By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Biggerboat1 said:
Azuren said:

It is technically a good looking screen. OLED technology gives a fantastic picture. I replaced my OLED Vita recently for a combination of worries, the main worry being a reason that I'm apparently not supposed to share with customers: OLEDs have half-lives on their blues.

 

According to Sony themselves in our training, that's the big reason they were so hesitant about using OLED technology and why the A1E isn't their flagship model. According to Sony OLED panels will lose over 50% of their blue saturation in 7 years, so I wanted to replace my Vita before that became an issue (fear of burn-in was also an issue).

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.))



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
Azuren said:

It sounds less like you play what you want and more like you're a prisoner to your OLED when you put it like that.

 

As far as other people not coming in to post about their burn-in, there's a phenomenon where people vehemently defend products they put their money behind. Even if there was someone here with burn-in on their OLED, it's likely they wouldn't even admit to it because they believe in their product. Anecdotally, there's a guy who works in my department who insists OLED doesn't burn-in and owns one for gaming. When some co-workers and I went to his place for CAH and pizza, I examined his OLED and pointed out where his health bar from Dark Souls was beginning to burn-in. He still denied it.

 

My department sells anywhere from 7 to 15 OLEDs a week, but last week we sold 34. The only OLED burn-in I deal with for customers is burn-in from the first 30 days (return window) or burn-in on TVs with our protection plans in them. Burn-in is otherwise directed to LG, so I don't even deal with 100% of our burn-in.

 

And as a side note that I'm not sure I mentioned yet: LG does not cover burn-in on their warranties.

Well, that sounds like a huge % of affected sets and if that bore out throughout the entire industry then surely we'd hear more about it and/or stores would simply stop stocking as the time/costs of returns would negate the profits made on selling the actual sets...?

Where was the deluge of OLED Vita owners complaints in the first month after purchase? The joy-con issue seemed to be shouted from the rooftops as vocally as possible for what ended up being quite a small percentage of effected units so it seems a very odd difference in consumer behaviour... Unless I just missed the backlash (I don't follow Sony particularly closely)

Anyway, as I've said in my other post - I'll def have another look at my set tonight.

You'd be surprised what companies will stock for a profit. Just take RGBW panels, for example. They aren't real 4K, yet are legally advertised as such because they can be 4K when Monochromatic. ((For those wishing to avoid RGBW panels, only LG makes them. They are the UH6300, UJ6200, UJ6300, UJ7700, and SJ8000))

 

Can't have a deluge of complaints if there isn't a deluge of sales. Plus, the UI of the Vita was designed to be in constant motion (except the top bar showing the time/battery/etc), thus acting as it's own form of pixel shift. Finally, the Vita didn't kick off in Japan much until after the slim model launched, so most models on the market lack the OLED display.

 

And good luck. I don't wish burn-in on people, I'm here to make sure they make informed decisions.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

ThisGuyFooks said:
Azuren said:

Hi. Hundreds of hours of hands-on training between Sony, LG, and Samsung. Personally deal with selling TV's and inspecting returns. Been doing this for several years. Now let me tell you why you're wrong:

 

Burn-in is a real thing that can happen almost at random if an image stays on screen for too long. Every individual set is different, and some burn in much faster than others even in the same model. Burn-in happens often. The most common things to burn in are health bars and the LG logo. Pixel shift will not save you. The pixel refresh will not save you. Your screen will likely burn in within 12 months, and guess what? LG, Phillips, Panasonic, and Sony don't cover it on their warranties.

 

Now for your individual points:

 

Sony LEDs are objectively the best LEDs as a whole this year, so you are correct.

Samsungs from last year are mostly the same as this year, with exception of the KS series, all of which use split panels and have a high failure rate. Avoid unless you intend on buying protection.

Correct, QLEDs are overpriced, but still good TVs.

Panasonic has more often than not released garbage TVs since plasma was rendered obsolete. Avoid.

 

Most cheaper brands available in the US are 8-bit (NOT HDR) , suffer from high input lag, or both. Good for guest rooms, not for gaming.

 

Also, nice pick on your TV.

Holy shit, this is a nice insight!

Glad to have you in the community, i hope you can help me next year to choose my new TV.

Oh, thanks. If you have any questions, just message me. I'm always glad to help.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

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! 



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.



Around the Network
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.



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 :)