More OLED on the way

OLED has to carry a warranty against burn in before I will consider it.
Even news banners can ruin it.
Look at how many channels put their small identifier in the corner. If you watch a channel too much it knackers the telly.
Too many channels using the same space for their identifier can damage it too.
Careful if you press mute and leave it like that for a long time by accident.
 
Last edited:
AntiQuark said:
OLED has to carry a warranty against burn in before I will consider it.
Even news banners can ruin it.
Click to expand...

I can understand.

I will take the risk. My OLED is good enough ~if~ it does burn in, I'd buy another. Fortunately I've had it for about a year and a half now with no issues at all.

That black level, with HDR... once you get used to it it's hard to look at anything else and not cringe.
 
Brian_B said:
I can understand.

I will take the risk. My OLED is good enough ~if~ it does burn in, I'd buy another. Fortunately I've had it for about a year and a half now with no issues at all.

That black level, with HDR... once you get used to it it's hard to look at anything else and not cringe.
Click to expand...
I have a Samsung Q9FN which has fantastic black levels, I have no wish for better.
It also does HDR justice.
I see no reason to change it for something with longevity problems that washes out HDR.
I will change my TV when a better one comes along, not because it is broken prematurely and not covered by the warranty.
OLED should be fantastic but its not ready yet.
Micro LED will take its place.
 
AntiQuark said:
OLED has to carry a warranty against burn in before I will consider it.
Even news banners can ruin it.
Look at how many channels put their small identifier in the corner. If you watch a channel too much it knackers the telly.
Too many channels using the same space for their identifier can damage it too.
Careful if you press mute and leave it like that for a long time by accident.
Click to expand...

It does what to what?!


My understanding was that OLED can't do HDR? Has that changed?
 
alxlwson said:
It does what to what?!
Click to expand...
I had a few beers when I wrote that :)
OLEDs see noticeably more wear when they have been in brighter use than the surrounding pixels for long periods.
This results in darkened areas/lines when viewing other material.
Other displays suffer the same but it takes magnitudes of time longer for it to happen so the risk is close to zero during the life of a consumer display. A warranty is provided against burn in.
OLED has no warranty for this, owners must use safe practices to minimise it.
The brighter the image the worse it gets.

My understanding was that OLED can't do HDR? Has that changed?
Click to expand...
Newer versions sort of do HDR.
SDR on OLED maxes out around 400nits brightness, they dont push colour OLEDs harder than this.
To get HDR brightness up, another white OLED is used to reach 800nits.
This is unfortunately too low. To get the best from HDR you need at least 1000nits and many movies are mastered much higher.
The lack of boosted colour brightness also dilutes/washes out colour, reducing colour volume.
This is why I opted for the Samsung Q9FN at 2000nits, HDR is glorious!
This year they released a 4000nit display but the price is a bit rich, I can wait.

Unless the life of OLED is improved substantially at much higher brightness, they wont be the best way to watch HDR.
Micro LED is already as capable as OLED but they havent been shrunk enough yet for TVs smaller than around 100" and being new tech arent cheap.
In a few years this should be solved.
It would be great to have the 2 technologies competing head to head but it looks like OLED has an insurmountable limit.
Fingers crossed I am wrong.
 
Brian_B said:
www.anandtech.com

LG to Start Production of OLEDs in China Next Month, Set to Double OLED Output

www.anandtech.com www.anandtech.com

Yay. This means two things. More LG screens, and now that production starts in China, after they steal all the tech we'll have lots of inexpensive no-name knockoffs and Chinese name brand clones as well!
Click to expand...
I'm fully sold on OLED after using my new iPhone for about a year. Real black is so nice on a screen that sometimes you just think it's off but it's just doing it right. You don't realize how often you see grey instead of black until you finally see true black on a computer display.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I'm fully sold on OLED after using my new iPhone for about a year. Real black is so nice on a screen that sometimes you just think it's off but it's just doing it right. You don't realize how often you see grey instead of black until you finally see true black on a computer display.
Click to expand...
I understand -- I still wasn't happy with "lack of blacks/contrast" on IPS panels, so I "sidegraded" from my Alienware AW3418DW (IPS, 3440x1440p@120hz) to a LG 32UD59-B (VA, 4K@60hz). Good thing Freesync on my new toy is now (somewhat) supported by NVIDIA (holding off on upgrading my "aging" GTX 1080).
The 32UD59-B isn't gonna be an award winner anytime soon, but it fits my needs really well, atm (dark scenes in movies/games already look a lot better).
 
