or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 224

post #6691 of 9429
Couple more previews of the LG and Samsung that I don't think were posted yet:

http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/samsung-kn55sc9-preview

http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/lg-55ea9800-preview
post #6692 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

I'm not the only one to prioritize contrast ratio. It is widely agreed to be the most important metric of picture quality. I guess after years of tiny incremental improvement in black level (after a giant step backwards post CRT/Kuro era), I can't help but be excited about OLED. At least one aspect of the picture quality holy grail may be checked off the list in the near future.\.

You should prioritize it. The problem is that the best plasmas already produce ANSI that is at/near the limits of the human visual perception system. That's just reality. I've seen the OLED demos a bunch now and will certainly check out the production models soon, but the idea that the CR of these "pops" vs. the best existing TVs is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

yes perhaps.. I am tempted...

but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase

Gotcha mr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

IMO, the prioritization of contrast ratio is absolutely not at issue.  Even with TOP prioritization, its STILL more than likely (and is in fact the case) that LCD's have already closed in on the diminishing returns side of the wizbang curve.

See above. We have limits as people. Exceeding them is pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Eventhough difference in pq might be minimal in favor of Samsung/LG curved OLED it would turn them into the new flatscreen KINGs. The king is at the top of the food chain, which makes it a must have for flatscreen lovers with enough money to spend.

Disagree. There are plenty of well off people that recognize value or lack thereof. Even at $9000, there's a value equation problem going on, especially given the uncertainty of buying (a) first gen and (b) weirdo curved screen.

Quite frankly, a lot of people didn't buy the Sharp Elite when it was atop the food chain because the price/value was pretty sketchy on that one too. And it had a small issue with color that most people couldn't even see. By the same logic, the OLED could easily be rejected for any number of small reasons beyond price/value (1) curvedness (2) ABL still strong (3) longevity questions (4) burn-in risk (5) it's quite frankly tiny to many of (6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point. For others with more money than me, any one of them could easily cause them to leave their wallet in their pocket or purse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post

Yeah, when the 80" or bigger models show up for $5k or less, I'm in. See you in 2016...

I'll pre-order from Robert as soon as that's for sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

When viewed in the daytime or in a brightly lit room, I would agree. This is not the TV for people watching under those conditions. Might as well go with one of the cheaper alternatives.

I will also agree with Rogo that selling a TV purely on contrast is going to be a hard sell. I mean, how do you even demo that in a store setting? I had to literally press my face against the screen and cup my hands around the sides when I was testing a Sharp Elite at BB. Maybe they need to setup tents around the TV's? smile.gif Even then it would really require a side-by-side comparison to get the full impact of what you're missing on a lower contrast screen. I think Samsung realized the same marketing dilemma and their solution was the stupid curved screen. Hopefully the great reviews and word-of-mouth will help fuel some sales of these TVs.

I find that at retail, the bright-room performance of a good LCD (like a high-end Samsung) often sells the TV to me. Now, of course, I'm savvy enough to have bought differently, but the idea that large numbers of regular folks will make that choice -- for a $6500 premium -- strains the imagination. The reviews I'm reading still say, "it's great, but only a little greater than the next big thing you can buy."
post #6693 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You should prioritize it. The problem is that the best plasmas already produce ANSI that is at/near the limits of the human visual perception system. That's just reality. I've seen the OLED demos a bunch now and will certainly check out the production models soon, but the idea that the CR of these "pops" vs. the best existing TVs is false.

The reviewers say the opposite, for example:

"Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The reviews I'm reading still say, "it's great, but only a little greater than the next big thing you can buy."

Please read again the reviews then

"Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."
"Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"
"I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"

This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me
post #6694 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

yes perhaps.. I am tempted...

but that prediction of an owners thread was not based on my own purchase

Mark,

Do you suppose that you might be more inclined to purchase one if it were a flat panel, instead of the curved one that Samsung is making available, provided the price was no higher?

