LG OLED55B7V price hikes everywhere??

[xs2man]

But don't you feel that ANY kind of babysitting requirement on a £1400+ device means that it isn't right? That it's a technology that isn't quite ready for mass market?
"All you've got to do is not watch Sky Sports all day long" - if that was the only requirement then everyone would be flocking to OLED. You play games for 3-4 hours a day, a static hud can cause problems. Well you should vary your games - but I shouldn't have to!
Likewise, if I wanted to watch Sky Sports all day long, I should be able to.
"Turn your brightness down" - but what if I wanted the perfect image, maybe the environment in my house demands that I need higher brightness, but I need to turn it down to "preserve my £1400+ TV"?


As I said above, I know OLED offers the best image quality. I know HDR performance cannot be matched by LCD/LED - that isn't the argument.
I just cannot believe that you should have to do any kind of compromising - be it your viewing habits, your gaming habits, or TV setup, when you're spending that kind of money.

It's a £1400 TV. Not a £8k TV. Of course there will be "compromises" there. But then that's up to you, and how it works with your viewing conditions, as to whether that is acceptable or not. My 6 year old plasma does display image retention, but generally only see it on an absolutely black screen, like a cutting screen or when the TV just switches on. Normal viewing and it's a champ.

You wouldn't buy a car and expect to be told how fast you can drive, or what environments.

Well yeah. Your first 1000 miles are generally at below 3k rpm or something. You can't go above 70 on a public road. Probably shouldn't take your 600+ BHP RWD car out in a foot of snow. All compromises made so you can enjoy the positives of whatever car you bought.

You wouldn't buy a receiver and expect to be told what you can and cannot listen to. You wouldn't buy a mobile and expect to be told what apps you can use, how long you can play games on it for etc.

I give you the iPhone for your consideration here.

I personally hope each and every OLED owner never has a problem. That their purchases continue to be as good as they day they were purchased until the day the owner decides to upgrade again.
But it just beggars belief that this technology is so expensive, and apparently ready for mass market - so long as you listen to the caveat, and adjust your viewing habits accordingly.

That's life though. EVERYTHING is a compromise in some way.

 

[Nexus18]

Pretty much what was said above.

Having browsed various forums now and people who have said that they got "permanent" burn in, when asked what their usage was as well as their settings, the answer has always been something like at least 7 hours of news a day with an OLED light setting of 90...... If you are that kind of person, then oled is not for you. Anyone with normal usage (to me normal is a bit of news every day i.e. like a hour or 2 if that, tv soaps/programmes, bit of sport every other day and films with some gaming every day for about 2-3 hours) and a oled light setting of <50 have not had "permanent" burn in issues.

As for my usage and if I feel like I am baby sitting, not in the slightest.

- I always use a low brightness setting on every display regardless of what type of panel it is, as anything above 120 luminance and even above 100 luminance strains my eyes out after a while and I feel there is no need for anything higher and it's not like I sit in darkness the entire time either, the room which the TV is in gets the sun for the entire day and has a massive velux window with a crappy blind. In fact, I run any LCD display at a much lower brightness in order to avoid glow issues and to try and makes the blacks appear deeper. You are not degrading the picture quality at all by having a lower oled light/brightness setting, if anything you are actually improving the IQ by having the recommended calibration luminance setting of 120.
- I never have and never will watch news channels or sports as I got no interest in this
- only gaming would be the main cause of any burn in and I very rarely play games atm but when I do get something I like, I would play for about 2-3 hours a day (i.e. assassins creed origins) but even then it shouldn't be much of an issue as I have always turned off as much of the HUD as possible as there is less clutter and then the games becomes more immersive + it is only huds which are 100% opacity and of yellow/red colour that you need to be wary of as these are the main colours that are more problematic, iirc, due to more heat being produced

But as said, it depends on the person and their usage etc.

For myself, I feel the the positives of OLED far outweigh the potential risk of burn in.

At least LG seem to be looking to reduce the likelihood of any burn in further with this years models anyway as the sub pixels are much larger than previous years sets.

