Quantcast
Looking into a 4K TV, any recommendations?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Looking into a 4K TV, any recommendations?

Azuren said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I think this whole debate comes down to expectations. As I stated earlier I don't mind replacing my TV every 5 years if it means having the best viewing experience. At that point I can retire the old OLED to the secondary set in the bedroom or something - I'm sure even with a little burn-in and loss of blues it'll still do a decent enough job in that capacity.

If you want your TV to last up to 10 years as your primary then yes, I guess there are better options. Although, I have to say that it seems a bit of an exception in the world of tech to expect that length of optimal performance out of a product... Just look at phones & PCs...

Sony may be skeptical of OLED in some regards but not too skeptical to have offered a Vita using the tech and also currently available TVs...

My issue is the lack of moderation in these comments - it seems very one-sided & it took the mention of the Vita to have you say something overtly positive about the tech...

I'll have another look at some test screens tonight and really have a thorough examination as I'm genuinely interested. If it turns out there's some burn-in hiding somewhere I won't be happy but I'm not going to lose sleep over it, especially as even with some subtle burn-in which is only visible on test screens, I'm still be delighted with the overall day-to-day viewing experience...

And as I tell people in my store, if you're the rope to buy a new TV every few years, don't worry about it and grab an OLED. But most people aren't like that, and it's irresponsible to suggest OLEDs to people looking for a 7-8 year TV. A 10 year TV doesn't really happen anymore.

 

Sony is skeptical, which is why they stopped releasing OLED Vita's. They worked with OLED for years before LG made larger OLED screens, and this have much more experience with it than LG does. So I'll trust Sony's opinion on OLED before LG's.

 

It seems you misunderstand: I've never completely dogged OLED picture quality. Aside from a loss in black definition on LG models (Sony models can more properly display black detail thanks to better video processing), the OLEDs have perfect picture quality. The problem is it's a dead end technology, just like plasma. The shortcomings of OLED will never be overcome, and the industry will change gears to the QLEDs after Samsung makes them self-emitting. ((Quick lesson: the thing that makes OLED so great is the fact that the diodes are self-emitting, meaning every pixel is lighting itself. So instead of displaying a black that is lit up like an LED, the diode just turns off, giving a perfect black with infinite contrast and zero light bleed/bloom. Should a QLED become self-emitting, it's be an OLED with 100% color volume, zero burn-in, and no half-life.))

Well, I just spent 5 minutes switching  through the various app icons on the webos menu - (hovering over an app displays a flat colour associated with that app across the entire screen apart from an icon in the middle and the icon tray at the bottom - should do the trick no?) and I can honestly say that I cannot see any uniformity issues.

 

Maybe I'm just lucky but my understanding is that it's not a hit or miss thing but an issue inert to every oled TV so I dunno...

 

Until I do see signs of burn in, my stance is that I own a TV that is significantly better than any of those you listed on a previous post & even if it were to show signs in say, a year or two, at which point does it get bad enough to completely offset the advantage it has in image quality? 

 

If I had the choice between a non-oled or an oled with a bit of burn-in in the top left of the screen where the BBC logo lives, I'd still choose the oled...

 

Again, this is just me, I'm sure that view would split opinion but I think the presumption that burn-in of any kind nullifies any and all of the other advantages the oled holds over it's counterparts is not fair. 

 

And I have zero loyalty to oled itself - if like you say, next gen qled trumps it then qled will be my next TV.

 

I appreciate the more constructive tone to your recent posts as opposed to the ones where you were telling me, as an oled owner, that I feel bitter - as that's what got my hackles up! 



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:

Well, I just spent 5 minutes switching  through the various app icons on the webos menu - (hovering over an app displays a flat colour associated with that app across the entire screen apart from an icon in the middle and the icon tray at the bottom - should do the trick no?) and I can honestly say that I cannot see any uniformity issues.

 

Maybe I'm just lucky but my understanding is that it's not a hit or miss thing but an issue inert to every oled TV so I dunno...

 

Until I do see signs of burn in, my stance is that I own a TV that is significantly better than any of those you listed on a previous post & even if it were to show signs in say, a year or two, at which point does it get bad enough to completely offset the advantage it has in image quality? 

