It's LCD with a quantum dot filter. Same as their NEO QLED TV's. So, no, it won't burn in unless you leave it on a static image for a really long time. Even then they use pixel shift to minimize it. It would probably take weeks.My only question: Does this tech screen burn?
Anything burns if you get it hot enough.My only question: Does this tech screen burn?
It's because of this:Wow... I clicked on that expecting a FAR higher price. Will be interesting to see some reviews. But considering I'm less than 3 feet from my monitors... too big for me. But if that were an UW.... hummm...
Ya I like curved too, my current 4k tv's used as monitors are curved and I like it. The 56" could be brighter though.I don't know at that size I'd kinda want the curved display... And really i'd prefer an UW as opposed to the huge *** 4k tv/monitor.
Interesting, I am not as knowledgably about Zones etc. I do see your point.It's because of this:
"full-array local dimming that comprises 132 zones."
That's a fairly minimal amount of zones for HDR. In my experience upwards of 1000 is the sweet spot for optimal HDR quality. I know that this isn't OLED but I've seen how bad things can get when a display doesn't have enough. Here's an interesting read on it with some general info.
https://www.hellotech.com/blog/what-is-full-array-local-dimming-tv
I'm not saying one of these couldn't look good but for now, I'd be skeptical about its HDR gaming performance. That's why many TVs are better at it than gaming monitors. That's also why I jumped ship back to LG from the CRG9 I was using as I do a lot of gaming that uses HDR. I think a bunch of the bad rap that PC HDR gaming gets is due to the displays their rigs are hooked up to but not denying there is also some lackluster effort from developers as well. You see it on a good OLED display, or great quality LCD (things are still impressive on my Sony Z9D 65" (648 dimming zones with over 1000 nits), and it's a whole new world for many games. The size of the panel definitely affects how many they can cram in there but still 132 is a bit low. I'd guess that for 55" it should be closer to 300-500.
Edit: Here's a thread on AVS forum with people discussing the different sizes of Z9Ds back in the day along with how they had a different amount of dimming zones per size, and even release region.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/inches-versus-zones.2948556/
I agree with you here. I'm not looking for a new display, but this was interesting until I seen the size and the specifications.I'm not saying one of these couldn't look good but for now, I'd be skeptical about its HDR gaming performance.
Yeah, HDMI 2.1 is awesome. It essentially gets HDMI bandwidth to the point where PC gaming on a TV isn't just doable it's actually on par with monitor specs as long as you're happy with 120 Hz. I've got displays in the house ranging from 144-200 Hz and I'm happy with 120 Hz since I don't do esports or any of that kind of stuff. The bigger trick is having a rig that can render games at 4K/120 Hz. The only other thing I strongly recommend is that people research are color depths. It's still all over the map and that's also one of the reasons I've been happy with the C9 and C2 LGs. On both the C9 and C2, with the right cable(this is another big one for HDMI 2.1-a lot of crap ones out there), I can do G-Sync/12-bit full RGB/HDR/4K(including 4096x2160)/120 Hz. There are panels out there that cap at 8 or 10 bit and 60 Hz regardless of them having HDMI 2.1. It can be really tricky finding a TV that can support it all w/o issues but once you find one it's a nice ride.My research did indicate that hdmi 2.1 has better bandwidth