Is OLED really worth it? (1 Viewer)

[D4A3]

The 8 series isn't available in Canada. The 6 series is as good as it gets here.

We always get jipped, can't even get Vizio here anymore.

 

[Worth]

We always get jipped, can't even get Vizio here anymore.

Until recently, we could get Panasonic while the US couldn't, but now they've pulled out too.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think you might be surpised, OLED has pretty much reached it's peak until QD OLED, if it doesn't just get skipped. QLED, even now, is capable of black levels that look great in normal use, only really in dark rooms is the difference very noticeable. QLED is capable of much better light output, it has better 24fps motion, generally better gradation. With MiniLED I think the black levels can be brought down to a point where the difference between QLED and OLED will be acceptable to even most OLED guys plus you get all the benefits of QLED with none of the pitfalls of OLED. Plus OLED will never reach true 10 bit color with 4000 nit brightness but MiniLED might.

It may never kill OLED for the OLED purists but I think for most people it certainly has the potential to "kill" OLED. You get a much brighter display, better 24fps motion, better gradation (which will only improve as they get brighter), no ABL, no ASBL, no image retention or burn-in, no limited lifespan on the pixels. To me, it's a no brainer.

Judging by your comment that is why I think you might be better off saving your money or buying something less expensive that will meet your needs until either miniLED or microLED become mass market ready. Unless you are looking at the Gsync/Freesync/VRR capabilities of LGs CX/GX series sets. In that case, as far as TVs go, there are presently not many other alternatives.

 

[D4A3]

Judging by your comment that is why I think you might be better off saving your money or buying something less expensive that will meet your needs until either miniLED or microLED become mass market ready. Unless you are looking at the Gsync/Freesync/VRR capabilities of LGs CX/GX series sets. In that case, as far as TVs go, there are presently not many other alternatives.

Those are features that I want, which is why I chose the CX, it's the only TV with a complete feature set right now. It's a shame no other manufacturer was able to get a TV right this year, at least none that you can get here. I would wait except the main HDMI port on my Vizio died a few months ago and I've had my fill of the other ports which lack HDR support.

 

[TheFOMO]

Those are features that I want, which is why I chose the CX, it's the only TV with a complete feature set right now. It's a shame no other manufacturer was able to get a TV right this year, at least none that you can get here. I would wait except the main HDMI port on my Vizio died a few months ago and I've had my fill of the other ports which lack HDR support.

Let's focus on this very critical requirement you mentioned that many people overlook: high end gaming features are HARD on TVs. I'm talking about getting VRR to work with HDR in 4K120. Just because a TV claims to have VRR, HDR and 4K120 does not mean they all work! PC gaming monitors are able to achieve this trifecta by utilizing either GSync Ultimate or Freesync Premium Pro technologies, neither of which has ever been available on TVs (these 2 technologies effectively resolve those color tone mapping black crushing ghosting issues caused by the conflicts between VRR and HDR). The LG CX comes closest to resolving these problems mostly because of the inherent advantages of OLED image processing simplicity relative to QLED that struggles with adapting VRR to the FALD backlighting stack. The best gaming implementation of QLED will be the ASUS 43" Freesync Premium Pro HDMI 2.1 monitor coming out in Q1. Although it lacks a tuner and projected to cost around $1200, it's at least DisplayHDR1000 rated and will have no problems with VRR+HDR+4K120.

The real question is if one TV maker adopts Freesync Premium Pro and this raises the price of the TV by $250-$500, will it drive more sales over cheaper offerings lacking this feature?

 

[D4A3]

Let's focus on this very critical requirement you mentioned that many people overlook: high end gaming features are HARD on TVs. I'm talking about getting VRR to work with HDR in 4K120. Just because a TV claims to have VRR, HDR and 4K120 does not mean they all work! PC gaming monitors are able to achieve this trifecta by utilizing either GSync Ultimate or Freesync Premium Pro technologies, neither of which has ever been available on TVs (these 2 technologies effectively resolve those color tone mapping black crushing ghosting issues caused by the conflicts between VRR and HDR). The LG CX comes closest to resolving these problems mostly because of the inherent advantages of OLED image processing simplicity relative to QLED that struggles with adapting VRR to the FALD backlighting stack. The best gaming implementation of QLED will be the ASUS 43" Freesync Premium Pro HDMI 2.1 monitor coming out in Q1. Although it lacks a tuner and projected to cost around $1200, it's at least DisplayHDR1000 rated and will have no problems with VRR+HDR+4K120.

The real question is if one TV maker adopts Freesync Premium Pro and this raises the price of the TV by $250-$500, will it drive more sales over cheaper offerings lacking this feature?

This is again why I went for the CX, it comes closest and I think it delivers a pretty good experience for gaming which will hopefully still be improved with future updates. This is a livingroom TV so a 43" monitor isn't going to cut it I do think the gaming market is large enough to support slightly more expensive TV's that offer the features people want. If people are willing to pay $1200 instead of $500 for a monitor then I wager the same would be true of TV's. Especially with more and more people bringing gaming PC's into the living room and the new consoles offering some of these features.