Thinking of grabbing a LG OLED55E6V since it has 3D.. Any other alternatives, cheaper preferably (3D is not a must, but would prefer). Great colors and HDR, decent/good latency is highest priority (sound is not important, neither is TV/smart TV-functions).
Also, anyone tried (or own) any of these OLED's with HDR, care to give any impressions?
Hardly. There is nothing that adds to the image as much as 3D, be it resolution or HDR, AA - their impact doesn't come even close to something like that.
Image quality on TV's has always been measured partially on how "3D" the image looks, with stereoscopic 3D it's as good as it gets.
Also most movies are still done in 3D (with the exception of drama and such where it might be redundant). It's absolute madness to leave it out from TV's or even from games (luckily the 3D Vision community is very active)..
PC games i will most of the time refuse to play in plain 2D, unless its strategy.
Yea, 3d is nice, but I cannot wear the glasses. I have the Nvidia 3d vision but I ended up stashing it. Used few times with some games.
It should work perfectly without any gadgets and it would be great. (I think there are some screens or something with this, but I'm not sure (similar to Nintendo 3ds))
Intel Core I-9 9900K @ stock, ASUS Z 390A MoBo, 32GB 3.6GHz, Zotac 3090 | BeQuiet 1000W PSU, Be Quiet Dark Base Pro 900 case, 49" Samsung G9
How is 3D redundant? It's dead for TV manufacturers, but as long as there is content...
Personally I have yet to see good 3D aside from VR glasses so I am not convinced that the OLEDs are actually so much better that its worth it.
My choice currently would be an LG B7, because its the cheapest, has no problems with ABL with standard settings (one generation earlier you want to control luminance with contrast, not oled light), low inputlag. Supports one more HDR format, HLG (i think its called). NO 3D though.
Panasonics are more expensive and suffer some problem with motion, Sonys are just more expensive, Philips has the best motion (low persistence mode with no flicker or image repetition even at 24p somehow, with no interpolation) but is more expensive and has high a inputlag.
LGs cannot be calibrated fully unfortunately, because part of their calibration controls are essentially fake.
vurt wrote:
Image quality on TV's has always been measured partially on how "3D" the image looks, with stereoscopic 3D it's as good as it gets.
I disagree with this. A sense of "3D" from a good 2D image is great. Stereoscopic 3D however doesn't look natural at all. To me it looks like multiple 2D planes stacked up, probably because that is what it is. Basically 3D with no headtracking is problematic. VR glasses manage actual 3D.
At the moment, I think the E6 is the better choice for you, since you seem to actually care about 3D.
Yea, 3d is nice, but I cannot wear the glasses. I have the Nvidia 3d vision but I ended up stashing it. Used few times with some games.
It should work perfectly without any gadgets and it would be great. (I think there are some screens or something with this, but I'm not sure (similar to Nintendo 3ds))
Sure. But I still prefer 3D glasses over wearing a bulky VR set.. 3D monitors has been available since a long time (probably no longer available). Remember seeing those over 10+ years ago, probably close to something like a a 3DS (which does not have such great depth as 3D Vision i might add).
@Nui. Stereoscopic 3D looks fantastic, in some movies it can have that effect yes, but it's not the norm at all, perhaps 1 out of 10 scenes looks like that, it can be avoided.. VR is also stereoscopic 3D, it's the same thing.
And in games it never looks like that (2D stacked planes), games is by far the best way to experience 3D. I have Oculus and i have a large projector screen with 3D Vision 2. The 3D Vision has more impressive 3D for games imo.. When playing Witcher 3 it looks like the mountains really are miles and miles away i can even judge the distance, e.g "that mountain looks like it's placed around where my parents lives!" I really love that effect, adds a whole new level of realism that 2D just can't get close to.
Yes, E6 seems like the best so far.. I can live without 3D since i have it on my 2 projectors already but wouldnt mind having higher resolution 3D..
About the higher resolution. I almost forgot. LG uses their passive 3D system, meaning that the vertical resolution is halved for 3D, meaning vertically you only get 1080p with black lines in between every line. On the plus side, there is no flicker introduced by the system and the glasses are super light weight, as it only features polarized film.
That was the other I was not much interested in 3D on these things.
vurt wrote:
VR is also stereoscopic 3D, it's the same thing.
No its not. VR comes with headtracking. Add headtracking to a screen and it would work. Until then, its stacked 2D planes
It doesn't look like I'll ever get the pleasure of witnessing it any time soon, since as I said, manufactures have decided to kill it off again. Maybe next time 3D is introduced to the world, again.
It looks nothing like stacked 2D planes with 3D Vision, games are true 3D that's why it doesn't happen, movies can sometimes be 2D material turned into "fake" 3D, that's when this awful effect occur.
