LG UHD/4K OLED TVs to Hit the Market This Year - Page 11 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 165Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #301 of 322 Old 09-06-2014, 06:13 AM
Mark Henninger
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 12,454
Mentioned: 277 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6600 Post(s)
Liked: 11366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
From seeing how the herds gather at the local bestbuy in front of the curved sets, that logic could translate into the next revelation. Oh the irony if it's actually the curve that sells the next great technology.

Funnier if I hear this soon: Isn't 'flat' something that only cheapo sets do these days?
Why do you think Samsung dumped OLED and went all-in with the curve this year? The curve is what sells. LG will benefit from Samsung promoting the curve as cool, but in the end most people will want to buy a curved Samsung, not a curved OLED. The underlying technology and its relationship to picture quality is not that relevant to a typical TV buyer.
rogo, agkss and Rf13 like this.

Mark Henninger, Senior Editor at AVS Forum
imagic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 322 Old 09-06-2014, 07:50 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6655 Post(s)
Liked: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by latreche34 View Post
I wouldn't hold my breath for 8k it will take years and years before the content will be available to the average Joe, SD 4/3 is still widely used on all cable and satellite channels, DVD's are still used as much as blu-ray or more, even-though most families have access to a HD 16/9 display panel, Heck it will take several more years before broadcasters will even think to adopt 1080p as standard for content transmission over the air/cable/satellite
Not so sure. There's little reason for broadcasters to transmit 1080p when the typical flat panel does a good job of deinterlacing anyway. Few would ever see the difference. In fact, just last night, I watched my first 1080p PPV on Directv and I was unable to see any difference in PQ.

No, I think they'll go right to 4K. It sells better than 1080p anyway.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #303 of 322 Old 09-06-2014, 07:53 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
I would definitely prefer a curved Samsung over LG
corrado_89 is offline  
 
post #304 of 322 Old 09-06-2014, 09:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
latreche34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baja, California Mexico 965392
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Not so sure. There's little reason for broadcasters to transmit 1080p when the typical flat panel does a good job of deinterlacing anyway. Few would ever see the difference. In fact, just last night, I watched my first 1080p PPV on Directv and I was unable to see any difference in PQ.

No, I think they'll go right to 4K. It sells better than 1080p anyway.
Agree on a small screen, on screens bigger than 65" the difference is noticeable, I've seen it side by side. But my point was that the content providers are always lagging behind new technology, they stick with what sells better it's all about $$$.
Ted99 likes this.
latreche34 is offline  
post #305 of 322 Old 09-06-2014, 10:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,120
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 773 Post(s)
Liked: 406
Providers have absolutely no incentive to provide a better quality signal. Maybe some day with pressure from streaming but not for a long long time. Can you imagine the cost in replacing the equipment to broadcast in 4K?
andy sullivan is offline  
post #306 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 08:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6655 Post(s)
Liked: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by latreche34 View Post
Agree on a small screen, on screens bigger than 65" the difference is noticeable, I've seen it side by side. But my point was that the content providers are always lagging behind new technology, they stick with what sells better it's all about $$$.
It all depends on the quality of the deinterlacer. A good deinterlacer makes the difference between a 1080i source and a 1080p source, virtually indistinguishable on even a large screen set. If the TVs deinterlacer is suspect, then I agree with you.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #307 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ted99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,436
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Providers have absolutely no incentive to provide a better quality signal. Maybe some day with pressure from streaming but not for a long long time. Can you imagine the cost in replacing the equipment to broadcast in 4K?
I suspect that many of the current broadcast programs are being mastered in 4K, now. Going from an H.264 encoder to an H.265 isn't a huge cost and the bandwidth is comparable, so there isn't much cost on the transmission side. I do not know what is involved in simultaneous transmission in both H.264 and H.265, which would be necessary, because of the large number of legacy HDTV's. Remember that the broadcast networks were required to transition to digital TV broadcasts simultaneously with the transition to HDTV and the H.264 codec. People that wanted to use their old TV's had to purchase (with a government subsidy) a converter box to downrez digital 1080i to Analog 480i. Since this was contemporaneous with the appearance of flat panel TV's and all their sex appeal, many people happily purchased new digital TV's. The Government mandate was accepted by the broadcast stations because the digital broadcast standard freed up a lot of bandwidth that could be sold. There would be no support for such a mandate, now; as there is no comparable economic benefit to the stations and a whole lot of people with HDTV's that would not be able to decode an H.265 signal.

