All the ones I have looked at still say 120 Hz, some 240 Hz, but I am looking at higher-end models. The ones I see with 60 Hz are the lower-end models?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The Case Against OLED
- Thread starter luft262
- Start date
RTINGS.com is running a big test to see which (if) TVs still suffer from burn-in. Their first milestone report after a couple of months is due out "soon". They think burn-in will still be an issue but awaiting the data...
Got probable the same plasma did replace it 3 weeks ago for a TCL Qled with directLED technology for just 450,- euro.
When using the 43 inch plasma for around 1500 hours a year against 270 watt the TCL does the same job for 50 inch 85 watt HDR enhanced. The contrast is for us optimal around 67% which will probably prolong the burn-inn/life expectancy. Besides goin from a 1k to a 4k screen and latest android smart capabilities it pays it back in a couple of years with current electricity prices.
Last edited:
Aerith Gainsborough
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 853
- Likes
- 1,281
Idle time is not the issue. The issue is displaying windows and other user interfaces for many hours a day while actively working.remember those?
[screensavers]
Most of what we do at computers is related to static content.
Even videogames often feature static, high contrast/brightness UI elements that can become a problem.
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 6,157
- Likes
- 6,252
I try to find some info too,as I use a lot of still images but haven't got a definitive answer yet.
Notice the word there: television. Those charts are meaningless for cinema.
TV Size to Distance Calculator and Science
Our TV Sizes to Distance Calculator helps you choose the right size TV for your space. The optimal viewing distance is about 1.6 times the diagonal length of the television. For example, for a 55” TV, the best distance is 7 feet.www.rtings.com
JSmith
Great video. The description of the motion resolution largely matches my own experience. I moved from a plasma (panasonic GT50) to OLED (Sony A8H) and with motionflow smoothness (interpolation) and clearness (BFI) both set to their lowest levels, the results are pretty good with no detectable SOE, flicker, or dimming. I do see SOE if I turn the interpolation level up higher, so I don't. I still feel like it's not quite as good as my plasma was, but pretty close. I actually feel like it's quite good with sports and worse with lower frame rate broadcast-quality content.
And of course the OLED is superior in almost every other way. There are a few annoying visual glitches - cinemotion works well on most content but makes tickers judder badly so I turn it on and off a lot, and I'm still trying to figure out what setting on what content types causes occasional weird aliasing effects on busy backgrounds, but overall I have to say after holding on to the plasma for over a decade, the OLED is an upgrade on the whole. I'm hopeful the next one will be even better.
I just went through an extensive search for a display for editing of photos and video. As I'm specializing in hdr I wanted the Samsung OLED s90b to work out. As I'm showing a lot of static art, I just could not deal with the burn in risk. After the update reduced the hdr intensity, I returned it and picked a Hisense u8h and have no regrets. The extra nits are significant, and my hdr video looks better then ever before. Now my max nits are 2000 after 1000 was my previous max.
Aerith Gainsborough
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Messages
- 853
- Likes
- 1,281
Damn, that is bright. My TV gets up to 1K and that is already super uncomfortable in a dark room . Flashbangs in HDR ... NOT FUN.
I have recently ended up buying Samsung QLED TVs 32-65", but still envy a friends's LG OLED. Yes. OLED picture is superior and natural looking.
Biggest problem with Samsungs of last few years is the presets that are TERRIBLE to watch. There are so many stupid settings that destroy the picture, starting from power saving, which I couldn't guess, is cutting almost 50% of contrast. After many hours of finding best settings, my family can now use similar remotes and UIs easily with all four TVs.
I have a Benq DLP Full HD projector and 100" screen in my HT room, but it is rarely used, because kids have moved away.
Biggest problem with Samsungs of last few years is the presets that are TERRIBLE to watch. There are so many stupid settings that destroy the picture, starting from power saving, which I couldn't guess, is cutting almost 50% of contrast. After many hours of finding best settings, my family can now use similar remotes and UIs easily with all four TVs.
I have a Benq DLP Full HD projector and 100" screen in my HT room, but it is rarely used, because kids have moved away.
The "Super Rich Guy/Gal"? They don't buy any of the above. They are buying the direct view LED panels when cost is no object and the size is over 100".
But if you don't have $100K+ to spend, I would avoid Samsung's TVs in general as their video processing simply isn't as good as Sony's. And then there is QLED. The term is simply marketing schtick. They dreamed it up to jazz up their offerings.
