Is Qled screen technology going in the wrong direction?

[Talisman]

Having to buy a new TV, I was wandering around a bit between articles, reviews and tests of new TV technologies.
More or less everywhere the new Qled TVs seem to be praised, however going to see them in a shopping center I got an idea:
They are pumping contrasts and saturations beyond sensible to give a "wow" effect to potential buyers, but they seem to be completely missing the mark of faithful color reproduction. As if it were the audio equivalent of the showroom sound, with pumped highs and lows, which immediately like and attract, but in the long run they inevitably come out for what they are, that is, not very faithful productions.
kryptonite green meadows, skies of an unprecedented blue, reds that break through the screen.
What do you think about it?

 

[sweetchaos]

They are pumping contrasts and saturations beyond sensible to give a "wow" effect to potential buyers, but they seem to be completely missing the mark of faithful color reproduction.

Sure, but this isn't anything new. TV manufacturers have been fiddling with TV picture modes for as long as TVs have existed.
If you pick up your remote, you'll see picture model settings like: Standard, Vivid, Sports, Movie, ISF, Dolby, etc.
The list alone will make your head spin.

Example:
First thing I notice when I walk into an electronic store is how the most expensive TV's (usually LG, Samsung, Sony OLED TV's) have their picture mode set to "Vivid", which boosts brightness and contrast to unnatural levels. It's usually next to a lower tier TV, showing a "Standard" picture mode. Guess what? You've just been fooled. The TV with the higher brightness will win that battle anytime.
It's similar to doing a speaker test with 2 speakers, but the audio store employee boosting one of the speakers by 1db. While not a big difference, it's enough for humans to pickup on the louder speaker, and therefore, the better sounding speaker. Humans are so easily fooled by such things.
Same as with TVs.

Here's a quick video overview on their differences:

but in the long run they inevitably come out for what they are, that is, not very faithful productions.

You're confusing color accuracy with picture modes. I've already talked about TV picture modes above. Now let's talk about color accuracy.

TV's every year try to push the boundary of showing the best possible picture.
We can measure this accuracy in terms of color volume or color gamut.
This procedure is very easy to do, and required a calibrated colorimeter and a PC.
Here's an article that talks about how to measure this:

Our TV Picture Quality Tests: Color Gamut

A TV's color gamut defines the number of colors, or the range of colors, it can display. It's important to have a TV that displays a wide range of colors as needed.

www.rtings.com

It also shows that there are 2 standards, DCI P3 and Rec 2020. The DCI P3 color space is the color space most used in HDR content, and most 4k HDR TVs have at least good coverage of it. We repeat the process with the Rec. 2020 color space, which is wider and less common, but more content in the future may use it.

So to summarize, TV try to improve on their color accuracy every year. Seeing 3rd party independent color gamut measurements is how we know whether TV's are getting more accurate over time.
I've linked this table, which includes both DCI p3 and REC 2020 columns at the end, to show how accurate TV's are.

TV Table Tool

www.rtings.com

Based on the last information we have, the introduction of QD-OLED's from 2021, these models are finally able to hit the 100% of the DCI P3 color gamut. Before this, OLED can only hit 99.x%. So this alone means that the QD-OLEDs are capable of showing all the possible colors that the created creator could show.

If you want to learn more about TV technology, I always recommend you read/watch 2 sources:
1. rtings.com they have extensive 3rd party measurements and detailed breakdown of every TV
2. watch a youtuber called HDTVTest https://www.youtube.com/@hdtvtest/videos Vincent is a professional TV calibrator and his in-depth knowledge of the TV technology is second to none.

Best,
sweetchaos

 

[markanini]

Why would anyone care about limited contrast tech like QLED in todays market?

 

[Tim Link]

On my Samsung QN84 I've found the film maker mode to be the only worthwhile mode ever, for anything. The color and contrast looks great. Very natural and correct. I can't use the game modes because the colors are off - as is the mode the TV wants to go in if it knows I'm using a computer. I can't remember what it's called. Graphic? Entertain? It's all off.

 

[Tim Link]

Why would anyone care about limited contrast tech like QLED in todays market?

