• 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.

To OLED, or not to OLED

What type of TV is your main TV?

  • OLED

    Votes: 470 71.4%
  • LCD

    Votes: 118 17.9%
  • Something else

    Votes: 45 6.8%
  • I don't own a TV, just a computer monitor

    Votes: 25 3.8%

  • Total voters
    658

Topher

Gold Member
A look at the Gigabyte FO32U2P with DP 2.1



I replaced my Gigabyte LCD monitor with the LG C3. It was a good monitor, but not the best firmware. Built in KVM barely ever worked. Sometimes the monitor wouldn't come back on from sleep unless I unplugged it and plugged it back in. Picture was great though. Hopefully Gigabyte has worked that type of stuff out in their newer models.
 
I had to sell my old LG 4K OLED long time ago, but I still miss it.

Playing some games on it in HDR was almost if you were looking through a window in stead of a screen.

Horizon Zero Dawn, Last of Us p2 and GT Sport looked incredible on it.
Sigh. 💔
 
Last edited:

dEvAnGeL

Member
I bought a G4 and somehow the colors are not as good as my CX. I made sure no color enhancement are on the CX. And still the color look less “full” and more “flat”. I have to turn color up to almost 70 on the G4 to match the CX on 55. First time i am second guessing an OLED purchase.
 

Tomi

Member
I still think brightness is not so good on those new oled screens
Can someone tell me i am wrong?
Or show me some hdr 1k peak brightness
 

Bojji

Member
I bought a G4 and somehow the colors are not as good as my CX. I made sure no color enhancement are on the CX. And still the color look less “full” and more “flat”. I have to turn color up to almost 70 on the G4 to match the CX on 55. First time i am second guessing an OLED purchase.

You are probably used to over saturated colors. Correct settings are:

color - 50 (55 for game mode)
color space - auto
all color enchantments - off
White Balance - Warm 50

I used my B2 for months with oversaturated colors. When i finally wanted accuracy it took me some time to adjust and now I don't want anything other than that.

You can try to set "native" color space, in non HDR mode it will use full gamut of tv vs correct 8 bit on auto (it will be oversaturated but it may look better to your eyes).

I still think brightness is not so good on those new oled screens
Can someone tell me i am wrong?
Or show me some hdr 1k peak brightness

I love how we all used tv and monitors capable of (max) 300 nits for decades and now OLED capable of 1000 or 1500 nits peak brightness is "dim".

Sun didn't become more bright since early 2000 and somehow we were able to use old dim LCDs back then. Weird shit, it's almost like companies selling high nit panels (that use tech sites and youtubers to market them) changed people minds about it...

conspiracy-charlie-day.gif
 
Last edited:
You are probably used to over saturated colors. Correct settings are:

color - 50 (55 for game mode)
color space - auto
all color enchantments - off
White Balance - Warm 50

I used my B2 for months with oversaturated colors. When i finally wanted accuracy it took me some time to adjust and now I don't want anything other than that.

You can try to set "native" color space, in non HDR mode it will use full gamut of tv vs correct 8 bit on auto (it will be oversaturated but it may look better to your eyes).



I love how we all used tv and monitors capable of (max) 300 nits for decades and now OLED capable of 1000 or 1500 nits peak brightness is "dim".

Sun didn't become more bright since early 2000 and somehow we were able to use old dim LCDs back then. Weird shit, it's almost like companies selling high nit panels (that use tech sites and youtubers to market them) changed people minds about it...

conspiracy-charlie-day.gif
I think what people notice is the ABL. OLEDs can get impressive 1000 nits for some smaller windows, but larger windows will only reach 200 nits. IMO 400nits OLED with little ABL (and preferably no ABL at all) like Alienware AW3225QF is bright enough to my eyes even during the day. The same monitor with HDR1000 look dimer, because ABL is way more agressive (it will preserve some smaller 1000 nits highlights but dim bigger windows).
 

Bojji

Member
I think what people notice is the ABL. OLEDs can get impressive 1000 nits for some smaller windows, but larger windows will only reach 200 nits. IMO 400nits OLED with little ABL (and preferably no ABL at all) like Alienware AW3225QF is bright enough to my eyes even during the day. The same monitor with HDR1000 look dimer, because ABL is way more agressive (it will preserve some smaller 1000 nits highlights but dim bigger windows).

That can be a factor too but really aggressive ABL only applies where there is 75% and up brightness on screen. Majority of scenes are a mix of SDR brightness (below 100 nits) and few bright highlights, scenes with shit ton of brightness (like Matrix white room) are rarity.