I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it

I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter smile.gif

one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)
post #6695 of 9429
Has there been any comments as to how these displays behave with some room lighting?
post #6696 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,not wall mount it

I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter smile.gif

one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)

According to BestBuy's website, when purchased through them the Samsung KN55S9CAFXZA has a 2 year parts plus 2 year labor warrantee.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+55%26%2334%3B+Class+(54-5/8%26%2334%3B+Diag.)+-+OLED+-+1080p+-+Smart+-+3D+-+HDTV/1626142.p;jsessionid=D3A50352C51FDD647B6CAAF5E99AEF09.bbolsp-app02-101?id=1219058089120&skuId=1626142
post #6697 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 
Eventhough difference in pq might be minimal in favor of Samsung/LG curved OLED it would turn them into the new flatscreen KINGs. The king is at the top of the food chain, which makes it a must have for flatscreen lovers with enough money to spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo 
Disagree. There are plenty of well off people that recognize value or lack thereof. Even at $9000, there's a value equation problem going on, especially given the uncertainty of buying (a) first gen and (b) weirdo curved screen.
By the same logic, the OLED could easily be rejected for any number of small reasons beyond price/value (1) curvedness (2) ABL still strong (3) longevity questions (4) burn-in risk (5) it's quite frankly tiny to many of (6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point. For others with more money than me, any one of them could easily cause them to leave their wallet in their pocket or purse.
Yes , the new KING is a troubled KING and that might be the reason why only a few people are willing to buy the Curved(confused.gif)OLED. But, was the new KING flat with few problems still priced at $9.000 the advantage in PQ would still be minimal beyond the best Plasma's and LCD's nevertheless lots of flatscreen fans would be tempted eventhough they could get very close in PQ for half the price..

btw value i never cared about. I would never think of buying the ST60 and would go straight for the ZT60 smile.gif I don't see you buying a ST60 rolleyes.gif
post #6698 of 9429
I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for
every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??
post #6699 of 9429
What is the purose of a super thin curved screen?
You don't mount it on the wall right?

- Rich
post #6700 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by remush View Post

I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for
every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??

While reviewers will probably stop measuring black level, they can can still measure white level since it has a large impact on contrast in a bright room. In addition to what you mentioned, there will likely be differences in motion handling, input lag, and ABL behavior. The list of issues that plagued the previous gen (both lcd and plasma) has definitely been reduced but maybe we'll discover OLED specific issues/limitations that will become apparent once we have actual owners using them in their homes.
post #6701 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

The 2012 HX950 is the same TV as the 2011 HX929. Main difference is that the HX950 has slightly better 3D performance. We do not know how much a flat 55'' OLED, which is what everybody is waiting for, will cost smile.gif According imagic and other sources the Samsung KN55S9C will cost $8.999 which is $6.000 less than the LG 55EA9800. 40% eek.gif http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485835/samsung-declares-oled-price-war-55-selling-for-8-999. Looks like Samsung is gonna lose money on every KN55S9C they sell. Question is: How much?

I don't think they will lose money they will kill LG smile.gif Now you can get two Panasonic 65" ZT60 for $9Gs the best picture TV out there! http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P65ZT60?t=reviews#BVRRWidgetID

Now I have heard that the fan is totally obnoxious on this TV? What's whit that?
Edited by wse - 8/18/13 at 9:21am
post #6702 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by remush View Post

I wonder how Samsung and other oled manufactures will differentiate their oled displays in the future, in a given year. Since we're looking at infinite contrast, I'm assuming for
every oled display, what pq differences will there be between entry, mid and flagship models? Resolution, screen size availability, OS software??
The differences between them will be accuracy, pixel structure, resolution, motion handling, brightness, ABL.
Speaker design may be a differentiatior as well, but with the panels being so thin, we may just end up with worse than flat panels already have.

Right now you have LG using an RGBW pixel structure, Samsung using a vertical RGB pixel structure, and the Sony/Panasonic prototypes using a Pentile pixel structure.
I won't be buying anything until there is a set which offers the "standard" horizontal RGB stripe pixel structure.
My current display uses a Sharp UV2A panel, which is really good in most respects, but uses their "multi-pixel" subpixel addressing - it basically uses an RGB stripe subpixel layout, but depending on the brightness, it may turn off half the subpixel. This can be really obvious sometimes and it's a huge annoyance of mine. (and being able to see a difference of only half a subpixel means that I could definitely use 4K)

I would like to see a 4K, 2.37:1 panel. (technically it would be a "5K" panel I suppose) I think it's a shame they did not consider adding support for 2.37:1 native video content when designing the new video spec, but at 4K, the scaling required should hopefully not impact image quality too much.
I mostly watch films or use my PC for gaming and other PC-related tasks, all of which would support a native 2.37:1 display. Can't think of the last time I watched any 16:9 content.
post #6703 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Sony: Their only XBR LCD (X900A, a 4K device) offered has the speakers glued on permanently.
Really makes you wonder about these guys.  Do they want to sell these things, or shoot themselves in the foot?  What next?  An ugly as hell stand?  Oh wait, Samsung thought of that one already.  TWICE.
In any case, Sony just announced a version of the X9 without the speakers, so we're seeing some sanity surface.
Have you seen them in person? The speakers are well integrated in the design, and give you an even frame around the image when watching films - and it's nice to see someone focus on good sound again. I think it's the best looking set they have put out for a while.