Affordable, and very bright! Contrast that exists mostly in the darker parts of the picture is not always perceptually apparent. Without rather high brightness available for the highlights I find deep black contrast to be a waste unless watching in a very dark room with eyes well dark adapted. I don't like that kind of viewing, but I know a lot of people prefer that. If so, OLED is the way to go! Or maybe microLED if you've got the bucks. In brighter rooms I find OLEDs to seem to have a dim and black crushed sort look on a lot of material. If it's been mastered right this doesn't happen, but bright, sunlight outdoor scenes still always seem a bit dim.

 

[markanini]

Or maybe microLED if you've got the bucks.

If you got the bucks you can get OLED with per pixel brightness. It's actually cheaper long term because of power consumption.

I find OLEDs to seem to have a dim and black crushed sort look on a lot of material.

That's okay, some like vinyl surface noise that cover upp defects in the recording.

 

[AudioStudies]

Why would anyone care about limited contrast tech like QLED in todays market?

I have OLED at two locations in my home. However some areas in my home mandate smaller screen sizes because of limited space, so no OLED option. For example in one system I have a 32 inch QLED the works just fine.

 

[valerianf]

"Is Qled screen technology going in the wrong direction?"​

Each usage has different requirements.
Let us take an example: the Bus Stop shelters from JCDecaux (i.e. in West Hollywood) are working 24/24 with the California sun.
They need to be readable from the car cabin (with tinted glass sometime...) by passengers wearing sun glasses and have a reliability not too bad (2 or 3 years full time on.
JCDecaux does not use any OLED panels for these bus shelters: it is LED technology
The reason why is obvious: not enough brightness, not enough contrast, screen Remanence, short life time at full brightness, high unit price.

Regarding private usage, each of us need to decide the +/- of various technologies.
LED panels are there for a long time.

 

[Tim Link]

If you got the bucks you can get OLED with per pixel brightness. It's actually cheaper long term because of power consumption.

That's okay, some like vinyl surface noise that cover upp defects in the recording.

I've read that micro LED is 30 times brighter than OLED without risk of damage, and still has perfect blacks. It's way beyond my price range. RTINGS.com sums up the problem that I find with OLEDs even though they give them the highest ratings (other than micro LED which they have not reviewed) "Aggressive ABL can get distracting with large areas of brightness." For me that Aggressive ABL is the deal breaker, being far more noticeable to me than the light bleed through the LCD. I'd rather it had perfect blacks like an OLED but I can't have it both ways for a reasonable price yet.
They also say "Raised blacks if it's in a room with any ambient light." This is exactly what I perceive. The room has to be very dark to properly show what the OLED is capable of.

 

[Talisman]

Why would anyone care about limited contrast tech like QLED in todays market?

Several answers come to mind:

1) A 75-inch QLED costs about half or less than an equivalent OLED.

2) Oled technology is still intrinsically more delicate than Led technology and therefore from the point of view of a TV to be used every day for years and years and not in a dedicated cinema room, after all, it still has its own why.

3) LEDs are quite brighter than OLEDs, and in a room with large windows that let in a lot of light, it can paradoxically offer an overall better result.

4) The potentially infinite contrast of OLEDs is overwhelming when watching very very dark movies in dim light, or oled TV presentations with bright dots against a black background (fireworks and constellations generally) but beyond this use case, the results watching normal broadcasts and movies / TV series is not so different between the two technologies, at least not such as to justify double the price in my opinion

 

[markanini]

Fair points, but it raises a question.
Is it a win for the consumer, paying premium prices for a mature and technically limited panel type, or the manufacturer?

It's a lot like filling your plate with pasta and salad at a buffé.

 

[Tim Link]

Fair points, but it raises a question.
Is it a win for the consumer, paying premium prices for a mature and technically limited panel type, or the manufacturer?

It's a lot like filling your plate with pasta and salad at a buffé.