 

[jpaul]

To the extent that the oled price is a result of the LG monopoly, it seems surprising Samsung has not re-invested in TV oled market, and and tried to re-enter the market (but are there patents they need.?)
There is speculation sharp(foxconn) may make a challenge, since they are making big investments hoping to win Apple phone business too

Phones using oled look as though they will provide a technology driver to address/discover any burn-in/ageing problems, (apple made some comments)
Hopefully, soon have some oled monitors too (in right price/size bracket) - would an oled monitor for the working day give less eye strain, than my IPS ?




[

I know HDR performance cannot be matched by LCD/LED - that isn't the argument

it's one of the arguments - LED has the Nits, but not the contrast ratio, the eye is unable to benefit fully from emmisive/full-array aspect of oled
]

 

[stoofa]

I hope that OLED technology continues to improve, or that other technologies (Micro LED and the like) manage to solve all of the issues.
Maybe in 5-6 years time when next I'm looking to replace my TV there will be something out there that ticks all the boxes.

As I said, the thought of having my display ruined 2-3 years into ownership was too much of a risk for me to take. Yes, it is ONLY a £1500 purchase, but to me that is not pocket change.
If your viewing habits are classed as "normal" I guess is subject to the beholder - to some I'm sure watching sports for multiple hours or gaming for hours on end is acceptable and yes, you're right - OLED isn't for them and that is the true point I'm getting at.
A technology released that is apparently ready for mass market, yet isn't, with no come back from the manufacturer is just really poor showing.
The manufacturer won't tell you how long watching something is acceptable, how long at a time you can game for - they wouldn't dare and because they won't tell you the only option is to either limit yourself or risk it

Anyway, as this is a thread on OLED I guess I should bow out. I truly came within a click of owning one. Will I regret the purchase I made instead? I don't think so. I've never owned OLED and the LED I have purchased is "as close to OLED as you can get" so I think I will be happy.
Let's see what happens in the next half a decade!

 

[Glanza]

Curry's had these back down to £1599 if you use the £200 discount code on their site, might have to buy online and collect at store as not sure if they'll allow the code in store?

 

[RoboCod]

To the extent that the oled price is a result of the LG monopoly, it seems surprising Samsung has not re-invested in TV oled market, and and tried to re-enter the market (but are there patents they need.?)
There is speculation sharp(foxconn) may make a challenge, since they are making big investments hoping to win Apple phone business too

Phones using oled look as though they will provide a technology driver to address/discover any burn-in/ageing problems, (apple made some comments)
Hopefully, soon have some oled monitors too (in right price/size bracket) - would an oled monitor for the working day give less eye strain, than my IPS ?




[

it's one of the arguments - LED has the Nits, but not the contrast ratio, the eye is unable to benefit fully from emmisive/full-array aspect of oled
]

I don't get Samsung. They seem intent on always trying to bring out something different/niche which inevitably is something completely tardy and just a marketing gimmick (curved screen anyone?). Why they don't just do their own oled beats me.

 

[Nexus18]

I hope that OLED technology continues to improve, or that other technologies (Micro LED and the like) manage to solve all of the issues.
Maybe in 5-6 years time when next I'm looking to replace my TV there will be something out there that ticks all the boxes.

As I said, the thought of having my display ruined 2-3 years into ownership was too much of a risk for me to take. Yes, it is ONLY a £1500 purchase, but to me that is not pocket change.
If your viewing habits are classed as "normal" I guess is subject to the beholder - to some I'm sure watching sports for multiple hours or gaming for hours on end is acceptable and yes, you're right - OLED isn't for them and that is the true point I'm getting at.
A technology released that is apparently ready for mass market, yet isn't, with no come back from the manufacturer is just really poor showing.
The manufacturer won't tell you how long watching something is acceptable, how long at a time you can game for - they wouldn't dare and because they won't tell you the only option is to either limit yourself or risk it

Anyway, as this is a thread on OLED I guess I should bow out. I truly came within a click of owning one. Will I regret the purchase I made instead? I don't think so. I've never owned OLED and the LED I have purchased is "as close to OLED as you can get" so I think I will be happy.
Let's see what happens in the next half a decade!