 

Everyone's different, but you bet I saw them in person.  The video was spectacular.  But the speakers were freakshow hideous, but not on their own: it's that they're glued to a tv.  Seriously, this was a very weird gamble on their part...that people who place such a premium on what they buy for video are going to accept the visual effect of speakers right next to the image staring them in the face?  I didn't find it just different, I found it uncomfortable esthetically.  You don't make two bold unusual moves at the same time: 4K & speakers IMO.  It's already established that folks buy TVs without speakers stuck to them visibly.  Why would they risk this on an already big risk (4K)?

 

Not that one opinion matters, but I thought it interesting that the local BB had a guy buy and return the 55" X9 because he couldn't deal with the look of the speakers once he got it home--it looked much better in the BB/Mag room.  I could see how this could be: In a super dark room they were distracting to me, but in a home environment they'd be downright off-putting.

 

I'll give you this much however: IF you were forced to glue speakers THAT size visibly to a TV, THEN that is how you'd want the speakers to look.  But........gross.

post #6704 of 9429
Are you talking about the 84X900 as having "glued on" speakers? I agree that the design of that set is ugly.
I thought you were talking about the 55/65X900A where the speakers are a part of the bezel, and it frames the image nicely when watching films.
post #6705 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessard View Post

The reviewers say the opposite, for example:

"Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."
Please read again the reviews then

"Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."
"Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"
"I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"

This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me
Rogo's point is that all subsequent HDTV beyond LCD/Plasma will on the surface appear incrementally better than the best of present day tech. The nuance of performance will be lost on the general consumer and those who already have the best of the best of today's displays. He isn't disparaging OLED. He wants it to succeed but is cautious to call it the end game we assumed it'd be some time ago.
post #6706 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Are you talking about the 84X900 as having "glued on" speakers? I agree that the design of that set is ugly.
I thought you were talking about the 55/65X900A where the speakers are a part of the bezel, and it frames the image nicely when watching films.

 

No, the hideous TV design I'm talking about is precisely that XBR-__X900A that you mention you like.  I'm referring to the "speakers as part of the bezel" as "glued on speakers".  Just a figure of speach.  And I'm not sure why anyone would like it, but to each his own.

post #6707 of 9429
Anyone else notice this disclaimer on Samsung's web site:

*Special shipping and handling required - A Samsung Service Engineer will contact you after your order has been confirmed

They don't have that on any of their other TVs. What's a "Service Engineer"? Maybe they will custom build the panel for you and you can ask to have it flattened or to have the hideous frame removed. wink.gif

Still no user manual posted.
post #6708 of 9429
Since the 55 inch curved OLED display has a fairly deep footprint from both the curvature depth and rear support extension, I wonder how people would feel about having to have very wide and deep TV stands to place future much larger curved sets on, since they cannot be wall mounted? In a way things are going full circle. People wanted thin flat panel TVs that could be wall mounted. Now we have gone from having deep convex CRT sets, to deep concave OLED sets which cannot be wall mounted.
post #6709 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessard View Post

The reviewers say the opposite, for example:

"Yet the OLED set's images were very bright, well above what we’ve seen from any plasma TV, so you get an unparalleled contrast range that makes images pop off the screen."
Please read again the reviews then

"Move over, plasma, there's a new TV picture-quality sheriff in town."
"Simply put, the Samsung KN55S9C produces the best picture I've seen on any TV, ever"
"I liked its picture better than that of the the ZT60, the Kuro, or anything else I've seen"

This is quite different that just "a little greater" for me

Yeah, and again, that's a form of selection bias. I don't want to call myself more objective than you by some objective standard. But I think in this case, I feel I'm being the objective observer.

You quoted three sentences which contain no hyperbole. Every one of them calls the TV the best, but none say "by a mile" or "by a lot" or "easily". Effectively, that means they are saying it's better, but not a lot better. Because if it were a lot better, you'd be reading those words.

