Crossthread: 4K LCD vs. 2K OLED

1,2,3 2K OLED, that is = a no-brainer AFAIK. Why not include Plasma?

Anybody know what the viewing angle of the upcoming OLED TVs is?

2k OLED for 5k or less or staying where I am. No other options for me.

The 4K with passive 3D.

That looks like a false choice to me. I would mention that currently OLED is capable of a resolution of 800x480 with a 4.3" display.



Aren't you making a fantasy scenario than? You are making a comparison between a perfect OLED TV and a current LCD TV. It look like the purpose of this thread was simply to create a fantasy scenario that would encourage people to choose 2K over 4K.

Plasma's for dinosaurs and the stone age, remember?

No brainier, 80" 4K IGZO LCD over 55" OLED. Heck maybe even a 90" Sharp 2K over it. 55" OLED is just way to small to be considered home theater. Figure I could enjoy the LCD until large format 4K OLED or even 2K OLED becomes affordable in 5-8 years.

These scenarios don't seem very realistic. To begin with, unless Sharp sorts out their Elite lineup (and I can't see it happening when they have always suffered from CMS issues) we are not going to see a 4K LCD panel that is at the peak of LCD technology, as everyone else has moved away from full array local dimming and is just putting out edge-lit sets now.

Assuming that by "2K" you mean 1080p Full HD, and "4K" you mean Quad Full HD, by definition you cannot have "perfect PQ with absolutely no technical problems" with your theoretical OLED display.


The reality of the situation is that I am happy enough with my full array local dimming Sony LCD that I will skip the first few generations of OLED displays until they iron out all the problems (and there will be problems) until they release a 4K native, 48Hz-capable set at a more justifiable price. I think you will probably find the same among most people here that have purchased an expensive "high end" set in the last few years. (e.g. a Pioneer Kuro)

While I desperately want the extra resolution, I am not going to downgrade to an edge-lit LCD panel, and you're basically throwing money away on a display that is going to be obsolete in a few years if you buy one of the upcoming 1080p OLED sets with their odd pixel structures, limited resolution and lack of 48Hz support. (and who knows what other problems until they've been out on the market for a while)

If I had more money than I knew what to do with and could afford to be upgrading on a yearly basis, then I'd probably jump at Samsung's OLED panel this year (wouldn't even consider LG's with its WRGB structure) but then I'd probably be buying some 4K LCDs for gaming & computer use as well if I had that kind of money.

OLED or bust.
what use is 4K for my 200+ Bluray collection?

2K OLED until 4K OLED is available and more 4K source material is out.

That's a matter of perspective innit? Especially for those who sit up close enough and/or are upgrading from a smaller size.

Upsampling to reduce aliasing and improve clarity. Depending on the algorithm used, the appearance of sharpness may also be improved.


Computers & gaming already support 4K, though I get that it's not something everyone will use their display for.

I guess it is, but you don't see many home theater setups built around 55" displays, in Home Theater magazine these days. As a bedroom or your daily TV viewing display it could be awesome though. "Home Theater", not so much.

Yup, I suppose it heavily relies upon your needs. 32" is also a happy "medium" (or "minimum" for some ) for the bedroom, but that isn't exactly good for immersion, I admit.

isn't 8k the holy grail? not sure i would want to invest in 4k when i think we'll eventually top out with 8k standards.

not sure human perception can pick up much beyond 8k, but there are many others here with much more knowledge than me.

Yeah, 8K might max out resolution at the largest sizes you can get into most homes which probably is around 120-150" If you wait for 8K you will be waiting to 2025 at the earliest, if ever. I might be dead by then so I will grab a second year large 4K LCD they make and then a 4K OLED when ever they get reasonably priced.

That's true, but 4K displays are available today, and I wouldn't be expecting 8K panels, even at large sizes, to be commercially available any time within the next few years.

Nothing is ever going to be truly future-proof, you just have to decide on what compromises you want to put up with today.

While we don't have 4K OLED yet, we do have 4K LCD, and so 4K OLED probably isn't going to be too far off, unlike 8K displays.

Why did you bother with 2K?

...or the nonexistent Plasma choice

I think you may have been better off saying "assuming the OLED screen doesn't have any significant unanticipated shortcomings" rather than "perfect". "Perfect" is really hard to turn down. Also except for question #2, the price and size differential is undefined (and it changes a lot over time, so they may be considering a different purchasing timeframe from one another), people are just making their choices based on where they imagine those differentials to be. And question #2 is no good either because it's completely unrealistic.

So, just to have a scenario that has everything defined, let's say a 55" 2K OLED vs a 70" 4K LCD where the LCD is 20% cheaper and the OLED doesn't have any significant unanticipated shortcomings. In that scenario, I'd choose OLED. Or Plasma.

Oh No! Can someone confirm that burn-in won't be an issue with OLED displays?