The Case Against OLED

[pablolie]

There are very few bad TVs out there these days, IMO. And FWIW, my ancient Samsung LN52A650 (2009?) still has excellent picture quality when compared with my recent OLED. The 3840 vs 1920 difference is very slight to non-existent with most content. But then again, I am no video fanatic, I am far more into music.

​

 

[Keith_W]

I wonder whether TV blind tests suffer from the same biases as audio blind tests. In audio, louder sounds better. With TV's, maybe brighter looks better? Or more saturated looks better? If all the TV's are colour calibrated (the TV equivalent of speaker correction), does this narrow the result?

 

[pseudoid]

...Until 2022, LG was the only company making OLED panels, but that year Samsung started making its own panels using QD-OLED technology.
Samsung promises improved color and brightness compared with current OLED TVs because its TVs use quantum dots -- just like QLED TVs -- and in our tests, the color of the Samsung S95C QD-OLED was superb.
But we liked the LG G3 better, in part because it uses another new OLED panel technology called MLA (or Micro Lens Array) to improve brightness. We expect OLED technology to continue evolving in the coming years...[cnet somewhere]

Dude, I got qdoled by samsung! Huh?

 

[pablolie]

I wonder whether TV blind tests suffer from the same biases as audio blind tests. In audio, louder sounds better. With TV's, maybe brighter looks better? Or more saturated looks better? If all the TV's are colour calibrated (the TV equivalent of speaker correction), does this narrow the result?

Yes, of course that is the case.

Since I am a hobbyist in photography as well, unnatural colors turn me off - and they are very common, people love to crank up saturation.

 

[Sal1950]

There are very few bad TVs out there these days, IMO. And FWIW, my ancient Samsung LN52A650 (2009?) still has excellent picture quality when compared with my recent OLED. The 3840 vs 1920 difference is very slight to non-existent with most content. But then again, I am no video fanatic, I am far more into music.

It's only when the size gets really big that the differences become more noticeable.
As I went from 55 to 75 and now 85, that's where the subtle differences begin to show up.
I don't really spend a lot of time with video, but in todays world where the cost of big screens
had dropped so low, having one lets you really appreciate the immersive qualities they offer.
I'm sure when the prices of good 98s gets down under $3k, I'll have one of them too.
That's right around the same cost most of us here are paying for 1 speaker.
YMMV

 

[JSmith]

If all the TV's are colour calibrated (the TV equivalent of speaker correction), does this narrow the result?

There was a calibrated reference monitor which the others are compared to. It's not really about preference, more so accuracy.


JSmith

 

[Sal1950]

With TV's, maybe brighter looks better?

Brighter and bluer has been the hot selling points builders went for on the showroom calibrations.
Not near so much today as in the past.
TV's like speakers have both began to lean more to the accurate calibration side but I believe the retailers are most
libel to hot-rod the tuning of showroom models on the ones they want to push out.

 

[Keith_W]

There was a calibrated reference monitor which the others are compared to. It's not really about preference, more so accuracy.


JSmith

Yes, but as far as I could tell from that video, the TV's were on their "out of the box" settings and compared to the reference monitor. It then becomes "which TV has the best out of the box settings" rather than which panel is actually the best. It's a bit similar to a speaker that complies closely to the Harman curve out of the box but has other failings, and once two speakers are EQ'ed to comply to the curve the other failings become evident.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Well. I remember watching TV on a 25" B&O from 5 m. Spare me your big TV cravings you old short-sighted guys..

 

[JSmith]

Yes, but as far as I could tell from that video, the TV's were on their "out of the box" settings and compared to the reference monitor.

Nah mate, all panels were calibrated;

Each oled TV was perceptually
calibrated to a Sony BVM hx3 10
mastering monitor which was in turn used
as reference to judge Shadow detail
color accuracy and HDR luminance

The Avengers 4K Blu-ray the color palette of
this scene lies entirely within Rec 709
while the LG G3 and the Panasonic MZ
2000 measured the most accurate on a 10%
window after calibration

the Panasonic MZ 2000 and the LG G3 did
better than the QD olets in the shadow
detail category courtesy of superior
near black luminous tracking after
calibration the Sony a95 L exhibited
some desaturation in this low light
scene compared to the BVM hx310
reference monitor

would like to thank the crew at fullwell
73 who let us use their outstanding
facility for the shootout it's important
to stress that the voted results neither
represent the opinions or views of the
company nor do they constitute the
endorsement of any individual TV brand
since the judges didn't even know which
TV was which throughout the voting
process thanks also to ma coper a
professional calibrator who flew in from
Poland to help me calibrate these four
oled TVs perceptually matched to the
Sony hx310 Jal layer LCD reference
monitor

JSmith

 

[pablolie]

Well. I remember watching TV on a 25" B&O from 5 m. Spare me your big TV cravings you old short-sighted guys..

There is such a thing as a TV that is too large for the viewing distance. I sit about 7.5ft from mine (and I have 20/20 vision), so larger than 55 doesn't make much sense I think.

I also recall that for many years, and in much larger rooms, we were perfectly happy with at most 36inch TVs that also did weight about 200lbs (Sony Trinitons :-D).

 

[Bleib]

There is such a thing as a TV that is too large for the viewing distance. I sit about 7.5ft from mine (and I have 20/20 vision), so larger than 55 doesn't make much sense I think.

