LG to unveil first QNED Mini LED TVs at virtual CES (1 Viewer)

[Martin Dew]

LG will introduce its first QNED Mini LED TVs at the all-virtual CES 2021, and which will represent top-of-the-line among its 2021 offering. The new displays, including 4K and 8K models topping out at 86 inches, use quantum dot and NanoCell technologies with Mini LEDs as the light source, allowing for better brightness and contrast.
By combining quantum dot and NanoCell technology in one product, LG says that the new TVs can “…produce incredibly accurate colors while the advanced LED backlight offers better contrast and deeper blacks for images of exceptional vibrancy and realism.” All the TVs include a refresh rate of 120Hz, and the Mini LED backlighting comprises close to 30,000 LEDs producing a claimed contrast ration of 1,000,000:1 when employing 2,500 individual dimming zones. These features enable improved HDR image quality bolstered by “outstanding” contrast and blacks, and better color accuracy.
“Our new QNED Mini LED series is a premium home entertainment option that...

Continue reading...

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Read about this on BBC News. I’m intrigued!

 

[Peter McM]

The question I keep asking is, when will advancements in video display technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference?

 

[DaveF]

The question I keep asking is, when will advancements in video display technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference?

For pixel density, they have.

For dynamic range, they haven’t.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The question I keep asking is, when will advancements in video display technology surpass the ability of the healthy human eye to discern any difference?

My question is when will the technology surpass my ability to pay for it. My answer, it already has.

I grew up in the 50’s, so my formative years and much of my life, occurred when home technology wasn’t changing rapidly. Today, visit Best Buy (metaphorically) today for a purchase and tomorrow it’s out of date. Sheesh. I write this with tongue only slightly in cheek.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Will these QNED sets be considered superior to OLEDs? Perhaps OLEDs will drop in price?

 

[Peter McM]

My question is when will the technology surpass my ability to pay for it. My answer, it already has.

I grew up in the 50’s, so my formative years and much of my life, occurred when home technology wasn’t changing rapidly. Today, visit Best Buy (metaphorically) today for a purchase and tomorrow it’s out of date. Sheesh. I write this with tongue only slightly in che

 

[Peter McM]

LOL to the first part of your answer.

My current main display is a last-generation Mitsubishi DLP, now 10 years old. I've replaced the lamp in it once; it still performs quite well. I love it--but I know I'll eventually be upgrading. Thankfully, I can already find awesome looking (to my eyes, at least) 4K displays for a fraction of what they were originally.

 

[Scott Voth]

I typically go about 10 years before upgrading. I have 2 and 4 year old OLED sets now so it will be a while.

 

[TheFOMO]

My take on LG's "QNED"

 

[Edwin-S]

Since I recently bought a new OLED set, I can wait until Samsung perfects MicroLED and it becomes commoditized. Vincent Teoh didn't seem particularly impressed with LGs 163" MAGNIT set that used a form of miniLED. Of course, LG referred to it as microLED since there seems to be no standard as to what the terms miniLED and microLED qualify as as far as marketing goes.

 

[Greg.K]

Was about to buy an OLED TV but now I guess I should wait a bit.

 

[white vader]

My question is when will the technology surpass my ability to pay for it. My answer, it already has.

I grew up in the 50’s, so my formative years and much of my life, occurred when home technology wasn’t changing rapidly. Today, visit Best Buy (metaphorically) today for a purchase and tomorrow it’s out of date. Sheesh. I write this with tongue only slightly in cheek.

Respectfully I disagree, and think the opposite is true. Are you a glass half empty person? Lack of change is comforting, but it seems to me (this is just my subjective take and friendly debate) the criticism contradicts your wallet.

And consumer electronics reality! Because in fact the tech is either getting cheaper and cheaper, or if you like, better and better for the same price. Here's my glass half full take, if you're interested. I grew up with CRT as well, and you must admit while I guess it's comforting from a backwards logic perspective where you could feel good about your purchase (which doesn't have much to do with the actual TV itself), by the same token you never got much more or better for your money either. No matter how the years went by. And like say vinyl records, sometimes things actually got worse in terms of materials and components. Unless you were in other countries where improvements over the years with say PAL and so on sorted out NTSC's inadequacies - the caveat being you had to wait literally decades in those countries to get it in the first place.

