• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

The LG C9 OLED TV- is it bright enough for HDR video and gaming?

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
2,796
161
1,270
31
So I am looking to buy a new TV. LG C9 comes up in many reviews as one of the best TVs right now. Its OLED and most video reviews will say they prefer its look.
BUT...its not bright enough it seems. Its only ~800 nits and I was looking for a TV with at least 1000 nits cause I read that HDR really pops up at 1000nits.
Also, it doesnt support HDR 10+, though it does support HDR 10 and Dolby vision. Will that be a big deal?

Which TV would you guys recommend in the same range, if not this one?
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
4,087
174
1,565
Unless you don't have these things called curtains in your room you don't need a sun flair for a tv. My oled is plenty bright for hdr content. Those saying you need a sun flair for a tv are probably trying to sell you a LCD who's big strength is blinding brightness. The oleds blacks levels viewing angles easily make up for the brightness which is overkill unless during the day with out curtains.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
So I am looking to buy a new TV. LG C9 comes up in many reviews as one of the best TVs right now. Its OLED and most video reviews will say they prefer its look.
BUT...its not bright enough it seems. Its only ~800 nits and I was looking for a TV with at least 1000 nits cause I read that HDR really pops up at 1000nits.
Also, it doesnt support HDR 10+, though it does support HDR 10 and Dolby vision. Will that be a big deal?

Which TV would you guys recommend in the same range, if not this one?
The LG C9 is the absolute best TV for gaming you can buy right now. Bar none. It has an outstanding pop, especially if you enable dynamic tone mapping.
While it's measurably and objectively lower peak brightness than Samung or Sonys top LED's, the contrast more than make up for it.
In fact, according to Vincent from HDTVtest, in independent studies, where the name and type of the TV is crossed out, the OLED is often selected as being the brighter TV due to it's excellent contrast, despite the fact that on a per nit level it is indeed lower.

The lower peak brightness pretty much means nothing and I seriously doubt that you will be anything but absolutely blown away by the TV.

In regards to HDR 10+, most TVs apply their own dynamic processing to regular HDR content and that largely compensates for the lack of HDR 10+. However, due to the lack of HDR10+ content, it's difficult to run head to head tests.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
Unless you don't have these things called curtains in your room you don't need a sun flair for a tv. My oled is plenty bright for hdr content. Those saying you need a sun flair for a tv are probably trying to sell you a LCD who's big strength is blinding brightness. The oleds blacks levels viewing angles easily make up for the brightness which is overkill unless during the day with out curtains.
Correct.
One huge weakness of of being so bright is that in dark scenes with bright highlights, the haloing from the local dimming begins to rear it's ugly head in a way that I no longer find watchable thanks to OLED.
 

Traxtech

Member
May 22, 2016
441
18
240
800nits on OLED will look brighter than a 1000nit LED due to the black levels usually.

If you're set on OLED i'd look for last years model, aka the B8/C8 series. Mainly because it does just about the same in terms of quality minus a few key features which you may not need.

C9 can do freesync, gsync, VRR, slightly lower input lag(you won't notice it if you're asking this question in the first place prolly) but goes down to a stupidly low 6ms or so in 1080/120hz if you plan on using a PC for it, 1440p/120hz native support, has HDMI 2.1.

In saying that, you could probably find a B8/C8 for stupidly cheap. If you want to be abit more future proof for whatever reason i would wait since it's near the end of the year i'd be waiting for a huge sale, and or for the next set of TV's to come out to the price on these bombs completely.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
800nits on OLED will look brighter than a 1000nit LED due to the black levels usually.

If you're set on OLED i'd look for last years model, aka the B8/C8 series. Mainly because it does just about the same in terms of quality minus a few key features which you may not need.

C9 can do freesync, gsync, VRR, slightly lower input lag(you won't notice it if you're asking this question in the first place prolly) but goes down to a stupidly low 6ms or so in 1080/120hz if you plan on using a PC for it, 1440p/120hz native support, has HDMI 2.1.

In saying that, you could probably find a B8/C8 for stupidly cheap. If you want to be abit more future proof for whatever reason i would wait since it's near the end of the year i'd be waiting for a huge sale, and or for the next set of TV's to come out to the price on these bombs completely.
Those TVs are largely sold out at this point and really with next gen around the corner, I'd say HDMI 2.1 is a pretty big deal for those who want the best gaming experience.