I'm interested in screens tech since 2007 and most of the time people were talking about: resolution, input lag, pixel refresh time, contrast, colors and panel type (VA, TN, IPS etc.) - later refresh rate became very important (and VRR like tech). Brightness most of the time wasn't even mentioned and rarely I have seen any complaints about not being able to see screen in lit rooms, this shit is new. I remember that I used like half the brightness on most of my screens for years and many tech experts recommended low values for backlight (or even zero) for screen calibration.

Now screens below 1000 nits are unusable for some people.
 
That can be a factor too but really aggressive ABL only applies where there is 75% and up brightness on screen. Majority of scenes are a mix of SDR brightness (below 100 nits) and few bright highlights, scenes with shit ton of brightness (like Matrix white room) are rarity.

I'm interested in screens tech since 2007 and most of the time people were talking about: resolution, input lag, pixel refresh time, contrast, colors and panel type (VA, TN, IPS etc.) - later refresh rate became very important (and VRR like tech). Brightness most of the time wasn't even mentioned and rarely I have seen any complaints about not being able to see screen in lit rooms, this shit is new. I remember that I used like half the brightness on most of my screens for years and many tech experts recommended low values for backlight (or even zero) for screen calibration.

Now screens below 1000 nits are unusable for some people.
I had a plasma in 2007 and even then ABL was a real problem. My latest GT60 plasma has less aggressive ABL, but I still thought it's picture was a bit too dim, at least at mid panel brightness settings (at high panel brightness settings this tv was bright, but crushed shadow details).

I don't think ABL was an issue with CRTs, at least I don't recall any discussions about it in the early 2000s or even the late 90s. I was perfectly happy with the brightness of my CRTs. I still have my old 21" CRT and it's brighter than even my 400 nits LCD. I wonder how many nits it has :p.
 

Meicyn

Gold Member
I love how we all used tv and monitors capable of (max) 300 nits for decades and now OLED capable of 1000 or 1500 nits peak brightness is "dim".

Sun didn't become more bright since early 2000 and somehow we were able to use old dim LCDs back then. Weird shit, it's almost like companies selling high nit panels (that use tech sites and youtubers to market them) changed people minds about it...
You’re smarter than this. We were able to use dim LCDs back then because that was what was available and better stuff wasn’t there yet. We were also “fine” with SDR for decades, I guess pursuing more range with HDR was just purely a marketing gimmick? Or is having more dynamic range an actual benefit? For a PC gamer and tech enthusiast, it is surprising to see you use an anti-progress argument.

Tech is always advancing. The Division 2 is a six year old game, but it was surprisingly forward thinking with content graded up to 3000 nits. There is heavy usage of bright lighting in various colors and with my Bravia 9, I finally got to see what the game is really supposed to look like all this time. It’s quite revelatory. Same thing with Dragon’s Dogma 2, having screen wide explosions and flashes is a common occurrence. Being able to see an intended result is a benefit to the end user, no matter how much you keep trying to downplay it.
 

Bojji

Member
I had a plasma in 2007 and even then ABL was a real problem. My latest GT60 plasma has less aggressive ABL, but I still thought it's picture was a bit too dim, at least at mid panel brightness settings (at high panel brightness settings this tv was bright, but crushed shadow details).

I don't think ABL was an issue with CRTs, at least I don't recall any discussions about it in the early 2000s or even the late 90s. I was perfectly happy with the brightness of my CRTs. I still have my old 21" CRT and it's brighter than even my 400 nits LCD. I wonder how many nits it has :p.

From what I had seen on the internet high end CRTs were 220 nits top. My mom has 350 nits Toshiba VA panel and it looks very good in bright room (i was there today) so really, we don't need super bright screens to comfortably watch SDR content.

You’re smarter than this. We were able to use dim LCDs back then because that was what was available and better stuff wasn’t there yet. We were also “fine” with SDR for decades, I guess pursuing more range with HDR was just purely a marketing gimmick? Or is having more dynamic range an actual benefit? For a PC gamer and tech enthusiast, it is surprising to see you use an anti-progress argument.

Tech is always advancing. The Division 2 is a six year old game, but it was surprisingly forward thinking with content graded up to 3000 nits. There is heavy usage of bright lighting in various colors and with my Bravia 9, I finally got to see what the game is really supposed to look like all this time. It’s quite revelatory. Same thing with Dragon’s Dogma 2, having screen wide explosions and flashes is a common occurrence. Being able to see an intended result is a benefit to the end user, no matter how much you keep trying to downplay it.

I'm not against progress at all (maybe 8k), HDR is GREAT - when game developers use it properly it can look mind blowing and way above what SDR is able to do. But HDR is not only brightness it also expands color pallete from Rec709 to BT2020 (but sadly most games don't appear to use it very well).