 

If I had the choice between a non-oled or an oled with a bit of burn-in in the top left of the screen where the BBC logo lives, I'd still choose the oled...

 

Again, this is just me, I'm sure that view would split opinion but I think the presumption that burn-in of any kind nullifies any and all of the other advantages the oled holds over it's counterparts is not fair. 

 

And I have zero loyalty to oled itself - if like you say, next gen qled trumps it then qled will be my next TV.

 

I appreciate the more constructive tone to your recent posts as opposed to the ones where you were telling me, as an oled owner, that I feel bitter - as that's what got my hackles up! 

Where does that belief come from though? Just from the ultra black?

Compare the specs:

Gradient test:
X900E Small imperfections can be noticed in the dark green and blue, but these are almost negligible.
C7 Small imperfections can be noticed in the darker shades of color and the dark part of the greyscale. Note that when the TV is set to 'PC' mode, via the input menu, the banding is much more visible, and this for all picture modes.

White Balance / color deviation (smaller is better)
X900E 2.15 / 2.37 pre, 0.25 / 1.97 post calibration
C7 4.47 / 3.04 pre, 0.15 / 1.22 post calibration

Color Gamut % DCI P3 xy/uv
X900E 89.57% / 96.07
C7 95.99 / 97.53

Color volume % DCI P3 normalized/10k nits (important for HDR, how well the colors hold up over the brightness range)
X900E 80.4 / 46.5
C7 81.1 / 44.4

Both are still quite low on the rec.2020 color scale, it will be a while until GT Sport can show it's true colors.

The C7 also has ABL, dimming very bright scenes to protect the tv I guess. Check the HDR measurements on rtings.com, too many too list, yet they say that ABL is a negative for HDR gaming, and from the figures, depending on how much of the screen is bright, the C7 varies from 718 nits all the way down to 137 nits max, a factor 5 difference. X900E is very stable in light output.

HDR ABL, good value < 0.07
X900E 0.033
C7 0.1

This is comparing a high end tv to a mid range tv. So what is significantly better?

Ofcourse all these minor differences don't really matter when watching normal content. Neither does perfect black, unless you watch in a completely dark room with dark walls wearing dark clothes. Otherwise the only times you notice it when there is a logo on a further perfectly black screen. ABL is probably also not all that noticeable with normal content but it's a trade off, perfect black vs stable whites.

Perhaps I need to see it in somebody's home, well calibrated and all. In my local home theater store, set up in a low ambient light viewing room, playing a normal movie, I don't see the significantly better picture. Plus that store told me they were phasing out LG because they've had a lot of problems with them and are now going to stock Sony instead.



Azuren said:
kowenicki said:
http://www.lg.com/us/experience-tvs/oled-tv/reliability

ir/burn in topic

Just going to point out the obvious in that you linked to LG to discuss OLED reliability, as if they aren't going to be obscenely biased.

 

Here's a link from an actual burn-in test that is still ongoing from a website that legitimately doesn't care which TV is the best, since they make money from any links used to buy TV's:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled

The problem with the site you listed is that they are only testing the LG B6 which is the 2016 model.  They need to include the B7 2017 models.  One of the reason I purchase the LG OLED is that it supports all HDR formats from HR10, HLG, Dolby Vision.  This works out great since I watch a lot of Netflict content and they use Dolby Vision while other content providers use HR10.  Once HLG takes over for HR10, the LG TV will support those as well.  Not sure if HLG can be patched for TVs that do HR10 I am not sure.  The way I see it, HDR adds more punch then 4K and its the real reason to upgrade to these high end TVs.  I wanted to make sure that I was future proof unlike my previous 4K TV.



Machiavellian said:
Azuren said:

Just going to point out the obvious in that you linked to LG to discuss OLED reliability, as if they aren't going to be obscenely biased.

 

Here's a link from an actual burn-in test that is still ongoing from a website that legitimately doesn't care which TV is the best, since they make money from any links used to buy TV's:

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled

The problem with the site you listed is that they are only testing the LG B6 which is the 2016 model.  They need to include the B7 2017 models.  One of the reason I purchase the LG OLED is that it supports all HDR formats from HR10, HLG, Dolby Vision.  This works out great since I watch a lot of Netflict content and they use Dolby Vision while other content providers use HR10.  Once HLG takes over for HR10, the LG TV will support those as well.  Not sure if HLG can be patched for TVs that do HR10 I am not sure.  The way I see it, HDR adds more punch then 4K and its the real reason to upgrade to these high end TVs.  I wanted to make sure that I was future proof unlike my previous 4K TV.