If the C9 was too much, it's damn near impossible to argue with the B9, which is now going for the record low- non-closeout price of $1199 and has support for HDMI 2.1, although it forgoes the alpha 9 processor, which has been pretty incredible in terms of upscaling and motion processing. My B7A's biggest weakness was the horrible motion stutter in 24 fps film content, with the new a9 processor, that has largely been eliminated.
 

n0razi

Member
May 1, 2014
4,523
380
465
C9 OLED has the image quality hands down... you dont even need to look at the details
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheBoss1

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
4,543
7,428
755
The LG C9 is one of the best, though from what I have gathered the LG B8 has taken its place.

Regardless, if you have the money it will be a TV that will last you a long time.
 
Last edited:

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
2,796
161
1,270
31
Unless you don't have these things called curtains in your room you don't need a sun flair for a tv. My oled is plenty bright for hdr content. Those saying you need a sun flair for a tv are probably trying to sell you a LCD who's big strength is blinding brightness. The oleds blacks levels viewing angles easily make up for the brightness which is overkill unless during the day with out curtains.
The LG C9 is the absolute best TV for gaming you can buy right now. Bar none. It has an outstanding pop, especially if you enable dynamic tone mapping.
While it's measurably and objectively lower peak brightness than Samung or Sonys top LED's, the contrast more than make up for it.
In fact, according to Vincent from HDTVtest, in independent studies, where the name and type of the TV is crossed out, the OLED is often selected as being the brighter TV due to it's excellent contrast, despite the fact that on a per nit level it is indeed lower.

The lower peak brightness pretty much means nothing and I seriously doubt that you will be anything but absolutely blown away by the TV.

In regards to HDR 10+, most TVs apply their own dynamic processing to regular HDR content and that largely compensates for the lack of HDR 10+. However, due to the lack of HDR10+ content, it's difficult to run head to head tests.
Thanks guys. Looks like the brightness and HDR 10+ support missing isnt that big an issue.
On a side note, what type of HDR does a PC and PS4 provide? Like if they provide HDR 10+, I wont really be able to get HDR on this TV?
 
Last edited:

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
I was looking at Rtings.com and comparing the B8, B9, C9....is the C9 really $1000 better than the B8?
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
4,087
174
1,565
Thanks guys. Looks like the brightness and HDR 10+ support missing isnt that big an issue.
On a side note, what type of HDR does a PC and PS4 provide? Like if they provide HDR 10+, I wont really be able to get HDR on this TV?
My ps4 comes up in hdr on my lg oled just fine. The trick was you have to enable it in the input. Also works on my xbox one x. I have last years with out hdmi 2.1. I plan to upgrade for next generation to get 2.1 and move the current oled to the bedroom or give to my dad. With vrr being supported by next generation consoles that is a must have for me.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
4,087
174
1,565
I was looking at Rtings.com and comparing the B8, B9, C9....is the C9 really $1000 better than the B8?
For me it would be because I think the vrr will be awesome for next generation consoles for the next 5-7 years I would have the tv. Smoothing out frame rate drops would be easily worth the money but that is me. If that feature and a few others don't interest you save the money. I think the newer has better processors also for motion resolution in certain situations.
 

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
2,796
161
1,270
31
Also, out of LG C9 and B8, which one will you recommend?
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,181
993
975
Ottawa, Canada
I have an LG C7 and I don't think I'd want more HDR brightness. When I play Destiny 2 (especially any activity on Mercury), it feels like I could be blinded while playing in any condition other than bright daylight.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Goff2k

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
4,087
174
1,565
Also, out of LG C9 and, which one will you recommend?
I always liked the C they always seemed like the best balance of price and performance. I thought you gave up little to much on the cheaper models when I got mine. The E was nice but the 1k up charge I did not feel was worth it. If you're going to keep the tv for a long time do a C or E for sure. Pay the extra for the better features imo since over half a decade it is not a lot more per year. Get the 65 inch I'm assuming the 77 is out of your price range. Your not going to regret the bigger tv. I have the 65 but would love the 77 but way out of my price range even if it look ridiculous in my small living room.
 