What I'm saying is that brightness is not the most important factor when it comes to screen quality but majority of comments (on youtube, other tech forums and here) are almost laser focuses only on panel brightness. 2000 nit shit LCD is not better than 800 nits good quality OLED - that's for sure (high quality LCDs are great).

TV manufacturers are focused on making the brightest panels, this is their game right now (like 3D and 8K before) and their marketing influence a lot of people to think that screen has to be able to do 1000 nits full brightness or it's total shit otherwise.

OLED can show pixel size full bright highlights on totally black background, this is what High Dynamic Range is all about:

 
Last edited:
I still think brightness is not so good on those new oled screens
Can someone tell me i am wrong?
Or show me some hdr 1k peak brightness
My Sony A95K easily shows that it reaches 1000 nits peak in games (via in-game calibration screens). It is a 2022 model. The current models of all brands exceed this.

Most games up until this past year were designed for a max of 800-1000 peak, as shown by their calibration screens. We are now seeing calibrations of up to 4000 nits, but I'm not sure if the game engines are actually outputting that, or just tone mapping up to that.

My LG C1 reaches almost 800 in my personal measurements. I mainly use it for older games in SDR. SDR brightness is ridiculous and I have to set it to half just to get it down to around 120 nits full screen brightness (aka not need sunglasses indoors).
 
Last edited:
OLED is the way to go if you have the budget. Have both an LG CX and C1 and had zero issues.
IMHO, everyone dedicated enough to gaming to be posting on this forum has the budget for an OLED, unless you are literally poor. You can get the prior year's LG C-series for $800-1000 USD if you wait until black friday or the following spring when the new models launch. Hell, you could get a 48" C3 right now for $1000 USD if you asked for a local shop's best price.
 

Meicyn

Gold Member
2000 nit shit LCD is not better than 800 nits good quality OLED - that's for sure (high quality LCDs are great).
Yes, definitely. The amount of shitty LED TVs on the market is wild, reminds me of the days when I was into Panasonic and Pioneer’s plasma displays, the LCDs just looked sterile comparatively at the time. If Sony hadn’t released the Bravia 9 this year, I probably would have bought the LG G4. The Bravia 9 being as bright as it is, is very nice… but it brings in amazing color volume as well, exceeding LG’s WOLED offerings. Samsung’s S95D has even better color volume, but that matte screen is a nonstarter IMO. Lack of Dolby Vision support doesn’t help either, Samsung needs to bite the bullet and get onboard.

Honestly, I’m waiting for MLA or equivalent to show up on a QDOLED. If LG and Samsung combined their respective technologies…
 

amigastar

Member
Guys is there actually a Full HD OLED with 24 inches under lets say 250 bucks? I've searched but didn't find anything so i've bought an IPS monitor. Don't tell me there is cause that would make me mad, lol.
 
Last edited:

manfestival

Member
Look, I not too long ago spent a lot of money on OLED. tired of these mini LED believers trying to poop on my parade. let me enjoy my sunken cost fallacy
 
Yes, definitely. The amount of shitty LED TVs on the market is wild, reminds me of the days when I was into Panasonic and Pioneer’s plasma displays, the LCDs just looked sterile comparatively at the time. If Sony hadn’t released the Bravia 9 this year, I probably would have bought the LG G4. The Bravia 9 being as bright as it is, is very nice… but it brings in amazing color volume as well, exceeding LG’s WOLED offerings. Samsung’s S95D has even better color volume, but that matte screen is a nonstarter IMO. Lack of Dolby Vision support doesn’t help either, Samsung needs to bite the bullet and get onboard.

Honestly, I’m waiting for MLA or equivalent to show up on a QDOLED. If LG and Samsung combined their respective technologies…
I thought that "Hyper-Efficient Electroluminescence Material" used in 2'nd gen QD-OLEDs works in a similar way to the MLAA allowing brightness increase of 30% at the same power consumption.
 
Last edited:

Meicyn

Gold Member
I thought that "Hyper-Efficient Electroluminescence Material" used in 2'nd gen QD-OLEDs works in a similar way to the MLAA allowing brightness increase of 30% at the same power consumption.
Maybe, all I know is MLA+ yields a 60% increase, and combined with LG’s new algorithm yielded an alleged 114% increase for WOLED, allowing them to stay competitive with Samsung in the brightness area. WOLED is operating from a lower brightness baseline from the outset, and loses to QD-OLED and even high end LEDs when it comes to color volume due to heavy reliance on the white subpixel. I imagine MLA+ would benefit QD-OLED even more than it does for WOLED.
 
