Originally Posted by Vegas oled
Ken, while I repect your opinion, I just disagree. I agree with the ISF Calibrating team the Samsung oled has a better picture. Everyone has a opinion, this is right display for me, I love it.
I do not agree with them on the ZT60, it goes to show you that we all just see things a little different. LG could make their display much better by simply giving people the choice to turn off the NR filter. Shame they refuse to allow people to make their own choice.
WRGB is just not right, the whites are tinted either green red or blue. The Motion on LG OLEDs is absolutely horrible with poor motion resolution and horrible judder on the 9300.
Your opinion is valued, my opinion is from a person who spent hundreds of hours watching them. The 9800 is FAR superior over the 9300. Sure you can quote a review here and there that is trying to stay politically correct or a retailer who is trying to push 9300's. I saw judder all the time on the 9300, the processor used is low end and the 9800 is better.
The 9800 is a much closer match to the Samsung OLED. I still pick the Samsung because it's colors are better and the BFI.
For anyone to Claim they can tell someone's display is calibrated or not from pictures from a $99 camera when we are viewing them back on different monitors is just silly and is silly as claiming the 9300 compares with the Samsung OLED.
The good thing about the way they do the Shootout is they give the Peoples Choice Award and the ISF Calibrators choice. This allows people to decide for themselves which display better fits their needs and which they feel has the better picture.
Even the colors on the 9800 are much more accurate then the 9300. Every 9300 owner knows what I'm talking about, they may not admit it on this forum but when they are watching they know those skin tones are just a little off. The 9800 is IMO better than the 9300 by 20% and the Samung oled is better than the 9800 by 5%.
Well a few points here:
1. Yes, you've spent far more hours in front of these OLEDs than I have. But OTOH, your opinion does a 180 every few weeks. The 9800 is better, no the 9300 is better, the Samsung is better, the F8500 is better and so it goes. This simply confuses people in their attempts to evaluate which display is better. You can sound enormously convincing when you've reached a conclusion, but then in just a few short weeks, you're proclaiming almost the opposite opinions...and sounding equally convincing doing so.
2. If the whites are tinted, whether it's a CRT, LCD or OLED, the display has not been properly calibrated. There should be no tints to the white on a properly calibrated 9300, 9800 or Samsung OLED. This has absolutely nothing to do with LG's WRGB technology. The 9300 at the shootout, PROFESSIONALLY CALIBRATED, showed no such tints in the white. If yours did it's because it was NOT calibrated properly. Therefore you reached an inaccurate conclusion, blaming the technology rather than the calibration.
3. As for your posted $99 camera pix, if your display is showing radically different images than what your camera is capturing, you should post these pictures with the caveat "Please use caution viewing these, they are highly oversaturated and show improper hue as the result of the cheap camera I am using". Once again, this does nothing but confuse people. Is the display oversaturated? Is it the pictures that are oversaturated? Is the display not properly calibrated? Of course this is one of the reasons I've always said that pictures should be used just for fun, not to evaluate a display. I will say that years ago, during the golden age of plasma, we had some truly excellent images that people posted from their displays.
I feel badly sidetracking a Samsung thread with comments about LG displays (which, in actuality, you brought up), but I also feel badly to see what is, IMO, misinformation that can confuse prospective buyers.