Last edited:

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
2,796
161
1,270
31
I always liked the C they always seemed like the best balance of price and performance. I thought you gave up little to much on the cheaper models when I got mine. The E was nice but the 1k up charge I did not feel was worth it. If you're going to keep the tv for a long time do a C or E for sure. Pay the extra for the better features imo since over half a decade it is not a lot more per year. Get the 65 inch I'm assuming the 77 is out of your price range. Your not going to regret the bigger tv. I have the 65 but would love the 77 but way out of my price range even if it look ridiculous in my small living room.
I will be mostly using the TV as a gaming PC monitor with PS5 when it comes out. So since I will be looking very close most of the times, I think 65inches might be too big. No?
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
I was looking at Rtings.com and comparing the B8, B9, C9....is the C9 really $1000 better than the B8?
Where the fuck are you seeing the B8 for $1000 less? Amazon shows it for $1000, while the C9 is $1500

It has HDMI 2.1, which is a big feature for next gen gamers, better motion processing and upscaling. Is that worth $500? Difficult to say.
Also, out of LG C9 and B8, which one will you recommend?
The C9 will be drastically more future proof than the B8. The B8 is great, don't me wrong and if you go with that TV you will get a great TV, but you will forgo features like VRR (huge for gaming), eARC and the possibility of playing 4K at up to 120 fps.

If you want the best OLED on the market, get the C9. I upgraded from a B7A and I have been very pleased with upgrade.

If you decide that the C9 is too expensive, then go with the B9, it's only marginally more expensive than the B8, but is many times more future proof.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TheBoss1 and Goff2k

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
4,087
174
1,565
I will be mostly using the TV as a gaming PC monitor with PS5 when it comes out. So since I will be looking very close most of the times, I think 65inches might be too big. No?
I'm about 6 feet away from my tv so I'm not exactly the person to ask. You get used to the size granted I'm not at desk viewing range.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
Thanks guys. Looks like the brightness and HDR 10+ support missing isnt that big an issue.
On a side note, what type of HDR does a PC and PS4 provide? Like if they provide HDR 10+, I wont really be able to get HDR on this TV?
No.
Anything that supports HDR10+ is required to support HDR10. The only real difference between the two is dynamic metadata, in which HDR10+ adjusts the brightness on a frame by frame basis, like Dolby VIsion. Sony, LG and Panasonic (for those who live outside the US) have their own motion/image processing that largely compensates the benefits of HDR10+

You're unlikely to miss HDR 10+

Plus, if you live in the US, you don't really have much choice as nothing currently supports all 3 standards. Samsung is firmly behind HDR 10+ while Sony, Vizio, LG, TCL and a few others support Dolby Vision, which is better than HDR10+

Only the Panasonic OLEDs in Europe support all 3.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheBoss1

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
13,857
2,133
1,975
Is it likely to go on sale for much less than £1,300 here in the U.K. anytime soon do you think?
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
I will be mostly using the TV as a gaming PC monitor with PS5 when it comes out. So since I will be looking very close most of the times, I think 65inches might be too big. No?
This settles it. If you plan to also use it as a gaming monitor then you're decision is made. Don't bother with a B8, too many features you will appreciate will be lost on the B8.

The C9 or the B9 is the TV to get. I'd opt for the C9, but its hard to argue with the savings of the B9 at 55"
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBoss1

kittoo

Cretinously credulous
Apr 11, 2007
2,796
161
1,270
31
This settles it. If you plan to also use it as a gaming monitor then you're decision is made. Don't bother with a B8, too many features you will appreciate will be lost on the B8.

The C9 or the B9 is the TV to get. I'd opt for the C9, but its hard to argue with the savings of the B9 at 55"
Thanks for the help man. Looks like I will be getting a C9 only then :)
 

Insane Metal

Member
Mar 11, 2006
21,777
3,395
1,715
Br
Brightness is just one part of the equation. Contrast is what really matters. And that's exactly what OLED achieves.