Samsung just made me wait an extra year. I hope they don't go matte screen again for their flagship 2025 QD-OLED and, for the love of all that is holy, don't skimp on the processor again. It's fucking ridiculous that they didn't use their best processor on their top of the line QD-OLED. Samsung Display makes the best OLED panel on the market but it seems Samsung wants to sabotage it.
 
Last edited:
I bought a G4 and somehow the colors are not as good as my CX. I made sure no color enhancement are on the CX. And still the color look less “full” and more “flat”. I have to turn color up to almost 70 on the G4 to match the CX on 55. First time i am second guessing an OLED purchase.
Probably because your G4 has more accurate colors and you are used to oversaturated incorrect colors on the GX.
 

Bojji

Member
Yes, definitely. The amount of shitty LED TVs on the market is wild, reminds me of the days when I was into Panasonic and Pioneer’s plasma displays, the LCDs just looked sterile comparatively at the time. If Sony hadn’t released the Bravia 9 this year, I probably would have bought the LG G4. The Bravia 9 being as bright as it is, is very nice… but it brings in amazing color volume as well, exceeding LG’s WOLED offerings. Samsung’s S95D has even better color volume, but that matte screen is a nonstarter IMO. Lack of Dolby Vision support doesn’t help either, Samsung needs to bite the bullet and get onboard.

Honestly, I’m waiting for MLA or equivalent to show up on a QDOLED. If LG and Samsung combined their respective technologies…

I don't get why Samsung fucked their screen with that matte coating. Not to mention one connection box creates a lot of issues (Olivier from DF mentioned it).

This year LG won OLED battle by not screwing up their product (Sony didn't compete), but at the same time G4 is almost identical to G3 and we know they have better MLA panels in LG Display.

I doubt I will change my B2 for next few years, there are much brighter panels but it's feature complete (HDMI 2.1/4K/VRR/120Hz/HDR) and has very low input lag so that's enough for me. HDR also looks very good, it's the best tv I have ever owned so I can't complain.
 

Meicyn

Gold Member
I don't get why Samsung fucked their screen with that matte coating. Not to mention one connection box creates a lot of issues (Olivier from DF mentioned it).

This year LG won OLED battle by not screwing up their product (Sony didn't compete), but at the same time G4 is almost identical to G3 and we know they have better MLA panels in LG Display.

I doubt I will change my B2 for next few years, there are much brighter panels but it's feature complete (HDMI 2.1/4K/VRR/120Hz/HDR) and has very low input lag so that's enough for me. HDR also looks very good, it's the best tv I have ever owned so I can't complain.
Yeah, Samsung seems to be self-sabotaging right now and it’s baffling. They have the better OLED tech but they keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They could ditch the one connect box and redirect the money wasted on it per set to paying for the Dolby Vision licensing fee so they stop being the odd ones out in latest format war where they’re supporting the equivalent of HDDVD over Bluray. Matte screen was just straight up confusing.
 
Get a miniLED. The other techs all have faults. From another thread.

Here is why I went with the Samsung qn90a a few years ago.I watch stuff with color more often that I watch stuff that’s super dark and while the oh does nearly black (like space) scenes better, it also crushes color and shadows in many other scenes. Here are some photos that might help.

WdZZm5o.jpeg


I hear the new OLED’s are better about this, but I’m not sure how much better.

I will probably wait for MicroLED to get cheaper before buying another tv.
 

Hohenheim

Member
Got the new Samsung Odyssey G6 OLED 27" monitor recently.
I sold my 4090 rig, and have gone back to a 3090-rig, so my 32" 4K Odyssey Neo G7 felt a bit too much for the 3090.

So far i'm very pleased. The picture quality kinda makes up the fact that it's 1440p instead of 4K, and the smaller size feels good. Gives me less motion sickness in fast paced fps games.
 
Last edited:
Damn, I hesitated on last night's 65'' G3 deal and now it's gone. The remorse is getting stronger....

Now considering getting C4 at Costco and hoping in three months G3 would be on sale again so I can return and buy it.

Folks, for $1499 C3 VS $1799 C4, is this year model justifying the 300 bucks price difference? I don't mind paying more but I always want better values.
 

Zathalus

Member
Damn, I hesitated on last night's 65'' G3 deal and now it's gone. The remorse is getting stronger....

Now considering getting C4 at Costco and hoping in three months G3 would be on sale again so I can return and buy it.

Folks, for $1499 C3 VS $1799 C4, is this year model justifying the 300 bucks price difference? I don't mind paying more but I always want better values.

The C4 is a but better but you’ll be hard pressed to notice it.
 