When the Kuro came out, it was a lot better. It was so good, people here still own, use and love them versus current models which are much better than the ones they replaced from 5 years ago. I suggest you read the reviews again and perhaps refer back to the last few VE shooutouts. The way I read those sentences -- and the reviews they appear in -- is that the Samsung OLED would very likely win the VE shootout, by a clear but small margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

I was put off initially by the curved set, but not enough to rule it out: it is not a big deal to me since I would use it on a credenza,I am not wall mounting it

I am agonizing over Rogo's (and others) cautions to avoid this first gen set and wait: I know that is good advise, but I remain tempted and you know I am an early adopter smile.gif

one other concern is the warranty: I thought it was 3 years, not one (or extended to 2)

The curved part vexes me not because I would wall mount, Mark, but because of the strangely small sweet spot it generates. It's not that off-angle contrast is reduced, it's that sitting off angle, the display looks especially weird. I don't want it to look weird when I'm on my side couch. Also, the CR review says the geometry is funky unless you put the TV below eye level. I barely get the bottom third below eye level. That worries me. If the thing were flat, had a 5-year warranty and was $5000, maybe I'd consider giving up the size. I doubt it, but we'd be having a different conversation. If it were flat, had a 5-year warranty, was 65 inches and $9000, maybe I'd just call Robert and order one. I say that even considering my comments above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post


Yes , the new KING is a troubled KING and that might be the reason why only a few people are willing to buy the Curved(confused.gif)OLED. But, was the new KING flat with few problems still priced at $9.000 the advantage in PQ would still be minimal beyond the best Plasma's and LCD's nevertheless lots of flatscreen fans would be tempted eventhough they could get very close in PQ for half the price..

btw value i never cared about. I would never think of buying the ST60 and would go straight for the ZT60 smile.gif I don't see you buying a ST60 rolleyes.gif

I have a VT50. If I were buying in 2013, though, I would have very, very seriously considered an ST60. Why? Because tossing that in the home gym in 2-3 years for an OLED would've seem more reasonable than doing that with a ZT60. I'm really not overly frugal on electronics but I like feeling good about my purchase. Maybe another level of wealth would change that for me, but I really doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homogenic View Post

Rogo's point is that all subsequent HDTV beyond LCD/Plasma will on the surface appear incrementally better than the best of present day tech. The nuance of performance will be lost on the general consumer and those who already have the best of the best of today's displays. He isn't disparaging OLED. He wants it to succeed but is cautious to call it the end game we assumed it'd be some time ago.

Brilliantly summarized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

Since the 55 inch curved OLED display has a fairly deep footprint from both the curvature depth and rear support extension, I wonder how people would feel about having to have very wide and deep TV stands to place future much larger curved sets on, since they cannot be wall mounted? In a way things are going full circle. People wanted thin flat panel TVs that could be wall mounted. Now we have gone from having deep convex CRT sets, to deep concave OLED sets which cannot be wall mounted.

This is weird and a really good observation. I presume flat OLED will come whenever they actual intend to start selling it in quantity. 2015 maybe?
post #6710 of 9429
LG does sell a flat OLED, just not in the US. However, it also cannot be wall mounted. I just don't get it.
post #6711 of 9429
Re the Speaker issue - why not sell TVs as Speakerless, with the added Option of purchasing speakers that will somehow attach to the sides of the set if required. Why pay for something that, in a lot of cases, aren't needed or wanted, adds cheapness to the set and causes the engineers to try and figure were to put/hide the offending little b---s!
post #6712 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

Re the Speaker issue - why not sell TVs as Speakerless, with the added Option of purchasing speakers that will somehow attach to the sides of the set if required. Why pay for something that, in a lot of cases, aren't needed or wanted, adds cheapness to the set and causes the engineers to try and figure were to put/hide the offending little b---s!

Because more than 90% of people want speakers with their TV. And having them attach on is always worse than having them be built in from an engineering/reliability standpoint.

The ascendancy of sound bars may begin to change the portion of people who demand speakers, but the idea they won't be built in anytime soon is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of a small, small minority.
post #6713 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Because more than 90% of people want speakers with their TV. And having them attach on is always worse than having them be built in from an engineering/reliability standpoint.

The ascendancy of sound bars may begin to change the portion of people who demand speakers, but the idea they won't be built in anytime soon is pretty much wishful thinking on the part of a small, small minority.

From what I'm seeing, more and more TV purchasers are being talked into the SoundBar Addon. (My son included) Would be interesting as to the stastistics of how many get pulled into this gambit? Again, no speakers required.
post #6714 of 9429
The lack of any speakers and the amp to drive them is the main reason why I chose the 141 over the 151 Elite. I do recognize that I have to use the HT audio to get any sound which is not as convenient as built in speakers but then again, the sound is so much better this way.
post #6715 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

(6) it's power consumption is actually pretty awful (7) it can't be wall mounted. You might find none of those matter, for me 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be dealbreakers to buying an OLED at this point.

Just curious, what sort of power consumption are you expecting from future OLED? Even the current models don't seem all that high to me:



post #6716 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

No, the hideous TV design I'm talking about is precisely that XBR-__X900A that you mention you like. I'm referring to the "speakers as part of the bezel" as "glued on speakers". Just a figure of speach. And I'm not sure why anyone would like it, but to each his own.
I see. "Glued on" implies to me that it's poorly integrated with the design, rather than being a flush part of the bezel. But I am of the opinion that trying to make display bezels as thin as possible is a mistake. It certainly makes your picture stand out, but I don't like that when watching a display for any length of time - especially in a brighter room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

When the Kuro came out, it was a lot better. It was so good, people here still own, use and love them versus current models which are much better than the ones they replaced from 5 years ago. I suggest you read the reviews again and perhaps refer back to the last few VE shooutouts. The way I read those sentences -- and the reviews they appear in -- is that the Samsung OLED would very likely win the VE shootout, by a clear but small margin.
Actually, there's some revisionist history going on here. The Pioneer 8th Generation Plasmas (1G Kuros) increased contrast from their 7G performance of ~1,000:1 to 3,000:1. LCDs were in the 1,500-2,000:1 contrast range, and if I recall correctly, Panasonic were around 2,000-2,500:1.
So they were considerably better than previous Pioneer panels, but Pioneer panels had always been far behind when it came to contrast ratio. Even today's LCDs have a higher contrast ratio than the original Kuros.

The second generation of Kuros (and the "2.5G" monitors) are where they actually made a leap in performance, and went from about 3,000:1 to 30,000:1 contrast (15,000:1 ANSI) which put them ahead of everyone else for a short while.
Then the XBR8 came along (around the same time, I think?) with its zero black level, but plasma fans managed to convince people that it was "using tricks" to achieve this (and I suppose in a way it is) and blew the "haloing" issue (lower ANSI contrast) way out of proportion.
The Sony HX900 was introduced a few years later and largely fixed the ANSI problems by using an LCD panel with ~5,000:1 native contrast (Sharp UV2A) giving it an ANSI contrast ratio in excess of 10,000:1 - somewhat lower than the Kuros, but this largely eliminated the "haloing" issues with most content. (it's extremely rare with film content, but you can create test patterns that expose it) And people seem to have forgotten how a CRT with its ~200:1 ANSI contrast looked. (far worse "haloing" than the Sony local dimming sets)
I'm not saying that it's a better set, but I personally prefer high contrast LCD to plasma - even if they were able to produce one which had zero black level. (this would have objectively better contrast than a full array local dimming LCD, but image quality would still be worse)


That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions most people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.
post #6717 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions most people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.

I'm not sure I agree the OLED contrast/overall image quality difference will be largely ignored. When I walked into BestBuy and saw the LG OLED, it grabbed my attention and seemed to make all the other sets look noticeably inferior. I don't know if that was because of contrast, brightness, or something else. But it seems to me when people see that and see the "billion to one" contrast ratio (or whatever they choose to market it with), people will be influenced.

It may be kind of like the transition from 720P to 1080P sets. Even though in small sets at normal viewing distances the difference was negligible at best, many people were influenced that 1080P was "Full HD" and they had to have it.
post #6718 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

From what I'm seeing, more and more TV purchasers are being talked into the SoundBar Addon. (My son included) Would be interesting as to the stastistics of how many get pulled into this gambit? Again, no speakers required.

I don't have stats handy. Sound bar sales are growing nicely, but it's still a tiny fraction of TV sales. And you can't take off the speakers because "people might buy sound bars."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post

Just curious, what sort of power consumption are you expecting from future OLED? Even the current models don't seem all that high to me:

$18 and $27 is 2x and 3x worse than current LCDs. Yes, in the grand scheme those totals are trivial either way, but they are a lot worse than what LCD is doing. The Vizio I see when I walk into Costco now has a $9 Energy Guide tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Actually, there's some revisionist history going on here. The Pioneer 8th Generation Plasmas (1G Kuros) increased contrast from their 7G performance of ~1,000:1 to 3,000:1. LCDs were in the 1,500-2,000:1 contrast range, and if I recall correctly, Panasonic were around 2,000-2,500:1.
So they were considerably better than previous Pioneer panels, but Pioneer panels had always been far behind when it came to contrast ratio. Even today's LCDs have a higher contrast ratio than the original Kuros.