Unless you're going to be playing in a very bright room 99% of the time. Then you'd better get a very bright LED TV.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,608
3,908
720
Own 7 series OLED (not much changed in 8 series, but not sure about 9)

1) It's not true that it "looks brighter". If you have 2 TVs showing bright image, Samsufng's LED will look brighter a bit.
2) Mix in blacks and that is where the shit starts, oh wow, sold on OLEDs.


Burn in is a problem often called out with OLED tech, but there are other problems too.
E.g. they seem to struggle with grey (e.g. 5%):

Much worse cases here:

Still, I'm sold on the tech, MicroLED, batshit crazy expensive at the moment, is the only tech on the horizon at the moment that I'd switch to.
 
Last edited:

Rossco666

Neo Member
Jul 23, 2019
37
38
120
23
So I am looking to buy a new TV. LG C9 comes up in many reviews as one of the best TVs right now. Its OLED and most video reviews will say they prefer its look.
BUT...its not bright enough it seems. Its only ~800 nits and I was looking for a TV with at least 1000 nits cause I read that HDR really pops up at 1000nits.
Also, it doesnt support HDR 10+, though it does support HDR 10 and Dolby vision. Will that be a big deal?

Which TV would you guys recommend in the same range, if not this one?
yes it’s more than bright enough for gaming, picked up one recently and it’s perfect so far
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
16,410
1,939
1,410
I will be mostly using the TV as a gaming PC monitor with PS5 when it comes out. So since I will be looking very close most of the times, I think 65inches might be too big. No?
If you want to use the TV as a PC monitor then don't get an OLED, you're asking for a world of trouble in terms of burn in issues.

Go for a mid-high end Samsung Q series QLED panel. They have VRR freesync support, can do 120Hz at 1440p, ridiculously low input lag and are warranty guaranteed against burn in. I have a 55 inch Q70R that I use as my desktop monitor and it's been fantastic, both for productivity and gaming.

I also have an LG OLED that's in the living room and I actually prefer the colours on the Samsung QLED and overall have a better gaming experience on the Samsung. Deep blacks aren't everything, they are only part of the experience. I'd say that watching movies on the OLED is better though, so it depends on what you'll primarily be using the panel for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nemiroff and DanEON
Dec 14, 2008
32,813
813
1,080
You should be using an OLED in a dark room anyways, not only does it not get as bright as LCD but you really do not want to keep the OLED brightness too high to reduce the burn-in, especially when gaming because of HUD's and other static UI elements. Gaming on an OLED is no different from watching CNN or ESPN and burning the channel logo into your screen the entire time.

I personally didn't want to deal with the risk of burn-in when gaming so my TV is currently a Samsung 65Q7DR (Costco warehouse version of Q70R). It's a great gaming TV and it has very bright low-lag HDR for gaming, in addition to being a very effective and highly-rated TV for watching movies and sports.
 
Last edited:

Venuspower

Member
Sep 30, 2015
399
62
370
Germoney
If the C9 was too much, it's damn near impossible to argue with the B9, which is now going for the record low- non-closeout price of $1199 and has support for HDMI 2.1, although it forgoes the alpha 9 processor, which has been pretty incredible in terms of upscaling and motion processing.
You are missing one big flaw of the alpha 7 Gen 2:
It is not powerfull enough to handle 4K@120@HDR. Only 4K@120@SDR.
This has been confirmed by LG after FlatpanelsHD asked them.

SM90 is not equipped with LG's most advanced Alpha 9 processor like the OLED models but rather a second generation Alpha 7 that has less processing power (unlike Alpha 9, it cannot do 4K HDR at 120Hz) and fewer features. On the other hand Alpha 9's additional capabilities are typically found in those picture enhancement algorithms that we often prefer to deactivate so the less capable processor may not be a dealbreaker.


While this is a review for the SM90 both the SM90 and the B9 share the same processor. So yea.
The same counts for the B9 as well.

C9 can do freesync, gsync,
The C9 is only supports HDMI VRR.
While there is a FreeSync Implementation for HDMI it is not
the same as "HDMI VRR". Since the C9 does not support the "FreeSync implementation" FreeSync
can not be used with the C9.

The C9 also does not support "G-Sync". Sure, it is G-Sync Compatible. But that is because
NVIDIA decided to implement HDMI VRR to their Turing based GPUs. Okay, in the end this can be called G-Sync as well.
You a right. But at least in theory it is still different to "classic G-Sync".