So, it comes down to the broadcast stations being able to simultaneously transmit material encoded in H.264 and H.265. Who knows what that will entail, because it's currently the long pole in the tent for broadcast 4K? DirecTV is simpler. Just as in the first days of HDTV, they provided set top boxes with the H.264 decoders and a few HD, only, transponder channels; they could do this again. The Cable companies could do the same with set top boxes with H.254 and H.265 decoders, if the local stations provided them directly with 4K feeds that were not going OTA. Now there's a business plan: Only the Cable companies would be able to offer 4K material by taking 4K feeds directly from the local broadcast stations and the pay TV networks, none of whom can broadcast 4K OTA because most people don't have H.265 decoders. Also, 4K over the internet becomes problematic because those same Cable companies that provide internet service either throttle downloads to 2K speeds or add data caps such that 4K downloads become cost-prohibitive. VOILA! Nobody serious about video quality becomes a cable cutter until there is a large enough base of TV's with H.265 decoders to convince the TV stations to broadcast 4K!
Hisma likes this.
Ted99 is offline  
post #308 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,120
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 773 Post(s)
Liked: 406
I think your premis is absolutely spot on ted99. The cable companies along with Directv (already announcing 4K programming with the launch of new satellites) and Dish Network must see the potential of 4K to be a powerful money maker. It won't be long before the majority of 55" and above TV's are 4K. Appealing too those new owners over the next few years ill be lucrative. The immergence of OLED 4K will provide even more incentive.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #309 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 01:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Hisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Providers have absolutely no incentive to provide a better quality signal. Maybe some day with pressure from streaming but not for a long long time. Can you imagine the cost in replacing the equipment to broadcast in 4K?
disagree. Offer a few crappy channels in 4K, and charge a premium for a "UHD Channel Package".

In my area, comcast STILL charges a premium for HD channels. So, you can bet that if the broadcasters can find a way to squeeze in UHD channels into their existing bandwidth using H.265, the financial incentive is there and can easily be exploited.

Admittedly I'd pay the premium for UHD also as long as I can get at least 1 or 2 channels worth watching, like Discovery or History chan.
Hisma is offline  
post #310 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 02:25 PM
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,567
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2104 Post(s)
Liked: 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisma View Post
disagree. Offer a few crappy channels in 4K, and charge a premium for a "UHD Channel Package".

In my area, comcast STILL charges a premium for HD channels. So, you can bet that if the broadcasters can find a way to squeeze in UHD channels into their existing bandwidth using H.265, the financial incentive is there and can easily be exploited.

Admittedly I'd pay the premium for UHD also as long as I can get at least 1 or 2 channels worth watching, like Discovery or History chan.
They are going to have to charge you a premium as you would need a new 4K decoder box.
sytech is offline  
post #311 of 322 Old 09-07-2014, 02:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Hisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
They are going to have to charge you a premium as you would need a new 4K decoder box.
For most folks, yes. For me, I am a cablecard + hdhomerun prime user, so as long as my PC is capable of efficiently decoding H.265, I don't need additional hardware. But yes, that's another revenue stream, as they'd charge a premium for a "UHD STB" that has HDMI 2.0 and H.265 decoding capability.
Hisma is offline  
post #312 of 322 Old 09-08-2014, 11:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
latreche34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baja, California Mexico 965392
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 64
The average Joe (and that's where most of the revenue come from) is not interested in investing in a new 4K cable/satellite box even if they come down to around $200 where the provider can charge a flat rate rental fee, Unless you guys are talking about 10 to 15 years from now.
It's been 14 years or so since the HD came out in the US and still not the main format, like mentioned above some providers still charge a premium for it as an additional feature because all HD channels are available in SD.

Last edited by latreche34; 09-08-2014 at 11:53 AM.
latreche34 is offline  
post #313 of 322 Old 09-09-2014, 12:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,707
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1429 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisma View Post
For most folks, yes. For me, I am a cablecard + hdhomerun prime user, so as long as my PC is capable of efficiently decoding H.265, I don't need additional hardware. But yes, that's another revenue stream, as they'd charge a premium for a "UHD STB" that has HDMI 2.0 and H.265 decoding capability.
All commercial 4K content is either streamed directly to the internal decoder/app in the TV or protected by HDCP 2.2. I have not heard of either Nvidia, AMD, or Intel releasing HDCP 2.2 products. You'll likely need to buy new hardware like the rest.
Wizziwig is online now  
post #314 of 322 Old 09-09-2014, 03:10 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 1
LG is really swinging for the fences with this pricing scheme. However, it's still outside of impulse buy territory. If this launches closer to 5k, I can see some enthusiasts jumping on it. I suspect next year we'll see 3k pricing, and the subequent years it'll trickle down to 1k where the majority of users here will jump.
babyparrot is offline  
post #315 of 322 Old 09-09-2014, 05:27 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6655 Post(s)
Liked: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyparrot View Post
LG is really swinging for the fences with this pricing scheme. However, it's still outside of impulse buy territory. If this launches closer to 5k, I can see some enthusiasts jumping on it. I suspect next year we'll see 3k pricing, and the subequent years it'll trickle down to 1k where the majority of users here will jump.
Well that's true with the 65", but they struck out with the bases loaded on the 77", if the latest pricing buzz is correct.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #316 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 01:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,862
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1650 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
It feels like -- to me -- that swinging for the fences is going to look like $2500/$5000 on the 55 and 65.

Hitting the grand slam is going to be $2000/$4000 on those.