The second generation of Kuros (and the "2.5G" monitors) are where they actually made a leap in performance, and went from about 3,000:1 to 30,000:1 contrast (15,000:1 ANSI) which put them ahead of everyone else for a short while.
Then the XBR8 came along (around the same time, I think?) with its zero black level, but plasma fans managed to convince people that it was "using tricks" to achieve this (and I suppose in a way it is) and blew the "haloing" issue (lower ANSI contrast) way out of proportion.
The Sony HX900 was introduced a few years later and largely fixed the ANSI problems by using an LCD panel with ~5,000:1 native contrast (Sharp UV2A) giving it an ANSI contrast ratio in excess of 10,000:1 - somewhat lower than the Kuros, but this largely eliminated the "haloing" issues with most content. (it's extremely rare with film content, but you can create test patterns that expose it) And people seem to have forgotten how a CRT with its ~200:1 ANSI contrast looked. (far worse "haloing" than the Sony local dimming sets)
I'm not saying that it's a better set, but I personally prefer high contrast LCD to plasma - even if they were able to produce one which had zero black level. (this would have objectively better contrast than a full array local dimming LCD, but image quality would still be worse)


That said, I agree that current displays - particularly LCD in the viewing conditions most people watch them in - offer good enough contrast / overall image quality that anything OLED offers in that regard will largely be ignored.

I guess I'm remembering the black-level performance of those second Kuros as being jaw droppingly better than anything else out there at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post

I'm not sure I agree the OLED contrast/overall image quality difference will be largely ignored. When I walked into BestBuy and saw the LG OLED, it grabbed my attention and seemed to make all the other sets look noticeably inferior. I don't know if that was because of contrast, brightness, or something else. But it seems to me when people see that and see the "billion to one" contrast ratio (or whatever they choose to market it with), people will be influenced.

It may be kind of like the transition from 720P to 1080P sets. Even though in small sets at normal viewing distances the difference was negligible at best, many people were influenced that 1080P was "Full HD" and they had to have it.

At $9000, it's going to be ignored period. At $6000, it's going to be ignored period.

And, with respected intended to people here at AVS who will expand their budgets, the idea that even at $4000, people who were about to buy a $2500 TV will buy a $4000 OLED because it has a fake contrast ratio spec attached to it flies in the face of everything we know to be true. That said, there is obviously a small segment of the population willing to buy newer and better. They are buying 4K sets, but only in small amounts. That's why Sony is about to slash prices. Already, the 55" is heading toward $3500. This year. Does anyone believe it won't be $2500 within 2 more years?

Only a tiny sliver of the TV market even exists at today's top end. It's the <10% of the 10% that sells in those sizes.
post #6719 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubby497 View Post

Seems to me there are people that don't want change. I don't get it. We should be super excited! It's the next generation of tv's. Are we not videophiles?? OLED's picture quality is better than plasma or lcd and doesn't have the negative shortcomings that plague plasma/lcd.... I have the KRP500M, which is the pinnacle of picture quality. I have love and hate relationship with my kuro. OLED changes that. I been waiting for an upgrade and it's finally here, and it's with OLED.

Indeed we should be excited, however there are hurtles to overcome but I'm sure in time it will all come together. Another thing I'm really looking forward to is an increase in (screen size) with OLED technology very large screen sizes should be very likely given what we know about the potential of the technology anyway, now that's something to get excited about. wink.gif
post #6720 of 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post

Indeed we should be excited, however there are hurtles to overcome but I'm sure in time it will all come together. Another thing I'm really looking forward to is an increase in (screen size) with OLED technology very large screen sizes should be very likely given what we know about the potential of the technology anyway, now that's something to get excited about. wink.gif

I'd think a 70 inch 4K OLED would be just perfect for me. I cannot fathom how spectacular that would look. I would be willing fork over a lot of dough for something like that. The future of tvs is looking very exciting indeed. For now though, we will be playing the waiting game.

Oh and one more thought about OLEDs. As much as I love great contrast and black levels, there are other aspects that are important to PQ. So far, based on what I read of the LG and Samsung OLEDs, the motion is not the best. Motion is very important and I'm hoping it will not be an issue in the upcoming years. We'll see.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread