Originally Posted by Theplague13
Fafrd - you are my "dude".
Here's the thing: I'm not so sure there is inherently anything in the OLED pixels themselves that make them any better than any other pixel of any other type. What OLED does is create the illusion of depth through blacks which are truly voidlike...This is not to be understated; it's absolutely stunning; but only with the right source...with the HX950, near-black scenes would present as black due to the LED's shutting off. See the OLED differentiates, whereas the FALD is being told "that background is black", so it MAKES it black. Though you've got bloom which is the inevitable trade-off.
The Sharp Elite was one of the greatest sets ever . But it still had its bad sets too! Don't get me wrong, comparing, say, 5x10's set with the worst Elite could turn heads. But if you've got problems with the panel lottery you turn local dimming up and you will NEVER see those issues (except for banding, which the OLED has sometimes as well). Local dimming is truly a fakeout to the senses
, but it works...wonders. Whereas OLED is the real deal. I was enamoured with that at first, but a time passes I become indifferent. The truth of the matter is that there isn't a single person besides myself and other AVS'ers that could tell the difference between an OLED and a great FALD or great plasma. Sure, people might go to your house and say you have a great picture on that tv (provided you're watching a full length movie in the dark, otherwise you'd never notice the blacks), but that's because they've probably all got Vizios... completely uncalibrated. I mean let's be honest here, I could probably get compliments on any decent tv if you give me 5 minutes with the remote.
When I spend weekends at my girlfriends place; I bought a budget Sony 2013 backlit LED for her, I never overthink the set. It was $300. It just looks natural. Not fantastic, but natural. No screen door, dark gray blacks but uniform. It works average for all content. Great content looks a bazillion times better at home, obviously. But average Netflix crap? I prefer it with gray blacks that aren't streaky and ugly.
The single only reason, however, that it seems like I'm preferring a 65" 4k, is because of price. I'm mean seriously, I'm a punk. I spent almost 6k for a freaking tv set. If I got the EC9700 for half the price which is future proofed, massive and FALD, would I have missed the OLED? Of course not
. Generation 1 is great, but it's a novelty. At Microcenter's price it's completely reasonable, and makes sense proportionately; but you've got to realize that LG is not trying to sell the majority of sets at this price, they only wanted to get the word out.
In any event obviously when I watch perfect content in the dark I'm under a spell , and I can't imagine leaving the TV. So? I'm going to go for a replacement. Could it be possible that since both my panels exhibited the same issues there's something going on internally? Anyway, I'd prefer a new set over a new panel but either way I've decided to give it another try. As much as I have more content which isn't perfect on my bookshelf, what IS perfect is clearly more important to me. Generation 2 will most likely have all the same issues on certain sets so I really don't care about it unless the 65" 4k completely replaces the 55" 2k.
But I don't think that's the case.
Plague, you're my proxy - whatever decision I end up making is likely to have been significantly influenced by your decisions. Seems like the biggest difference between us is your much greater direct experience with these technologies and the fact that you are already into this initiative for $6K :-)
You say that FALD is a 'fakeout of the senses' where I would characterize it a bit differently. For head-on viewing, FALD is a fantastic engineering achievement whose only intrinsic limitation versus a true emissive display is the possibility of content-specific blooming or reduction in contrast ratio. FALD is inherently limited by the number of LEDs on the backlight, but to the extent that a single LED will provide the backlight brightness for an X * Y region of LCD pixels, as long as the specific content being viewed has no dimming region where local contrast ration (brightest local pixels divided by darkest local pixels) exceeds native contrast ratio of the panel (3000:1 to 5:000:1 for VA-type panels), FALD offers the potential to deliver an image which is identical to that of an emissive display such as OLED.
The problem is that off-angle, the effective 'native-contrast' of an LCD panel is degraded, and so blooming performance can be significantly worse. That is why I see off-angle performance as the fundamental limitation of LCD versus OLED.
So when you write 'If I got the EC9700 for half the price which is future proofed, massive and FALD, would I have missed the OLED? Of course not. '
I interpret that to mean that if you had a choice between the 65" EC9700 at $10,000 or a 65" Elite-class FALD LED/LCD at half the price ($5000), you'd go for the LD/LCD with no regrets - is that right?
And finally, when you write 'Generation 2 will most likely have all the same issues on certain sets so I really don't care about it unless the 65" 4k completely replaces the 55" 2k.'
I take that to mean that you would not care about the deficiencies you have experienced on your Gen-1 WOLED even if they remained on a Gen-2 65" 4K WOLED as long as that Gen-2 WOLED only cost $5000 (what you paid for your 55" 1080p Gen-1 WOLED), but those deficiencies remaining on a 65" EC9700 that costs $10,000 would be unacceptable, is that right?
As you can see, I'm trying to reveres-engineer your decision matrix and the key criteria your are evaluating. If I have it right, it sounds like you are considering the best option for a 65" 4K TV costing $5000, and your first choice will be the EC9700 once the 65" is available at that price even with the Gen-1 deficiencies you have experienced, followed by the best 65" 4K LED/LCD $5K can buy (Vizio R Series if it materializes, or Sony X950B once it comes down to a more reasonable price, or Toshiba L9400U if it delivers the expected performance, or Panasonic AX900 if all 3 of the above). Is that an accurate summary of your current thinking?
And from your extensive experience with the HX950 and FALD, I might suggest you include the Vizio P in the above list. The 65" has already been priced well below your target ($2200), it is almost certain to be materializing before the end of this year, and the dark-level performance is almost certain to exceed that of the M-Series (which is pretty good, by all reports).
In my view, the 65" Vizio P-Series set's a 'worst-case' backstop for the best reasonably-priced (<$5000) 65" 4K TV this season and if you ever have a chance to have a look at the 2014 Vizio M-Series FALD panels that are in the channels (Best-Buy, Costco, etc...) today, I'd be interested in your assessment and how you feel Vizio's 2014 FALD technology might compare to the HX950 you have the most experience with.
I still believe the 65" EC9700 will be available below your pricepoint of $5000 as soon as the M2 manufacturing line starts pumping out WOLEDs in full capacity (hopefully before the end of this year). So my guess is that you (and probably me as well) probably have a 65" 4K Gen-2 WOLED TV in our near-term future :-)
The important input for me, is I believe you are expressing a clear preference for the 65" EC9700 over a Sharp-Elite-class 65" 4K FALD LED/LCD as long as the WOLED is priced below $5000, even if that Gen-2 WOLED suffers from all of the same deficiencies you have experienced with your Gen-1 product. Piggy-backing on your experience with the Gen-1 LG WOLED, I am going to adopt that position as a proxy for my own thinking about the TV I hope to purchase late this year.