Still, I'm sold on the tech, MicroLED, batshit crazy expensive at the moment, is the only tech on the horizon at the moment that I'd switch to.
MicroLED is not even on the horizon. :D Sure, if you are Bill Gates you are able to buy "The Wall Luxury" right now. But just to be fair.
MicroLED TVs won't be available for the massmarket for a really long time. Even Samsung knows that. If they were able to release release mLED to the "mass market" until ~2025 they would not have invested ~10 billion Dollars in their Quantum-dot-OLED production which is starting in 2021. Which means first QD-OLEDs can be expected at CES 2022. Replacing this investmet just ~3 years later with mLED would not be a good decision at all.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,608
3,908
720
MicroLED is not even on the horizon. :D Sure, if you are Bill Gates you are able to buy "The Wall Luxury" right now. But just to be fair.
MicroLED TVs won't be available for the massmarket for a really long time. Even Samsung knows that. If they were able to release release mLED to the "mass market" until ~2025 they would not have invested ~10 billion Dollars in their Quantum-dot-OLED production which is starting in 2021. Which means first QD-OLEDs can be expected at CES 2022. Replacing this investmet just ~3 years later with mLED would not be a good decision at all.
Welp, smallest MicroLED they presented costs 10k. Crazy price, but that's already a consumer product.
mLED might or might not launch in 2025, it would be too risky on Samsung not to continue upgrading its existing LED tech meanwhile.
 

Goff2k

Member
Jul 10, 2018
118
85
210
How convenient. I just started shopping around for a new TV a few days ago. Going to keep an eye on this thread.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
Welp, smallest MicroLED they presented costs 10k. Crazy price, but that's already a consumer product.
mLED might or might not launch in 2025, it would be too risky on Samsung not to continue upgrading its existing LED tech meanwhile.
Wrong! You're leaving out a lot of info with that $10K price. First it's actually $16K per panel. The part that you're ignoring (or not aware of) is the fact that each panel only has a resolution of 960 x 540, leaning you would need 4 panels to get 1080p and 16 to get 4K! Meaning to get 4K for MicroLED costs $256K. Sorry dude, but that isn't anywhere remotely close to consumer level. Not to mention you would need 146 inches of wall space for 4K, which someone who can afford that TV likely has.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but MicroLED isn't a consumer product.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,608
3,908
720
Sorry to burst your bubble, but MicroLED isn't a consumer product.
We are arguing about semantics at this point.
Something being much more expensive than other goods in that class doesn't make it "not a consumer product".
 

Venuspower

Member
Sep 30, 2015
399
62
370
Germoney
Meaning to get 4K for MicroLED costs $256K.
Even $256k is not enough. From what I know (thanks to a german youtube channel that did a video video about "The Wall Luxury") you have to spend around $500k for the 4K version:

German only, sorry:


We are arguing about semantics at this point.
Something being much more expensive than other goods in that class doesn't make it "not a consumer product".
Of course people like Bill Gates are consumers as well.
But I do not think that we should consider these people as a benchmark in that discussion.

Fact is that mLED is not just far away from the mass market.
We do not even know if it will be available at all for the masses at all.
Sure, price is one thing. Size is another thing. Power consumption once again another thing (e.g. the wall has a typical power consumption of 2500 W).
Also do not forget the famous WAF. Installation is not done in like 10 minutes. This will be another challenge.
At the moment there are way to much unknown variables.

Installing an mLED is really interesting by the way. No every wall is suitable for mLEDs. At the moment the installation process is not even "consumer friendly".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyFootball

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
Even $256k is not enough. From what I know (thanks to a german youtube channel that did a video video about "The Wall Luxury") you have to spend around $500k for the 4K version:

German only, sorry:




Of course people like Bill Gates are consumers as well.
But I do not think that we should consider these people as a benchmark in that discussion.

Fact is that mLED is not just far away from the mass market.
We do not even know if it will be available at all for the masses at all.
Sure, price is one thing. Size is another thing. Power consumption once again another thing (e.g. the wall has a typical power consumption of 2500 W).
Also do not forget the famous WAF. Installation is not done in like 10 minutes. This will be another challenge.
At the moment there are way to much unknown variables.