HLG was developed to be compatible with standard SDR tvs. It's getting patched into the B6 model as well, in Europe only for now as the BBC iPlayer is the only thing that uses it so far. Sony has been updating their firmware as well to support HLG. HLG is simply a different (standard) curve for HDR to put more detail into the SDR range of the content. Basically a trade off, less definition in the highs for better definition in the SDR range.

HLG, or Hybrid-Log Gamma, is a one of the newer standards on the market, but it's an entirely different beast from Dolby Vision and HDR. HLG was developed by the BBC and NHK broadcasting networks to serve as an HDR format for live video. Unlike other HDR methods, which pre-encode the content with metadata to properly display the HDR effect, the HLG system is designed to work similar to regular broadcast television. It simply includes additional information regarding the HDR effect that compatible sets can implement. The broadcast is also backwards compatible with older standard dynamic range images should the set not offer HLG compatibility.

While HLG is still years away from any mainstream rollout, there’s nothing about the spec that would prevent any HDR set from offering a firmware update to support it later on.

HLG is not an improvement. It won't take over HDR10, it's a compromise for tv broadcasting that works on both SDR and HDR tvs.


The real upgrade will be Dynamic HDR, but for that you need HDMI 2.1 No current tv on the market is future proof. (And after 2.1 they'll think of something else, so don't worry about future proving)


Dolby vision is indeed the better format with upto 12 bit and 10k nits peak brightness, however the irony is that OLEDs are the least suited to high peak brightness and can't even get close to the peak of 1k nits of HDR 10. Plus 12 bit panels (or video) don't exist yet. 



SvennoJ said:
Machiavellian said:

The problem with the site you listed is that they are only testing the LG B6 which is the 2016 model.  They need to include the B7 2017 models.  One of the reason I purchase the LG OLED is that it supports all HDR formats from HR10, HLG, Dolby Vision.  This works out great since I watch a lot of Netflict content and they use Dolby Vision while other content providers use HR10.  Once HLG takes over for HR10, the LG TV will support those as well.  Not sure if HLG can be patched for TVs that do HR10 I am not sure.  The way I see it, HDR adds more punch then 4K and its the real reason to upgrade to these high end TVs.  I wanted to make sure that I was future proof unlike my previous 4K TV.

HLG was developed to be compatible with standard SDR tvs. It's getting patched into the B6 model as well, in Europe only for now as the BBC iPlayer is the only thing that uses it so far. Sony has been updating their firmware as well to support HLG. HLG is simply a different (standard) curve for HDR to put more detail into the SDR range of the content. Basically a trade off, less definition in the highs for better definition in the SDR range.

HLG, or Hybrid-Log Gamma, is a one of the newer standards on the market, but it's an entirely different beast from Dolby Vision and HDR. HLG was developed by the BBC and NHK broadcasting networks to serve as an HDR format for live video. Unlike other HDR methods, which pre-encode the content with metadata to properly display the HDR effect, the HLG system is designed to work similar to regular broadcast television. It simply includes additional information regarding the HDR effect that compatible sets can implement. The broadcast is also backwards compatible with older standard dynamic range images should the set not offer HLG compatibility.

While HLG is still years away from any mainstream rollout, there’s nothing about the spec that would prevent any HDR set from offering a firmware update to support it later on.

HLG is not an improvement. It won't take over HDR10, it's a compromise for tv broadcasting that works on both SDR and HDR tvs.


The real upgrade will be Dynamic HDR, but for that you need HDMI 2.1 No current tv on the market is future proof. (And after 2.1 they'll think of something else, so don't worry about future proving)


Dolby vision is indeed the better format with upto 12 bit and 10k nits peak brightness, however the irony is that OLEDs are the least suited to high peak brightness and can't even get close to the peak of 1k nits of HDR 10. Plus 12 bit panels (or video) don't exist yet. 

Thanks for the insight on HLG.  For some reason I thought it was the new format for HDR 10 that suppose to have the dynamic metadata that is lacking in the format that Dolby Vision has which allows it to adjust the brightness level per frame.  I believe the dynamic metadata is the big win for Dolby Vision at the moment as it does give the extra pop when transitioning from day to night scenes.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:

Thanks for the insight on HLG.  For some reason I thought it was the new format for HDR 10 that suppose to have the dynamic metadata that is lacking in the format that Dolby Vision has which allows it to adjust the brightness level per frame.  I believe the dynamic metadata is the big win for Dolby Vision at the moment as it does give the extra pop when transitioning from day to night scenes.

While it does have that, I doubt you can actually notice the difference in today's content.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision
These guys couldn't and they declare DV the winner based on specifications. It is however more relevant to OLEDs lower peak brightness as DV supports standard tone mapping, ie adjusting the values that fall outside the capabilities of the tv while with HDR it's left up to the tv manufacturer what happens with values that the tv can't reach.

Dolby Vision is more future proof, yet no existing panel can actually display the difference, nor the full capabilities of HDR10 for that matter.

Actually these guys saw a difference
https://www.whathifi.com/features/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision-which-better
Out of a sample size of 2, Despicable me 2 looked much better in HDR10, Power rangers looked clearly better in Dolby Vision.
I guess it all depends on the mastering process.

Here is a very in depth comparison which I can't be bothered to fully watch lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voePq29-U6M

I did briefly skip to 25 minutes in where he's comparing one scene. DV better tone mapping, HDR10 better shadow detail. DV more black crush basically which is kinda unexpected. Anyway as a 1080p you tube video on my crappy LCD Laptop I can only see the black crush difference and higher contrast on the left. Yet when it takes putting two tvs next to each other to play spot the small differences, it's simply more of a disruption (mastering for 2 HDR formats) than a benefit. At least this format war is way less disruptive than hd-dvd vs blu-ray.



SvennoJ said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Well, I just spent 5 minutes switching  through the various app icons on the webos menu - (hovering over an app displays a flat colour associated with that app across the entire screen apart from an icon in the middle and the icon tray at the bottom - should do the trick no?) and I can honestly say that I cannot see any uniformity issues.

 

Maybe I'm just lucky but my understanding is that it's not a hit or miss thing but an issue inert to every oled TV so I dunno...

 

Until I do see signs of burn in, my stance is that I own a TV that is significantly better than any of those you listed on a previous post & even if it were to show signs in say, a year or two, at which point does it get bad enough to completely offset the advantage it has in image quality? 

 

If I had the choice between a non-oled or an oled with a bit of burn-in in the top left of the screen where the BBC logo lives, I'd still choose the oled...

 

Again, this is just me, I'm sure that view would split opinion but I think the presumption that burn-in of any kind nullifies any and all of the other advantages the oled holds over it's counterparts is not fair. 

 

And I have zero loyalty to oled itself - if like you say, next gen qled trumps it then qled will be my next TV.

 

I appreciate the more constructive tone to your recent posts as opposed to the ones where you were telling me, as an oled owner, that I feel bitter - as that's what got my hackles up! 

Where does that belief come from though? Just from the ultra black?

Compare the specs:

Gradient test:
X900E Small imperfections can be noticed in the dark green and blue, but these are almost negligible.
C7 Small imperfections can be noticed in the darker shades of color and the dark part of the greyscale. Note that when the TV is set to 'PC' mode, via the input menu, the banding is much more visible, and this for all picture modes.

White Balance / color deviation (smaller is better)
X900E 2.15 / 2.37 pre, 0.25 / 1.97 post calibration
C7 4.47 / 3.04 pre, 0.15 / 1.22 post calibration

Color Gamut % DCI P3 xy/uv
X900E 89.57% / 96.07
C7 95.99 / 97.53

Color volume % DCI P3 normalized/10k nits (important for HDR, how well the colors hold up over the brightness range)
X900E 80.4 / 46.5
C7 81.1 / 44.4

Both are still quite low on the rec.2020 color scale, it will be a while until GT Sport can show it's true colors.

The C7 also has ABL, dimming very bright scenes to protect the tv I guess. Check the HDR measurements on rtings.com, too many too list, yet they say that ABL is a negative for HDR gaming, and from the figures, depending on how much of the screen is bright, the C7 varies from 718 nits all the way down to 137 nits max, a factor 5 difference. X900E is very stable in light output.

HDR ABL, good value < 0.07
X900E 0.033
C7 0.1

This is comparing a high end tv to a mid range tv. So what is significantly better?

Ofcourse all these minor differences don't really matter when watching normal content. Neither does perfect black, unless you watch in a completely dark room with dark walls wearing dark clothes. Otherwise the only times you notice it when there is a logo on a further perfectly black screen. ABL is probably also not all that noticeable with normal content but it's a trade off, perfect black vs stable whites.

Perhaps I need to see it in somebody's home, well calibrated and all. In my local home theater store, set up in a low ambient light viewing room, playing a normal movie, I don't see the significantly better picture. Plus that store told me they were phasing out LG because they've had a lot of problems with them and are now going to stock Sony instead.

Perhaps I should have said the listed model's equivalents back when I bought my OLED back in 2015. I'm by no means a TV aficionado but from what I've read and what others have said, it's the per-pixel illumination that makes the real different (& the perfect blacks of course) - the detail and contrast just pop - making everything look extremely rich & vibrant.

But, your best source is the many reviews out there stating exactly why OLED stands out - there's no shortage of them that's for sure :)



Sony e900 don't get OLED my friend had an lg OLED Tons of burn in



And still every respected review site says OLED.... but don't let that sway you, we have a poster here who knows best. (that study he is swooning over which mentions the lg still being the best by the way, is on last years model too). There are other tests of course, such as input lag and viewing angle, clouding etc... but lest ignore those too.

Those Sony sets mentioned are decent enough if you are in a budget I guess, but I'm not.

The only Sony's I would buy would be the A1 (OLED) or the ZD9B, otherwise it would be a QLED from Samsung or one of the better Panasonics.





I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Biggerboat1 said:

Perhaps I should have said the listed model's equivalents back when I bought my OLED back in 2015. I'm by no means a TV aficionado but from what I've read and what others have said, it's the per-pixel illumination that makes the real different (& the perfect blacks of course) - the detail and contrast just pop - making everything look extremely rich & vibrant.

But, your best source is the many reviews out there stating exactly why OLED stands out - there's no shortage of them that's for sure :)

And that's also its achilles heel. Every light source made by man wears out slowly, it's simple physics. With LED not a problem, it doesn't effect the color or the individual pixels. With OLED, it all depends on how evenly each pixel wears, per color, or per location with static images. The most used pixels wear out faster, it's simple physics.
This is not a new problem, it's as old as CRT. Except static images are more common nowadays. Still my CRT projector degraded faster in the blue range. It seems it's still the same with OLED, blue is the weakest link.

I'm not sure what you mean by just pop. The 360's skewed gamma curve (and resulting black crush) made images pop. Rich and vibrant is just a matter of cranking up the contrast and saturation. Both things (extreme contrast and high saturation) are undesirable for movie viewing, it's the first thing AV guides tell you to turn down while calibrating a new tv.

Anyway I'll go with what my eyes tell me :) And maybe they don't work correctly lol. I can't see true black, there's always some background visual noise like a very dark version of night vision. Perhaps that's why OLED doesn't 'pop' for me.

kowenicki said:
And still every respected review site says OLED.... but don't let that sway you, we have a poster here who knows best. (that study he is swooning over which mentions the lg still being the best by the way, is on last years model too). There are other tests of course, such as input lag and viewing angle, clouding etc... but lest ignore those too.

Those Sony sets mentioned are decent enough if you are in a budget I guess, but I'm not.

The only Sony's I would buy would be the A1 (OLED) or the ZD9B, otherwise it would be a QLED from Samsung or one of the better Panasonics.

But don't believe the people that sell and deal with those tvs every day. It's not just Azuren. The specialized home theater store where I have bought all my equipment over the past 13 years would not recommend me to get the LG, in fact they were discontinuing to stock LG because of the problems they've had with them.

Get the Z9D if money is not an option, or indeed wait and see how self emitting qleds turn out. Might as well wait for hdmi 2.1, shouldn't be more than a few months away now. If money was not an option for me I would get this http://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/projector/vpl-vw5000es
Even that's not perfect, can't handle 4K60p at 4:4:4. I wish laser projectors would come down in price!