Originally Posted by Artwood
How much better is OLED versus the greatest calibrated Kuro of all times? How much blacker are the blacks and how much brighter is OLED? How much more accurate are the colors?
Significantly better. The Kuros only achieve about 30,000:1 contrast calibrated which means they look grey in a dark room. Actually, to be more specific, they have a reddish tint in a dark room. They also have poor uniformity on black which supposedly
evens out over time. They also have uniformity issues on white (with the 9/9.5G models at least) due to the way they bonded the front filter to the panel. I think people are starting to run into issues of black level rising over time as well.
They have poor gradation, particularly at 72/100Hz, and have a lot of dithering/noise as a result.
Poor shadow detail. If you have that 30,000:1 contrast, you lose the lower levels of shadow detail. This is related to their poor gradation. I had to raise brightness to the point where the panel was less than 5,000:1 contrast (if I remember correctly) before it would display all shadow detail correctly in an actual image rather than a test pattern - they looked fine with a pattern that only had some just-above-black patches, on a black background. The 10pt ISF gamma control did not help. Their calibration controls in general were quite coarse, and the CMS was useless if you ever had to make adjustments.
They have a relatively coarse pixel structure and are not as sharp as an LCD.
They have poor ambient light rejection and must be watched in the dark, or an almost dark room to look good.
They are from a time before Plasma tried to be efficient, suck down 500W, and might as well be a heater in your room. This also means they have an aggressive ABL and dim the picture more than 50%. The monitors were better, only dimming after about 50% APL, rather than the 25% or so which the regular “9G” models started to dim at. And the power supply buzzes. Loudly.
They are thick, heavy panels with a non-flush bezel, and a limited number of inputs. A lot of their inputs are shared and have to be assigned to one or the other via the menu. E.g. Input 1 might be HDMI or
Component, you can’t use both, and it’s several layers deep into the menus to change the option. (Note: I forget the specific combination of inputs, that is just an example) That’s not such a big deal these days where everything is HDMI now.
The menus themselves are terrible. Very poorly thought out with confusing options that have no explanation in the manual. I
can tell you what they do, but I bet half the owners don’t even know.
Motion is poor. They suffer from motion blur, and suffer badly from “phosphor lag”. Flicker is also a problem.
They also have somewhat limited vertical viewing angles due to their filter design.
They lack modern features such as 3D support, HDMI 1.4 for audio pass through and auto lip-sync correction. If I remember correctly, input lag was high, making them unsuitable for gaming. I don’t think they were capable of displaying a 4:4:4 or RGB resolution image either. I seem to recall them displaying 4:2:2 only, also making them unsuitable for gaming. Perhaps someone could clarify that for me.
If I recall correctly, they could only remove overscan with a 1080 signal and not a 720p or lower one. The monitors may have been different, it’s been so long now, I forget specifics like that.
They suffer from image retention and burn-in. My first set (8G) was permanently burned in from (I think?) less than 6 hours of use at very reduced contrast settings. (20 out of… 50? 60?) After a couple of months (repeatedly running the screen wipe etc.) the shop took the set back. I saw image retention on my 9.5G, didn’t keep it long enough to see if it had burned in. (Wasn’t worth the money for its contrast and gradation)
OLED should fix just about every one of those issues. My only concerns with OLED are; potential for using an ABL, potential for burn-in (if they burn like a CRT and not a Plasma, it will be fine for most people though) “crosstalk”/“line bleed” and gradation. The only reason I am concerned about those last two, is because Sony’s HMZ-T1 suffered from them.
Motion handling could also be a concern if the sets don’t give enough options. OLED is a sample & hold type display, so they need to implement black frame insertion and/or interpolation. I just hope we get the options to tune those to our preferences. I tend to see flicker a lot easier than most people, and can’t stand to watch 24p without interpolation due to judder caused by the low framerate.
Originally Posted by Artwood
If they were the same size--and hypothetically if the Kuro was brand new--how much more would you be willing to pay for an OLED set versus the best calibrated Kuro set?
Personally I think the Kuros were vastly overpriced for their time, and TV prices in general have come down a lot since then. I would be willing to pay today’s VT50 prices for one. (I am not located in the US so I don’t know how those are relative to other TVs) With the way things are going, I expect that will be about 50% more than a “regular” flat panel costs in three or four years time, which is when I expect OLED might start to be affordable.
Honestly, I don’t know if I will even want a flat panel in five years time though. I’m not sure if the 50–55″ size will cut it for me then, and I am not willing to go any bigger if they’re still a giant black slab on the wall. I think I will be forced into buying a projector, which means low contrast, but you get a large image without making your place look like a bachelor pad, or someone’s midlife crisis.
Originally Posted by hoozthatat
The HX950 is a full array.
Right, but that’s a 2012 model. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think it is using an LG panel either.