Installing an mLED is really interesting by the way. No every wall is suitable for mLEDs. At the moment the installation process is not even "consumer friendly".
In fact, the biggest challenge with MicroLED is getting down to small consumer level size.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
10,036
3,707
835
You are missing one big flaw of the alpha 7 Gen 2:
It is not powerfull enough to handle 4K@120@HDR. Only 4K@120@SDR.
This has been confirmed by LG after FlatpanelsHD asked them.

SM90 is not equipped with LG's most advanced Alpha 9 processor like the OLED models but rather a second generation Alpha 7 that has less processing power (unlike Alpha 9, it cannot do 4K HDR at 120Hz) and fewer features. On the other hand Alpha 9's additional capabilities are typically found in those picture enhancement algorithms that we often prefer to deactivate so the less capable processor may not be a dealbreaker.


While this is a review for the SM90 both the SM90 and the B9 share the same processor. So yea.
The same counts for the B9 as well.
Wow. I did not know this. It's interesting how this hasn't been brought up in other reviews such as Rtings.com
 

Jigsaah

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,772
1,932
475
Where the fuck are you seeing the B8 for $1000 less? Amazon shows it for $1000, while the C9 is $1500

It has HDMI 2.1, which is a big feature for next gen gamers, better motion processing and upscaling. Is that worth $500? Difficult to say.

The C9 will be drastically more future proof than the B8. The B8 is great, don't me wrong and if you go with that TV you will get a great TV, but you will forgo features like VRR (huge for gaming), eARC and the possibility of playing 4K at up to 120 fps.

If you want the best OLED on the market, get the C9. I upgraded from a B7A and I have been very pleased with upgrade.

If you decide that the C9 is too expensive, then go with the B9, it's only marginally more expensive than the B8, but is many times more future proof.
I saw the B8 for $800 on some offbrand site. It may have been refurbished. I didn't know the C9 was still on sale. I couldn't find it for that price. What is VRR?

Edit:
oh variable refresh rate. got it
 
Last edited:

Tygeezy

Member
Sep 28, 2018
799
762
405
The c9 has higher peak brightness than my 2018 q6fn qled in smaller windows and in "real scene". The lack of brightness in oleds is completely overblown. It only drops in brightness when a large window is at peak brightness which you are barely ever going to come across in real content. I've watched toy story 4 and hobbs and shaw on my c9 and the auto brightness limiter didn't kick in. I've also played rdr 2 in hdr and havne't had the abl kick in. If you want a tv that's great for movies and games, there shouldn't be another tv you are even considering. Not only does it have the best picture quality on the market(in comparison to lcd anyway) it also has the lowest input lag and is the only tv that supports HDMI 2.1 variable refresh rate and 4k 120 hz. AT 120 hz it's input lag rivals that of tn gaming monitors, only it destroys them in picture quality.
 

TheBoss1

Member
Jan 18, 2014
971
85
385
The only concerns about buying a modern OLED is price and burn-in risk. OLED is superior in every way except for brightness in HDR, and LG's OLEDs are actually brighter than most LCDs on the market. If you use your TV like how a bar does where it's on forever with static elements (channel logo, news ticker) playing the same content only, then you might want to consider.

Disclaimer: I own an LG E8 OLED and a Sony X900E. I love both.
 
Last edited:

TheBoss1

Member
Jan 18, 2014
971
85
385
It’s nice to see an OLED thread without bullshit.
The amount of stretching people do to justify their LCD purchase is mind boggling. I hate to sound like a fanboy but LCDs are just not in the same league as OLED for overall picture. Black levels, blooming, and viewing angles are the biggest discrepancies - especially black levels. All it takes is watching the TV at night with no other light source and you can see it's not black.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
13,857
2,133
1,975
The amount of stretching people do to justify their LCD purchase is mind boggling. I hate to sound like a fanboy but LCDs are just not in the same league as OLED for overall picture. Black levels, blooming, and viewing angles are the biggest discrepancies - especially black levels. All it takes is watching the TV at night with no other light source and you can see it's not black.
The only big downside is image persistence at low frame rates (like Blu-Ray’s 24p mode)... nothing some motion smoothing cannot fix of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBoss1