Quantcast
Looking into a 4K TV, any recommendations?

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

SvennoJ said:
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.

I don't disagree that OLED's strength (per-pixel illumination) is also a weakness but as I've stated, mines is 2 years in and there are no noticable signs of burn-in. If I get 5 years of optimal (or near-optimal) viewing out of the set, I'll be more than happy. There are countless examples of tech which degrades over time - it's not to say that this fact should be celebrated but it is not specific to OLEDs. That said, a non-OLED will last you longer without issue. So that's the choice really - the best viewing experience for the medium-term or a slightly lesser experience for the longer term. 'Pop' is a bit of a vague term I guess but the ability for neighbouring pixels to display completely independently means that the detail in contrast is dramatic - that's what I was getting at.

I feel I'm starting to repeat myself now and as I've said before - I'm by no means a TV expert but the almost universal acclaim for OLEDs from almost every reviewer out there must mean something...

The Galaxy S8's & the iPhone X's celebrated screens are both OLED - and Apple apparently paid Samsung a fortune for the privilege. In general critics have been raving about both screens - so it's definitely not a case of the Emperor's new clothes. As you've said - if you sat in front of one in the right conditions then I'm sure you'd see what everyone else is seeing :)

I listen to about 4 or 5 gaming podcasts a week and a good chunk of those journalists have either invested in an OLED or intend to when the prices drop. And none of them have complained of burn-in (yet anyway).

Anyway, I'm sure you're TV is also great!



Around the Network
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.



And most gamers who bought them report burn-in. Go figure. It's almost like websites are recommending them based on out-of-the-box picture and not long-term reliability.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Biggerboat1 said:
Azuren said:

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! 

The easiest way to spot burn-in is a uniform red screen.

 

Every OLED is susceptible to burn-in, but they succumb at different rates due to irregularities from set to set.

 

LG OLEDs lose definition in blacks; LG OLEDs also suffer from shoddy upscaling and noise algorithms; image retention can get pretty ridiculous on OLEDs, staying visible well past ten minutes; and finally, standard LED TVs don't require extra care or conditions to use without compromising the picture; at least the 930E runs twice as bright on Real Scene Brightness; QLEDs have significantly more color volume; the SJ8500 and SJ9500 have significantly lower input lag; both Tizen and AndroidTV are more supported than WebOS; none of the models I listed suffer from half-lives; none of the models I listed suffer from burn-in at a rate anywhere close to OLED; should I go on? It's clear to anyone who's paying attention to OLED issues and not OLED contrast that the failure rate is high enough to avoid them altogether.

 

That's a strange decision that seems to defeat you stating you have no loyalty to OLED, as no one without loyalty would actively choose an already burnt-in TV over a TV that won't burn-in.

 

And it does, because it doesn't matter how good the rest of the screen looks: part of the screen is compromised in an unfixable way, making your TV pretty much worthless beyond that point. It's like people walking around with cracks on their phone screen; no one wants that, so why actively pick a phone that can crack by itself seemingly at random?

 

But it's your decision. If burn-in doesn't bother you, then OLEDs have the perfect contrast (which makes up most of what your eye finds appealing, not necessarily the perfect blacks). As for myself, I'll wait for self-emitting panels that lack burn-in.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Biggerboat1 said:

I don't disagree that OLED's strength (per-pixel illumination) is also a weakness but as I've stated, mines is 2 years in and there are no noticable signs of burn-in. If I get 5 years of optimal (or near-optimal) viewing out of the set, I'll be more than happy. There are countless examples of tech which degrades over time - it's not to say that this fact should be celebrated but it is not specific to OLEDs. That said, a non-OLED will last you longer without issue. So that's the choice really - the best viewing experience for the medium-term or a slightly lesser experience for the longer term. 'Pop' is a bit of a vague term I guess but the ability for neighbouring pixels to display completely independently means that the detail in contrast is dramatic - that's what I was getting at.

I feel I'm starting to repeat myself now and as I've said before - I'm by no means a TV expert but the almost universal acclaim for OLEDs from almost every reviewer out there must mean something...

The Galaxy S8's & the iPhone X's celebrated screens are both OLED - and Apple apparently paid Samsung a fortune for the privilege. In general critics have been raving about both screens - so it's definitely not a case of the Emperor's new clothes. As you've said - if you sat in front of one in the right conditions then I'm sure you'd see what everyone else is seeing :)

I listen to about 4 or 5 gaming podcasts a week and a good chunk of those journalists have either invested in an OLED or intend to when the prices drop. And none of them have complained of burn-in (yet anyway).

Anyway, I'm sure you're TV is also great!

I've had that feeling for a while :)

But that's one thing I would like to know before buying: So that's the choice really - the best viewing experience for the medium-term or a slightly lesser experience for the longer term. What term is that, what is slightly lesser, etc.

An Oled tv for personal use while taking care not to play the same game or same channel all year long probably should have little problems. That's not my use case though or for many people that buy tvs. It's usually a shared item and kids are prone to get fixated on one or two games that they'll play for years. No clue how many hours have gone into minecraft so far and all the different lego games (all with the same hud elements)

Thanks, tv is indeed great. Still makes me stop and admire the pq 2 months later even with a shitty broadcast on. (My wife is watching the Menedez murders atm on A&E) Yet I can see where the difference lies with OLED. Last night we were binge watching Stranger things 2 in the dark and when you pay close attention you can spot the slight difference between the tv turning off completely between dark scenes and zoned back light coming back on the next scene to reveal shadow detail while they were in the caves. In normal transitions it's not noticeable, just during the fake commercial break pauses.

So sure, for games where most of the screen is pure black with just one light source in your hand and basically a bad ambient light implementation. OLED will do a better job at displaying the image in a dark room. It's not natural, but does give it extra 'pop'



Azuren 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! 

The easiest way to spot burn-in is a uniform red screen.

 

Every OLED is susceptible to burn-in, but they succumb at different rates due to irregularities from set to set.

 

LG OLEDs lose definition in blacks; LG OLEDs also suffer from shoddy upscaling and noise algorithms; image retention can get pretty ridiculous on OLEDs, staying visible well past ten minutes; and finally, standard LED TVs don't require extra care or conditions to use without compromising the picture; at least the 930E runs twice as bright on Real Scene Brightness; QLEDs have significantly more color volume; the SJ8500 and SJ9500 have significantly lower input lag; both Tizen and AndroidTV are more supported than WebOS; none of the models I listed suffer from half-lives; none of the models I listed suffer from burn-in at a rate anywhere close to OLED; should I go on? It's clear to anyone who's paying attention to OLED issues and not OLED contrast that the failure rate is high enough to avoid them altogether.

 

That's a strange decision that seems to defeat you stating you have no loyalty to OLED, as no one without loyalty would actively choose an already burnt-in TV over a TV that won't burn-in.

 

And it does, because it doesn't matter how good the rest of the screen looks: part of the screen is compromised in an unfixable way, making your TV pretty much worthless beyond that point. It's like people walking around with cracks on their phone screen; no one wants that, so why actively pick a phone that can crack by itself seemingly at random?

 

But it's your decision. If burn-in doesn't bother you, then OLEDs have the perfect contrast (which makes up most of what your eye finds appealing, not necessarily the perfect blacks). As for myself, I'll wait for self-emitting panels that lack burn-in.

Whilst you definitely know what you're talking about when it comes to TVs you also have a bit of a flair for the dramatic...

If you want to compare the issue of burn-in on a tv with a comparable issue on a phone - then surely, rather than using an example of a cracked screen it would be a more even-handed approach to use the example of... I dunno... ummm... burn-in maybe? Comparing burn-in to a cracked screen is just hyperbole.

I've attached a pic of my tv running a uniform red - as you suggested - and unless I'm missing something there seems to be zero sign of any issues :)

My comment about choosing an OLED with a little burn-in over an inferior set without - was there to illustrate that that whilst it may represent an instant game over to you, to others it would simply be another piece of info used to weigh-up the pro's and cons of a tv. If, like the example I mentioned, the BBC icon caused some burn-in after a few years - the TV wouldn't immediately go from a 9/10 PQ to zero. Maybe it would drop to an 8.5 or an 8 - but that's just me - it's subjective... depends on the severity and how visible it is during normal viewing - not some test screen... and it doesn't instantly negate all of the advantages that the TV holds over it's competition.

Anyway - the completionist in me just wanted to post the photo to show that I'm not some OLED zealot in self-denial - I've had the set for 2 years and it still looks fantastic. If I make it to 5 years without any noticeable burn-in (as in noticeable during normal viewing) then I've made the correct TV purchase & no number of links will prove otherwise!

https://ibb.co/jtq2vG



Around the Network

Sony e 900 is awesome.my friend has one he replaced an lg OLED that had tons of burn in and the OLED lost brightness the OLED is 3 years old second gen OLED from lg



Biggerboat1 said:

Whilst you definitely know what you're talking about when it comes to TVs you also have a bit of a flair for the dramatic...

If you want to compare the issue of burn-in on a tv with a comparable issue on a phone - then surely, rather than using an example of a cracked screen it would be a more even-handed approach to use the example of... I dunno... ummm... burn-in maybe? Comparing burn-in to a cracked screen is just hyperbole.

I've attached a pic of my tv running a uniform red - as you suggested - and unless I'm missing something there seems to be zero sign of any issues :)

My comment about choosing an OLED with a little burn-in over an inferior set without - was there to illustrate that that whilst it may represent an instant game over to you, to others it would simply be another piece of info used to weigh-up the pro's and cons of a tv. If, like the example I mentioned, the BBC icon caused some burn-in after a few years - the TV wouldn't immediately go from a 9/10 PQ to zero. Maybe it would drop to an 8.5 or an 8 - but that's just me - it's subjective... depends on the severity and how visible it is during normal viewing - not some test screen... and it doesn't instantly negate all of the advantages that the TV holds over it's competition.

Anyway - the completionist in me just wanted to post the photo to show that I'm not some OLED zealot in self-denial - I've had the set for 2 years and it still looks fantastic. If I make it to 5 years without any noticeable burn-in (as in noticeable during normal viewing) then I've made the correct TV purchase & no number of links will prove otherwise!

https://ibb.co/jtq2vG

 

Might I ask how many hours you have used that tv approximately? Did you play any one game for a long time on it or are you more varied in what you play and watch.

Lespaul said:
Sony e 900 is awesome.my friend has one he replaced an lg OLED that had tons of burn in and the OLED lost brightness the OLED is 3 years old second gen OLED from lg

Same for you, how many hours were on that tv?

A friend of mine also bought an OLED last year, yet he only games once a week and doesn't use it very often. He's now looking for a bigger screen for his game room and wants to place this one in the living room where it will be used daily. At what point does OLED start to show wear?



SvennoJ said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Whilst you definitely know what you're talking about when it comes to TVs you also have a bit of a flair for the dramatic...

If you want to compare the issue of burn-in on a tv with a comparable issue on a phone - then surely, rather than using an example of a cracked screen it would be a more even-handed approach to use the example of... I dunno... ummm... burn-in maybe? Comparing burn-in to a cracked screen is just hyperbole.

I've attached a pic of my tv running a uniform red - as you suggested - and unless I'm missing something there seems to be zero sign of any issues :)

My comment about choosing an OLED with a little burn-in over an inferior set without - was there to illustrate that that whilst it may represent an instant game over to you, to others it would simply be another piece of info used to weigh-up the pro's and cons of a tv. If, like the example I mentioned, the BBC icon caused some burn-in after a few years - the TV wouldn't immediately go from a 9/10 PQ to zero. Maybe it would drop to an 8.5 or an 8 - but that's just me - it's subjective... depends on the severity and how visible it is during normal viewing - not some test screen... and it doesn't instantly negate all of the advantages that the TV holds over it's competition.

Anyway - the completionist in me just wanted to post the photo to show that I'm not some OLED zealot in self-denial - I've had the set for 2 years and it still looks fantastic. If I make it to 5 years without any noticeable burn-in (as in noticeable during normal viewing) then I've made the correct TV purchase & no number of links will prove otherwise!

https://ibb.co/jtq2vG

 

Might I ask how many hours you have used that tv approximately? Did you play any one game for a long time on it or are you more varied in what you play and watch.

I watch a good balance of netflix / amazon / iplayer / and various sky channels, and of course gaming - on average I'd say the set is on around 8 hours a day. So after 2 years it's approaching 6 thousand hours.


I've sunk around 80-90 hours into zelda, around the same in MK8D & have about 500 moons in Odyssey (so I guess 30-40 hours & a good amount of time in Shadow of Mordor and a couple of other big PC games in that time).


After reading this thread the thing I was more scared of than any HUD elements was the top and bottom bars present when watching films - which we do a lot of - but as of now all looks good!



TruckOSaurus said:

For Christmas my husband and I have decided to offer ourselves a brand new 4K TV. Problem is, I'm not sure what to lookout for besides price and width. What brands are considered good or bad? What other options should I be asking for? Any electronics pros out there have anything to recommend?

Also is the PS4 Pro upgrade worth it once you've got a 4K TV?

 

My SONY XE8077 arrived and the picture quality is outstanding! Sound is OK, but then I have sound bar and bass speaker for that. With the colour corrected I feel like I'm at the cinemas. Great purchase so far and a very competitive price.



Okay, so... A few things... I have a PS4, and a PS4 pro. I don't care for the 4k features. I'd rather play at regular 1080p for stability.

Next, TVs normally aren't considered great because they have display lag. However, my 50 inch TV keeps up with my high speed gaming monitor to the point where it's not distracting. I have sound coming from my TV, because windows 10 only allows one sound output.

However, a few things about my tv, before i say what it is.

The resolution is of the DCI 4K TV standard, that's 4096 X 2160. It's not 16 x 9, like the other 3840 x 2160.

Those extra pixels are good for me, because the more room i have, the better for multi- tasking. However, you can manually change the screen area, but you will have black bars on the side. The way i see it, having black bars on the side is better than having less screen area, because it's there when you need it.

I can also do wide screen gaming on this 4k tv, which puts the bars on the top and bottom. When i do that, the game is only going to run 60 FPS, but that's fine. it's a trade off.

Anyway, I have a 50 inch vizio M series of TVs, from 2016. The 2017 model has better colors, but increased display lag, so for gaming, I wouldn't do it.

You can't have a TV to do everything, though. I've had the TV a while. I had an E series, 43 inch, originally, and I disliked it so much, i got rid of it, and got an M series. So happy i did. I've been satisfied with this TV since i bought it.

A few complaints that are extremely petty, mind you, are that the rim of the TV isn't silver like the P series, and that apparently upscaling from 720p isn't so great... However, I personally haven't noticed anything significant. I was trying to see a difference between 720 and 1080 in my switch today on this tv, and they both looked the same.

Oh, yeah. It's a a smart tv, with no cam, or a mic! everything is either done from the included tablet remote, which is 720p, (P series comes with a 1080p tablet remote) and a regular standard remote. Vizio later mailed me a free remote that had additional features.

Before i needed the app to access certain things. Now, the new remote has buttons for all that stuff that pop right up on the TV itself.

And, I dont have mine connected with an Ethernet... I dont know why, and I've had no issues with the wifi... Well, no ethernet port, that explains it.

But, it's a smart tv without any useless features. No web browser no cam, no mic, it's great for games.