Headtracking has no effect on the stereoscopic 3D.. you will not notice a difference apart from perhaps better depth with 3D Vision (depending on your screen).. Though headtracking is obviously cool in itself.. what i dislike with VR is that it's too much like looking through binoculars + its not comfy to wear for more than 10 minutes.. 3D Vision also supports most games due to the modding community, VR has extremely bad compability, very rare to see support.
How would games having true 3D help in any way? What about two camera sensors capturing the image for 2 eyes is worse than a 3D render that simulates the same thing? What about purely CGI movies?
With stereoscopic 3D you get a perfect 3D representation (if the display and glasses allow it) from a single point in space. Any other angle and distance will be off. And since we can't keep our heads still our brain can notice. In fact, with head tracking even 2D screens appear 3D.
Im not saying you should switch to VR. It has other problems. But quite frankly, you are not making any sense to me. VR has proper 3D due to head tracking, objects can appear quite far and in fact naturally so for me, that it all works despite their ghastly resolution, visible (sub-)pixel structure, effects caused by the lenses and what have you.
Anyway... how close do you intend to sit to this display, because the passive 3D system requires a viewing distance that does not allow for any 4K advantages. You also have a narrower vertical viewing angle than on an active system (you get ghosting).
With movies not all material is perfect 3D, its 2D footage or sometimes their setup (or the calculation) was just shit, this is when you get the 2D plane look. To make a 3D game look like stacked 2D planes, that would require some effort because its origin is not 2D to begin with. It can probably be done though, if a shader is not calculated correctly it can look really awful. Some games are very hard to turn into 3D vision because they don't manage to "crack" the shader.. Those are not worth playing and are just annoying to look at.
Which 3D game did you play that looked like stacked 2D planes?
I can wary how close i will sit, it's not gonna be in the living room.. I was intrigued after reading a review on this TV on the Geforce 3D Vision forum.. The guy was so impressed he bought another one just as a backup (since they're going out of production).
I have only seen movies in 3D, but also an animated one. But I will say it again, stereoscopic 3D with no headtracking is flawed. I have seen other issues with all stereoscopic 3D systems so far, some weird flickering artifacts at contours of differing depths. And I mean all of them, LCD and plasma, active and passive, passive 2 beamer cinema system, and the nintendo 3DS screen. Nothing of the sort with VR so far, again despite the glaring flaws, but maybe those flaws just hide that effect
But it doesn't matter, as there is no option for me available. To me passive 3D is useless, because I actually want a higher resolution and seating distance isn't adjustable, and now there is no 3D with OLEDs anymore anyway and that takes precedence.
vurt wrote:
I can wary how close i will sit, it's not gonna be in the living room.. I was intrigued after reading a review on this TV on the Geforce 3D Vision forum.. The guy was so impressed he bought another one just as a backup (since they're going out of production).
Its a good OLED TV, meaning you get perfect contrast, good colors with little to no dynamic nonsense and some calibration capabilities. And the upsides of passive 3D is no flicker, lightweight glasses and no ghosting. Its no wonder people are impressed with these. Do check that though, because basically passive 3D is accomplished with a layer on top of the screen which can suffer massively from a production error (malignment => ruined 3D).
Other issues are pronounced noise near dark (probably an unfavorable luminance tracking) and uniformity issues near black.
So if you get one, I can only recommend to use a source where you can easily try for a replacement should it be necessary. I would say this about any TV though
No such thing on my Benq projector, really solid image.. It's hard to go back to 2D when you've played a stereoscopic 3D game for a long time.. I tried Witcher 3 on my ultrawide 34" after playing it in real 3D, i can tell you it was a huge step back even if my monitor provides way better resolution, it did very little to impress or to up the experience for me in comparison to 3D..
I love headtracking in VR, it's pretty amazing on its own. But it's not a requirement for great looking stereoscopic 3D graphics at all.
I think i will ask around on the 3D Vision some more.. But since i'm so happy with my Benq projector (3D Vision cerified) i'm actually a bit afraid i might get disappointed with the 3D on a TV, the size will be a lot smaller and 3D is best experienced on a really large screen imo (70"+)
Downgrades of any kind are annoying to say the least. Of course the OLED would probably declass your projector and monitors at every other discipline, but it will come at a shock regardless
Same here, it's extremely costly too.. getting a new TV is always like 2 weeks of constant fucking reading, and it always ends up being some boring compromise because no one gets everything 100% right.
Tell me about it. Since I simply keep up to date with my interest here I don't have those weeks at the expense of constant reading.