I also recall that for many years, and in much larger rooms, we were perfectly happy with at most 36inch TVs that also did weight about 200lbs (Sony Trinitons :-D).

32" even, but we didn't have much of choice did we? Anything bigger and it was either going with a projector or rear-projection TV

 

[Sal1950]

Spare me your big TV cravings you old short-sighted guys..

Your just jealous

There is such a thing as a TV that is too large for the viewing distance. I sit about 7.5ft from mine (and I have 20/20 vision), so larger than 55 doesn't make much sense I think.

Recommended distance for cinema viewing on an 85" TV is 8.5', mixed usage is 11.6'

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

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Yes, of course that is the case.

Since I am a hobbyist in photography as well, unnatural colors turn me off - and they are very common, people love to crank up saturation.

I'm not a photographer but even I noticed the hilariously oversaturated colors when I was shopping for my TV 5 years ago. Especially on OLEDs.
OLED is superior to LED if the task is small bright objects on a dark background. No matter how you slice it, LED cannot compete due to backlight bleed effects.

For everything else, I prefer my LED XF90. Including performance in an actually lit room and especially for peace of mind when doing long hours on the desktop.

There is such a thing as a TV that is too large for the viewing distance. I sit about 7.5ft from mine (and I have 20/20 vision), so larger than 55 doesn't make much sense I think.

The screen only gets too large when you have to start turning your head because your FOV is no longer sufficient. That's the point at which you start losing information because things happen at the edges that you simply cannot see.

I sit at arms length in front of a 55" 4K TV used as computer monitor @ 100% scaling.
Considering the correction area my glasses provide, that thing is borderline too large but it's fun to have an interactive wall in front of you.

Though you do NOT want to get flashbanged in a shooter with HDR turned on, when you play in a dark room. :X

 

[Davide]

I can't understand how a consumer can spend €2000 on a TV, with the risk of it having a defect/fault after the two-year warranty.
Fortunately, the European Union is promoting repairability for up to 10 years, but if for example an OLED panel has a burn-in problem, the repair costs the same as a new TV.
I found peace of mind with a 50" LG 4K HDR LED and VA panel, paid €300.
The blacks of the VA panel have nothing to envy of the OLED. Of course there is no local dimming which would have helped the quality a little, but seen side by side there is not this day/night difference.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Your just jealous


Recommended distance for cinema viewing on an 85" TV is 8.5', mixed usage is 11.6'

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

I'm not.
Our neighbor has a huge screen. I can stand in the middle of the road in front of the house and read the subtitles.

I know this recommended distance vs. screen thing and I find it more funny than anything. It's crazy. We had a Panasonic plasma 42" from 2006 until two years ago and sit 3-4 m. away. It was perfectly fine. For me. Trouble was actually finding a quality TV below 50" to replace it.

 

[Sal1950]

I know this recommended distance vs. screen thing and I find it more funny than anything. It's crazy.

All kidding aside, I don't know why you think it's crazy, would you pay to go to a theater to watch a movie
on a screen with such a narrow field of view? The numbers quoted in that article only make sense and are logical.
Of course your welcome to prefer a theater or TV room that has the logistics of the 1940s.
Enjoy whatever makes you happy.

We had a Panasonic plasma 42" from 2006 until two years ago and sit 3-4 m. away. It was perfectly fine. For me. Trouble was actually finding a quality TV below 50" to replace it.

That's kool, whatever winds your clock but remember that many people are still holding their 20 year old plasmas
in very high regard, they were the SOTA in video back then.
But modern technologies have far exceeded their capabilities, again I sure wouldn't want to go back.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

All kidding aside, I don't know why you think it's crazy, would you pay to go to a theater to watch a movie
on a screen with such a narrow field of view? The numbers quoted in that article only make sense and are logical.
Of course your welcome to prefer a theater or TV room that has the logistics of the 1940s.
Enjoy whatever makes you happy.


That's kool, whatever winds your clock but remember that many people are still holding their 20 year old plasmas
in very high regard, they were the SOTA in video back then.
But modern technologies have far exceeded their capabilities, again I sure wouldn't want to go back.

I think it's crazy how large the screens are recommended.

Actually, I miss the picture from my old plasma. Shadows and dark areas were better and fast moving pictures seemed more fluid. I know I should've bought an OLED screen but went and bought a 50" QLED instead based on rtings reviews.

 

[jbattman1016]

For whatever reasons, I've never been a big fan of HDR in home video material.
I find it's only at it's best in darkened rooms with bright TV's.
I could happily stay with SDR at home with no complaints.

YMMV

I find HDR is best suited for animated movies. The example I love to use is "The Good Dinosaur". The green skin of the dinosaur has yet to look like a mess on every SDR viewing I've seen, but under HDR viewings there are a lot of color variations there.

My only complaint about HDR is it's always bundled with 4K, when it can be supplied with a any resolution. Oh well.

 

[jbattman1016]

I recently purchased a new 65 inch television for my living room. I was undecided between an OLED and a miniLED, then I saw them side by side in a large, very bright shopping centre, the OLED simply couldn't keep up, in a side by side comparison it was much less bright. Having to use the TV daily in my room with two large windows, I decided to opt for the miniLed. When I buy a TV for the dark basement I will definitely look for an OLED. I don't believe that at the moment there is an absolute superior technology, I believe there are use cases that justify different technologies

I would agree that current OLEDs are not as bright, so you need to make the purchase that best suites your use case.