Of course, many of us would like to see the 77 join the line there and be proportionally priced. Mathematically for LG, the unit volumes don't allow it to be part of this "home run parade" however until it can be priced under $5000 as well. All the step-wise progress down to that level will be nice for the earlier buyers, but even at $4999 for the 77-inch, it's looking at pretty low volumes compared to what LG can do with the smaller screens... And I'm guessing the $5000 price for the 77-inch model is a 2017-at-the-earliest kind of thing... Under $10K in 2016 does seem quite plausible, though.
fafrd and slacker711 like this.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is online now  
post #317 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6655 Post(s)
Liked: 7328
Mark, are these MSRPs or street prices?
Ken Ross is offline  
post #318 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Mark, are these MSRPs or street prices?

I don't know we waste time even discussing MSRPs - they are pure fiction.

I agree with Rogo as far as home run pricing of 2.5/5 and grand slam pricing of 2/4 on the 55" and 65".

Unfortunately, for the trifecta pricing of 2.5/5/7.5 or 2/4/6 on the 55", 65" and 77", LG is going to have to believe they are going to sell more 77" TVs at the lower pricing to make up for the lost profit margin (and I'm not longer confident that is going to happen).

The MSRP games continue - let's see where street pricing is a month after actual mainstream launch...

By the way, LGs MSRP for the Flagship LED/LCD 65UB9800 is $6000, so at the MSRP level, $10,000 is 1.67X Flagship LED/LCD pricing ($9000 would have been 1.5X). You can find the 65UB9800 for $3800 on Amazon and $3350 elsewhere (so discounted by 37-44%). Applying similar discounts to the MSRP of the 65EC9700 lands you with street pricing of $5600-$6300, so it's a question of when and not if we will get there (and in fact, with CP's pre-release street pricing on the 65EC9700, we are already there out of the gates!

Unclear when we will see similar discounting applied to street pricing on the 77EG9700 - possibly not until much later in the cycle when new 77" OLEDs are being introduced :-( Prices at similar levels of discounting would be $14-$17K.

R.I.P. 77EG9700...

p.s. the MSRP for the 79UB9800 LED/LCD flagship is $10,000, so the $25,000 MSRP for the 77EG9800 is 2.5X - LG is clearly pricing the 77EG9800 very, very differently than they are the 65EC9700, so perhaps there is a yield problem or something with the larger screen size.

Premium on the 77" appears to be 2.25 times greater on the 77" than the 65" (150% versus 67% premiums).

Last edited by fafrd; 09-12-2014 at 10:39 AM.
fafrd is offline  
post #319 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 11:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
barth2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked: 528
Ken, let's say the 77 is at least as good in all respects as the 55 you saw at the shoot out, plus size and 4k and 10 bit, what is your ceiling? 12k or 15k . 15 we can easily hit (40% discount), 12 is pretty iffy, unless LG has really inflated msrp, which is quite possible.

Look at it this way: a few days ago it was 53k ☺
barth2k is offline  
post #320 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 11:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 32,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6655 Post(s)
Liked: 7328
^ Probably 12k based on principle. At some point you have to say, "Hey, this is only a TV".
Ken Ross is offline  
post #321 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked: 152
irkuck is offline  
post #322 of 322 Old 09-12-2014, 12:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,862
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1650 Post(s)
Liked: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Mark, are these MSRPs or street prices?
Street Ken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I don't know we waste time even discussing MSRPs - they are pure fiction.

I agree with Rogo as far as home run pricing of 2.5/5 and grand slam pricing of 2/4 on the 55" and 65".
You remain a gentleman and a scholar!
Quote:
Unfortunately, for the trifecta pricing of 2.5/5/7.5 or 2/4/6 on the 55", 65" and 77", LG is going to have to believe they are going to sell more 77" TVs at the lower pricing to make up for the lost profit margin (and I'm not longer confident that is going to happen).
Not this year or probably next... But down the road?
Quote:
p.s. the MSRP for the 79UB9800 LED/LCD flagship is $10,000, so the $25,000 MSRP for the 77EG9800 is 2.5X - LG is clearly pricing the 77EG9800 very, very differently than they are the 65EC9700, so perhaps there is a yield problem or something with the larger screen size.

Premium on the 77" appears to be 2.25 times greater on the 77" than the 65" (150% versus 67% premiums).
I would have expected yield to be an issue (well, I kind of did) for any number of reasons. But I also think anything above $10-12K list is so far out of bounds of entering a real purchase decision that they didn't care

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
^ Probably 12k based on principle. At some point you have to say, "Hey, this is only a TV".
This is where we have much common ground. We just pick a different number "on principle". I just ordered a phablet that's like $849, but I'll use it 2-4 hours a day for a year and have it with it me wherever I go. It's more than "just TV".

I (and you) have great TVs already. Our willingness to replace/improve them has a threshold. For some who are more indifferent to $$$ (not a criticism, just that people have different curves for money utility), even the $25K list/whatever street will be reasonable.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
frontpage

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off