OLED is generally better than the current crop LCD TVs with LED back lighting, but if you need a super bright image due to ambient lighting then the LED backlit TVs are a better choice. The Sony Z9K series come pretty close to OLED performance and are capable of very high brightness if needed.
The last time I stood next to a plasma (Philips) I was amazed by all the heat it threw off. How much power do those old panels consume? They feel like a 500-watt heater.
A lot... because of this the EU basically banned them and that was the end of plasma TVs.
Back in the day we sold a couple of the 103" Panasonic plasma TVs. They put out so much heat we had to work with the clients' HVAC contractors to add extra cooling in the locations where these displays were installed.
A quick search shows ~450 W for a 50" Samsung plasma: http://www.tpcdb.com/product.php?id=1081
Your feeling is quite accurate.
That's a lot of electricity used?
Yes, but not unusual for a plasma TV. New LCD/LED/OLED TVs use about 1/2 to 1/3 the power, run much cooler, usually weigh less, and are usually thinner than plasma TVs. Plasma TVs have their pros and cons but finding one now may be hard as other technologies have supplanted them.
Honest question:
Why?
Regardless of technology, I'm not in the market for a new TV/monitor. So I don't have a dog in this fight. Here's what I see going on:
OLED had a faltering start because of reported 'burn-in' problems and a dimmer picture. The mass market hasn't completely forgotten that. And OLED panels are arguably more costly to make. OLED is a disruptive technology to the industry, mostly due to the high cost of factory investment it needs. OLED panels can easily provide the high-contrast blacks that videophiles seem willing to pay a lot for. But any panel type is only as good as the processed image that it's sent. OLEDs are struggling and just beginning to provide the high light output that LCD/LED panels find easy. Caveat videophiles with a bright room.
LCD/LED monitor panels have long since paid for their manufacturing investment. Mini-LED technology, combined with high-quality processing, can provide some of the black levels that videophiles crave. LCD/LED panels are easy and cheap to stamp out. Image processing is still the major difference in image quality, along with the LED lighting method. Lots of mini-LEDs cost lots of money.
Both are energy efficient and durable. Both are capable of long life.
OLED panels currently sell for approximately 2-3 times the price of LCD/LED panels. That may come more into line as more OLED panels come into the market.
You have to make your own decision on panel type. There's a lot of market-speak, so facts are precious. And reportedly, a lot of buyers have lately been buying panels that they soon find too big to view comfortably. Size matters... a lot. A little too big can be a lot too big.
Lots of luck... and skill... and diligence, Mr. Buyer.
OLED had a faltering start because of reported 'burn-in' problems and a dimmer picture. The mass market hasn't completely forgotten that. And OLED panels are arguably more costly to make. OLED is a disruptive technology to the industry, mostly due to the high cost of factory investment it needs. OLED panels can easily provide the high-contrast blacks that videophiles seem willing to pay a lot for. But any panel type is only as good as the processed image that it's sent. OLEDs are struggling and just beginning to provide the high light output that LCD/LED panels find easy. Caveat videophiles with a bright room.
LCD/LED monitor panels have long since paid for their manufacturing investment. Mini-LED technology, combined with high-quality processing, can provide some of the black levels that videophiles crave. LCD/LED panels are easy and cheap to stamp out. Image processing is still the major difference in image quality, along with the LED lighting method. Lots of mini-LEDs cost lots of money.
Both are energy efficient and durable. Both are capable of long life.
OLED panels currently sell for approximately 2-3 times the price of LCD/LED panels. That may come more into line as more OLED panels come into the market.
You have to make your own decision on panel type. There's a lot of market-speak, so facts are precious. And reportedly, a lot of buyers have lately been buying panels that they soon find too big to view comfortably. Size matters... a lot. A little too big can be a lot too big.
Lots of luck... and skill... and diligence, Mr. Buyer.
Rtings rates OLED TVs at the top. They give the one caveat that aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiting can be distracting, and I find that to be a deal breaker for me. Those TVs can make little temporary highlights amazingly bright and saturated and crisp, but then they dim down when there's a larger area of brightness required. That creates a weird viewing effect for me, an inconsistency in quality where some things look too bland while others really pop, and I notice it every time I go look at those TVs. I'd rather they just went ahead and limited the little highlights to match the screen's 50% sustained brightness rating. If they did that, I suspect they'd impress very few. OLED gives me a glimpse of things to come. Maybe micro-LED will someday become affordable to the masses so we can have infinite blacks with zero blooming and no need for distracting and weird ABL. We'll have real HDR.