Both OLED and LCD based technologies with variable backlight are technically limited, but by diffferent issues. So they're both llike pasta and salad - just different pasta and salad. Pick your poison.
I'll bring up other winning points obout OLED - excellent color accuracy, superior screen uniformity, excellent response time, and very smooth color gradients. If someone is willing to pay a little more for an OLED they get excellent results for their money. OLEDs are popular for reasons that I care about. Honestly it surprised me when viewing the QN84 that I actually preferred it to the OLEDs overall. I had to do a little research to understand what I was seeing in it that appealed to me. It's basically brightness and color volume. The other factors aren't as good as OLED but they're good enough that for me the brightness made it my choice. That and the fact that it was deeply discounted and they threw in a new M1 Mac Mini on top! When I bought it I had it in a room with big glass windows on 3 sides. It could handle direct sunlight filling the room and still look very vibrant. Now I'm in a much darker room with only 1 window facing a well tree shaded back yard. I've been considering trying an OLED in here because I think it's benefits might be more apparent. I wish I could find one to borrow. Honestly I've only seen OLED displays in bright Best Buy stores - never in a room with the lights dimmed and my eyes adjusted. My QN84 can get so bright in a darkened room that it fills the room wtih light. It's over-the-top at times, but does add a lot of drama. If I turn the brightness down the blacks get a lot deeper. To get per pixel brightness - like on fireworks as Talisman mentioned, I have to turn the variable backlight feature down. That makes the tiny spots of light brighter at the cost of more obvious blooming. So the deficits of this technology are apparent to me.

 

[MrOtto]

QLED looks great in the store running factory produced 4K demo material, but when you take it home and watch a movie in a dark room problems like local dimming blooming (parts of the screen lights up when for example subtitles appear) start to show. Also VA panel looks aweful from the side (poor view angle). I believe OLED looks better in real world viewing at home. Get one of the newer types with 500 cd/m2/nits brightness.

 

[Godataloss]

Anyone have any predictions for OLED prices going into the next year in the 80+ inch space? Seems that a price war is set for the competing technologies.

 

[Tim Link]

QLED looks great in the store running factory produced 4K demo material, but when you take it home and watch a movie in a dark room problems like local dimming blooming (parts of the screen lights up when for example subtitles appear) start to show. Also VA panel looks aweful from the side (poor view angle). I believe OLED looks better in real world viewing at home. Get one of the newer types with 500 cd/m2/nits brightness.

I forgot about the side viewing issues - another plus for OLED. 4k demo material definitely looks better on all the HDR TVs than the typical fare I usually watch. For all the imperfections of the QN84 I've never had a TV nearly this good before so I'm not complaining. I am curious though to see how those deep OLED blacks come across in my new, darker room. My viewing setup is such that there is no seat that's off angle enough to badly muck up the color and contrast. It's a long narrow room and the closest seating is about 10 feet. If I get up close to the screen then I can really see it, even if I'm dead center because the sides are far enough off axis to create visual issues. So for close up viewing to a large screen for a wide field of view effect I'd recommend OLED or a curved QLED. Also 8k TVs are great up close. I saw a demo at BestBuy. It was a QLED and I got up really close so it took up a huge portion of my field of view and still it was very clear and hard to notice the pixels at all. Because it was a bright, evenly lighted outside festival scene there were no noticeable blooming issues. It almost felt like I was out in the city with those people.

 

[Snoopy]

I have a about 2 year old LG 65" OLED. I think I paid around 1700€. Recently purchased a QLED at 65" for my parents since it was discounted from nearly 700€ .


So big price difference. The QLED replaced my parents 46" Samsung LCD that used to be my TV way over 10 years ago (1300-1400€).

The QLED is nice since it has a sat receiver and a bunch of internet Apps.
It's alright for my parents because they watch mostly SD and HD ready TV shows .. so amazing HDR is no issue.

But I was surprised how much lower the quality of the whole TV is. It weights about half of my OLED. Blacks are not really black (4k amazon Prime).

Not a fan of QLED TVs.

The new OLED flex panels look really interesting for a desktop gaming setup with computer and playstation.

But still happy with my OLED.. has all the gaming stuff like 120hz, VRR, ALLM ..

If I'm ever going to upgrade it's going to be OLED again.

 

[Tim Link]

A big issue for many, including myself, is ABL. It's just too aggressive and distracting on OLEDs for some of us, and continues to be so. It's one of those weird things that some people just don't seem to mind, and others of us really do mind. It's kind of like the soap opera effect, which I find really distracting. Other people don't notice it at all! I notice blooming on my TV, and a lack of perfect black levels, but those aren't huge issues to me. The blacks are way better than what I grew up with, and the blooming is really only obvious on really stark contrast scenes with a lot of dark areas, which I don't tend to like anyways. The blooming actually takes some of the edge off some of that stuff. Prettier, more natural looking scenes have some light in the background which effectively obscures the blooming.