As of now, I for one only accept OLED, so that drops quite a few options. Panasonic would be the best for calibration purposes, LG for price+inputlag+ most current panel, (Sony in case you do want a little bit of processing against colorbanding for example, i dont), Philips for its low persistence mode. Thank fuck for this dispersed set of options
yes OLED is the way to go for best image quality and HDR, and it seems to be a rather big step up and a worthy upgrade.
I still haven't seen HDR in person, but i have a good understanding of what it will look like, i think.. hope to grab an OLED after Christmas, hopefully these 2016 models will be slightly cheaper then.
Wonder when we will see cheap 1080p 24-25" 1080p OLED monitors with at least 120hz and gsync... or any oled monitors at all since apparently not all oled TV's work well with pc
3080, ps5, lg oled
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
I read about that some days ago, it seems like OLED isn't really a tech for smaller screens (can't remember the reason right now).
OLED is also not great as monitor either since over time the cells dies + image retention.. it's best as something you use every now and then. I've seen people using them as monitors with terrible burn ins..
So yeah its plasma all over again (i had a very late Plasma, at the time when everyone said burn-ins was finally a thing of the past, it was impossible to get it.. guess what, they were wrong had terrible burn-in on mine after a while - used mine a monitor quite a bit).
Last edited by vurt on Mon, 4th Dec 2017 21:12; edited 1 time in total
The cheapest works well with PCs as far as I can tell, meaning again the LG B7. I mean really, what a TV needs to support is low inputlag and at worst defeatable postprocessing because it will be apparent with PC usage (noise reduction, dynamic contrast, motion interpolation, and whatever other bollocks they come up with).
And next year, the chances for the hdmi version of gsync/freesync are rising (HDMI Variable Refresh Rate). I'm really hoping that it catches on and is actually working.
don't all oled TVs have pixel shift each few minutes to fight retention ?
3080, ps5, lg oled
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
Worth seeing what LG brings to the table at CES in a month. It's supposed to be the next "tick" in their panel development, as opposed to "tock" we had this year. Then again, the whole "tick-tock" thing is usually mentioned after the fact, to play down smaller updates with a promise of greater things in the future. Come launch day and they "suddenly" realise that they just have to keep on "tocking"
This gen has dropped down quite a bit in price already. And yeah, not much sense in getting anything other than the B7, since everyone else is using that same panel anyway. Any added benefit in processing or design is not worth the price in my opinion.
As already mentioned, LG, along with other TV manufacturers considers 3D ded... or at least they did. Again, we are month away from seeing if there are shifts in that plan.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely that they have already gained a source for an RGB inkjet system to print RGB OLEDs efficiently, because that should increase yield and performance considerably. Efficiency, because currently a good portion of light is lost in the color filters, which is probably the reason for the unfiltered white subpixel. The white subpixel also causes the color space to shrink with high luminance, meaning that HDR highlights can be a bit washed out...
So yeah its plasma all over again (i had a very late Plasma, at the time when everyone said burn-ins was finally a thing of the past, it was impossible to get it.. guess what, they were wrong had terrible burn-in on mine after a while - used mine a monitor quite a bit).
No, it isn't. Plasma is far more susceptible to any form of image retention. Plasma was getting more resistant but the very moment they were made 3D ready (starting with V(T)20) with faster phosphors and the latest panasonics really do have a fast phosphor they were prone to IR again.
OLED is inherently prone to image retention, but nowhere near the level of plasma. It even has some temporary image retention issue, that is because of the back plane and even shows on LCDs with this back plane. But that really is a non issue, as its very short lived
Since he got a shop model, this TV was put in the brightest and worst mode there is. Additionally the LG panels feature a compensation algorithm to even out wear, which only works if the TV is put in standby after at least 6 or 8 hours of use, which shops supposedly circumvent by cutting power.
I frankly dont care about these comments. I observe a forum and its pretty clear that OLED is much better in this discipline than plasma so far. Maybe this changes once these display have 10k hours on them or something. That I cannot tell.
I only know that when i got my Plasma everyone said it was absolutely impossible to get it, even the generation before mine was said to be 100% safe, and it wasn't. So yeah i'm not so sure now either, time will show
On my forum it was known that panasonic plasma had infrequent voltage adjustments to compensate their aging process. Each time also caused a peak susceptibility to burn in. We know of cases where the TV was all fine, until out of the blue one day a logo was essentially etched into the screen that would stay there for hundreds if not thousands of hours.
But, I'm writing this very post on a Panasonic 50VTW60 With very dark settings though
I have 0 issues to force mean looking temporary issues on my set.
Do you tend to use your displays at maximum brightness or do you use sensible or even typical calibration targets?
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
i can even judge the distance, e.g "that mountain looks like it's placed around where my parents lives!" I really love that effect, adds a whole new level of realism that 2D just can't get close to.
With very dark settings though 
