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

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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'

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

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

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.

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?

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!