And there was a good reason for that. Which is primarily that it was component/mechanically based. And with CRT we had an incomplete technology that wasn't ever really fixed (PAL and Secam might have improved a bit on things like resolution and chroma/luma separation but the massive compromise of interlacing was one of the building blocks that was never ready for prime time so to speak), but only 'good enough'. And with CRT things never actually became more affordable in any meaningful timeframe. Again because of being beholden to physical parts. A top of the range colour TV through the 70s (using that because that's when the last countries got colour) 80s and into the 90s and to the end of its time didn't really change a whole lot. Didn't generally make leaps in quality. Or size. Or price. The interlaced/progressive scan thing WAS finally fixed, but for computer monitors, not TVs.

And what was really telling was that near the end when smaller not bigger TV sets became a very telling "new direction"/market, they got to a few hundred bucks and stopped. Again, because you couldn't physically make them cheaper no matter how much time went by. Same thing happened with VHS where you might as well buy a new one because the mechanical components meant parts and labour/fixing them were prohibitive.

So, onto the new age of widescreen/HDTV/UHD and so on. While it's true that the early adopter/economy of scale phase persists as a factor, what happens now is that we pass that phase so quickly it's pretty much invisible to regular consumers. Because what happened with the jump from HD to UHD/4k? For most, if you were buying the same model/level of tv you already had, the new one cost exactly the same (actually less with inflation/COL) but the new features/new generation were included/introduced - for free. OR, if you're buying something analogous to what you had - same capabilities and features as per the old days, it's much cheaper! And the main reason is electronic rather than mechanical or component based approaches. SoC and all that stuff.

So no matter which way you look at it (if you're actually looking at the tv itself OR your wallet), you win. Or maybe I should say if you're looking glass half full or even objectively comparing plusses and minuses. So obviously, I respectfully disagree with the ability to pay for it assertion.

You can draw analogous comparisons too. Cars - a small car from my first in the eighties to now has barely changed price. But what you get now from what you got then is HUGE. And again wages/ability to afford them has changed over those decades - for the better. Or if in retirement, the same is true.

Just staying on Cars though, for most of their lifespan people have been fine with a new model of car every year, and how the model they bought the year before depreciates in regard to it. So it seems pretty disingenuous to me that these same people are outraged at consumer electronics which have just adopted the same methodology. When year on year electronics give much more value/improvement than those cars.

I agree with the second part of the post. And sure it's frustrating to our wallets to have depreciation rip our dollars to shreds as soon as they escape their cosy home.

But man, what you can get for a few hundred/a similar percentage of your hard earned is SO much better, with regard to TV. Hell, the top end sometimes even surpasses what you get at the cinema. There will always be bumps along the way and the exceptions proving the rule - OLED and Plasma may be great quality, but so many drawbacks like lifespan, decreasing quality over same, years and years now of no great increase in yields/manufacturing meaning affordability hasn't progressed at anything like the rate of other tech. There have been other approaches like SED (combo of old CRT and new tech) which would have been a best of both worlds TV crushed by Toshiba/corporate hubris. And my God all this smart tv stuff front-loaded makes me crazy when it means the simplest stuff like switching channels ISN'T instantaneous any more! So yeah, it happens. But for me overall change in technology is good and with respect to TV, imo it's great AND generally more affordable. I mean you can't actually argue for tech standing still. Either today or 70 years ago.

The only problem for me with your second sentence (and yep I get that it was slightly tongue in cheek) is that that metaphorical example negates that what you do get on that Best Buy visit does actually meet base agreed standards that fulfil all requirements of exisiting content, and do it for cheaper, give you more, and at larger sizes and better quality. More bang for the buck in a nutshell. Thanks for listening if you made it this far! Just a friendly debate.