The C4 is a but better but you’ll be hard pressed to notice it.
Thanks for the input. I have checked the Rtings comparison many times lol. On paper the HDR brightness is only a tad better so I was wondering if any gaf actually have real world experience to inform me if the new processor makes a noticeable difference. (Don't care the 144 Hz as much)
 

reinking

Gold Member
Do all OLED models have auto dimming? Or is that mainly LG? That is one thing that would absolutely drive me insane. I read you can no longer disable it on LG OLEDs. I am thinking about getting my daughter one.
 

hinch7

Member
G80SD (G8) arrived today. Really happy with it and shocking coming from a 1440P VA display. And the matte coating is amazing, despite what people say. Best I've seen with handling reflections, and is like looking into a black void.

The only issue is a fish-eye effect from using a curved screen for so long the opposite affect is happening coming back to flat.
 
Last edited:

Diddy X

Member
Do all OLED models have auto dimming? Or is that mainly LG? That is one thing that would absolutely drive me insane. I read you can no longer disable it on LG OLEDs. I am thinking about getting my daughter one.

Idk but my c3 has several options to configure dimming.
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
G80SD (G8) arrived today. Really happy with it and shocking coming from a 1440P VA display. And the matte coating is amazing, despite what people say. Best I've seen with handling reflections, and is like looking into a black void.

The only issue is a fish-eye effect from using a curved screen for so long the opposite affect is happening coming back to flat.
Isn't it amazing how far the corners feel away from you after using a curved display so long even to the effect it does feel like its bent backwards

I have actually gotten to prefer the curved screens for gaming using this LG 45" OLED ultrawide and really struggle using flat screens
 

hinch7

Member
Isn't it amazing how far the corners feel away from you after using a curved display so long even to the effect it does feel like its bent backwards

I have actually gotten to prefer the curved screens for gaming using this LG 45" OLED ultrawide and really struggle using flat screens
Its an odd sensation. I read it up online prior on Reddits and can yep definately feeling the same effect. My eyes will probably adjust to the screen within a couple weeks. Just like it did with my 32" G7 with the 1000R curve and that was moving on from iirc a 1800R ultrawide. Which took me a while to get to get used to. Its like going from one extreme to the other lol. Probably should have gotten the Alienware but glossy screens are a no go for me.

Luckily the stand on the new monitor is much more compact and not so forward so and I can push it further back into my desk. But yeah, for gaming having that curve does make it feel that much more immersive on larger displays, so that's what I'll probably miss most from my old monitor. Everything else is an upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Do all OLED models have auto dimming? Or is that mainly LG? That is one thing that would absolutely drive me insane. I read you can no longer disable it on LG OLEDs. I am thinking about getting my daughter one.
I used an LG C9 for four years, and a C1 and Sony A95K since then. Not once have I ever seen the screen dim in any manner unless I had the video/game paused and there was no motion on screen. I still have no idea what people are complaining about. Is it something you only see with live TV? I have no idea.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
I used an LG C9 for four years, and a C1 and Sony A95K since then. Not once have I ever seen the screen dim in any manner unless I had the video/game paused and there was no motion on screen. I still have no idea what people are complaining about. Is it something you only see with live TV? I have no idea.
I doubt that C1 won't noticeably dim during this scene. :messenger_winking_tongue:

hqdefault.jpg
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Why would it dim? The movie is SDR, and I presume the TV can handle ~120nits full screen indefinitely.

Rtings says "Sustained 100% Window: 131 cd/m²".
You OK buddy? A lot of popular movies have received 4K HDR color grading.

91KdobKE+WL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg


And even if it was in SDR, where you do get it can't be more than 120 Nits on displays?

HDTVtest YT uses that scene often to show how much ABL kicks in on TVs he reviews.
 
Last edited:

Gravemind

Member
Wasn't buying the hype about OLED tvs for the last few years. Didn't think it would be that much of an upgrade over a high end QLED.

Anyway, got bored last week and started looking at TVs and bought one just to see what the hype was about.

Was I ever wrong. Can't believe I didn't get one sooner. It really is night and day.
 

Agnyz

Neo Member
There are a dozen dead pixels at the top and the sides of the panel after less than 3 years of low usage, SDR mostly, as I use my LG C1 mainly for watching movies. And that, apparently, is a common issue. Wish I knew this before buying. Why does nobody talk about it in the forums? A quick Google search will give you plenty of user reports, even for the newer models, like C2. I would strongly recommend an extended warranty.

I was more worried about burn-in, which seems to be no longer an issue. It's a great panel, especially its infinite blacks, but even after more than a decade OLED technology is still far from perfect.
 
Top Bottom