because of burn in, and the fact that my kids have roblox and other games playing with huds galore.

I don’t know what to do at the moment
Depends on how long they play,theres a logo brightness adjustment setting that you could turn up to high if you had one
 
Went from a Pana Plasma to a Sony OLED. The Old beats it in most aspects. The plasma had a trail to it, like motion blur almost, that made 24p content feel more fluid. But it was also more smear. Euro Football for example was a no go in it, the ball was not round but elongated. But who knows how I would rate the plasma now that I have set up my Old and got comfortable with it.

Hope that thing lasts half as long as my Pana Plasma, that thing is a tank.
 

Filben

Member
Having an OLED (LGBX9 with 55 inch) only for half a year because I don't spend more than 1000 EUR on any TV. But this is the best TV I've ever owned.

What I find best is not even the HDR but image homogeneity. The colours and brightness levels are great no matter the angle. No artefacts, no colour-incorrect veil/smugde even in the worst scenarios (like a one-colour background, e. g. PlayStation OS), it just looks perfect.
 

Vick

Member
I'll give you DVDs, it's the only one where one could argue that plasma is better (but still not universally better). Everything else is wrong though.
I guess no better motion resolution (1080 vs 300) then, no better near black perfomances, and no one could possibly prefer a material, analog phosphor image over the OLED pasticky one (due to OLED being literally plastic, perhaps).

The low brightness alone kills the plasma.
197cd/m2 (with better microcontrast than every OLED i've ever seen) makes you squint your eyes in pain during a movie in a treated environment.

It's so obvious most people here never saw a KRP in person.




And the already posted comparisons..




Imagine complaining about images with on/off 94,000:1 contrast ratio..

35 nits full field,imagine.
 
Last edited:

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
I guess no better motion resolution (1080 vs 300) then
Nah. IFC and BFI solve that problem.
, no better near black perfomances,
Nah. Shadows are often overly bright on plasma.
and no one could possibly prefer a material, analog phosphor image over the OLED pasticky one (due to OLED being literally plastic, perhaps).
This must be some kind of weird placebo thing since I have no clue what you're talking about.
197cd/m2 (with better microcontrast than every OLED i've ever seen) makes you squint your eyes in pain during a movie in a treated environment.
What? No. Unless you have super sensitive eyes. Also 197 cd/m² sounds like a best case scenario. They rapidly lose brightness over the years. Unless you're in a pitch black room, plasmas are borderline useless.
 
Top Bottom