Despite the bad blacks and contrast, I am very pleased with my Alienware AW3418DW. Then again, almost every single monitor I've had since I went to LCD's has been IPS based. I had three TN's for all of a couple of weeks before I ditched them. Honestly, I'd have been happy if I wasn't doing multi-monitor with them. I also did the TV thing for three years so I've seen the contrast possible on alternatives to IPS, but overall I like the color accuracy of the IPS panels.
 
I just got a Aorus AD27QD. Coming from an older 60 hz QNIX this thing is awesome. IPS is where it's at.
 
I've literally always used 60Hz monitors. The only time I had used anything faster was for some tests / videos we did for AMD at Kyle's house. Now I have this 120Hz on my desk and 60Hz displays on the bench and the difference is night and day.
 
Dan_D said:
I've literally always used 60Hz monitors. The only time I had used anything faster was for some tests / videos we did for AMD at Kyle's house. Now I have this 120Hz on my desk and 60Hz displays on the bench and the difference is night and day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, going from 60 to 144 is huge.

I'm just not sold on OLED. I play hours of FPS and BR games where a static image is on the screen.
 
Just get a 219" micro-led display from Sony for a cool ~$700k :)
 
Dan_D said:
I've literally always used 60Hz monitors. The only time I had used anything faster was for some tests / videos we did for AMD at Kyle's house. Now I have this 120Hz on my desk and 60Hz displays on the bench and the difference is night and day.
Click to expand...
Using a 144 hz panel on my razer and Im still torn as to it being so much better. I expect a chorus of people telling me I am wrong and I get it but I also just dont feel the competitive improvement... The most noticeable thing I "think" I saw was my shadow animation moving more fluidly but that was still debatable.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Using a 144 hz panel on my razer and Im still torn as to it being so much better. I expect a chorus of people telling me I am wrong and I get it but I also just dont feel the competitive improvement... The most noticeable thing I "think" I saw was my shadow animation moving more fluidly but that was still debatable.
Click to expand...

That's kinda all it's gonna be. Going from 60 to 144 won't make you a better gamer, it'll just make movement look much more fluid. I suppose you could say it could help you in tracking targets and such but if you're a crappy player at 60 Hz, you're gonna be a crappy player at 144 Hz.

I recently went from a 144 Hz 27" to a 32" VA at 70 Hz and I REALLY want to go back to 144. The picture quality is night and day better but man I really got used to that smoother movement.
 
I just swapped from 1080P 144Hz to 4K 60Hz and couldn't be happier. I realized I don't care about the motion blur stuff since I rarely play fast paced shooters anymore and oddly enough its easier to target 60FPS with 4K (lowering some settings or resolution a bit) than it was 144FPS with 1080P.
 
A higher refresh rate is only as good at making you hit things as the display's motion clarity - the actual pixel response times that nobody wants to disclose.
An atrocious 144Hz panel won't exactly help you in any way besides hooking you on the motion smoothness.

I would be curious if you displayed the same behaviour with a monitor that's been tested to be fast enough, but of course - then it suddenly becomes a problem of maintaining 240 FPS, which is its own can of RAM overclocking madness. :)
 
Not an OLED, and I'm sure most of you will think I'm crazy, but I'm strongly considering picking this Asus monitor in not too distant future.
 
northrop said:
Not an OLED, and I'm sure most of you will think I'm crazy, but I'm strongly considering picking this Asus monitor in not too distant future.
Click to expand...
I had not seen this monitor (just started looking again because of a **** scratch from moving) but I am very interested in it. Dolby Vision Support is very very nice and I am not willing to step down from 4k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top