Micro LED will have no burn in but that is a good 5+ years away, very likely even longer, at least for cost affordable TVs as well as for TVs <70"....

https://www.microled-info.com/sony-demonstrate-two-crystal-led-displays-ise-2018

According to Sony employees at the booth, the large CLEDIS took around 50 hours to build, and the cost of such a display is around $1.8 million. The smaller CLEDIS at around 120" will cost bout $500,000

Also, OLED may not be perfect (potential risk of burn in along with vertical banding and tinting on whites) but neither is LCD, it has all sort of issues too, clouding, back light bleed as well as uniformity issues, personally, that sort of stuff annoys me a lot more especially blacks not being "black", unfortunately it is very much a case of pick your poison.

It's up to you at the end of the day and as said, if you are someone who likes watching a lot of news or/and using a very high brightness setting then you have made the right decision, the Sony TV you are getting is still very good.

it's one of the arguments - LED has the Nits, but not the contrast ratio, the eye is unable to benefit fully from emmisive/full-array aspect of oled
]

What exactly do you mean by that last part? The emissive part of OLED is what makes it so good and noticeably better than LCD. When it comes to HDR, LCDs need FALD or some form of local dimming in order to control the lighting for "zones" and whilst FALD with LCD is good, it has many disadvantages compared to the fully emissive pixels of OLED i.e. with OLED, you don't get any halo'ing or light leaking into other areas of the image and black will be proper "black", even in the smallest of areas surrounded by "light" colours.

But yes, people consider LCD to be better for HDR due to it being able to achieve higher brightness/nits, although I don't know how anyone can go brighter than OLED, some HDR stuff is blinding on oled, at least for my room and eyes

That is what is great about OLED though, it doesn't have to be HDR content in order for the sub pixels to be controlled i.e. black will be black as the pixels turn off even on SDR content.

 

[jpaul]

What exactly do you mean by that last part?

(at usual viewing distance) the human eye cannot distinguish/resolve the high contrast of being able to have a full on oled pixel adjacent to an off one, so full array dimming not necessarily as bad as it is considered - I think it was displaymate site I originally read it.

some HDR stuff is blinding on oled, at least for my room and eyes

this gets back to the tv's tone mapping curves (previously plagiarized from Vincent) I understand the active hdr on LGoled adresses this

 

[HummuH1]

I have to say my 55C7 has got me back into loving TV and Films again. Considering my last major TV purchase cost £4k this thing is unbelievably good for the price I paid. It's not missed a beat so far, IQ is amazing. I've not gone looking for issues as I've learnt my lesson in the past from doing that, but I can say in all honesty I've not seen anything that looks out of place.

Just need more UHD content on Sky and I'll be very happy.

 

[BMox81]

I always use a low brightness setting on every display regardless of what type of panel it is, as anything above 120 luminance and even above 100 luminance strains my eyes out after a while and I feel there is no need for anything higher and it's not like I sit in darkness the entire time either, the room which the TV is in gets the sun for the entire day and has a massive velux window with a crappy blind. In fact, I run any LCD display at a much lower brightness in order to avoid glow issues and to try and makes the blacks appear deeper. You are not degrading the picture quality at all by having a lower oled light/brightness setting, if anything you are actually improving the IQ by having the recommended calibration luminance setting of 120.
- I never have and never will watch news channels or sports as I got no interest in this
- only gaming would be the main cause of any burn in and I very rarely play games atm but when I do get something I like, I would play for about 2-3 hours a day (i.e. assassins creed origins) but even then it shouldn't be much of an issue as I have always turned off as much of the HUD as possible as there is less clutter and then the games becomes more immersive + it is only huds which are 100% opacity and of yellow/red colour that you need to be wary of as these are the main colours that are more problematic, iirc, due to more heat being produced

That sounds like you're babysitting to me...

I'm looking to upgrade my TV at the end of the year and Dolby Vision is one of the requirements. And while I "want" an OLED as I love my films, as stoofa said - you shouldn't be paying significant amounts of money for the risk of your TV getting burn in. I like to watch my football and if I want to watch 2-3 games on a Saturday I should be able to without fear of the DOG potentially being burnt in, which there is the possibility of it happening with an OLED over time. I don't care who you are - £1500 is a hell of a lot of money to be paying for a TV.

I think I've answered my own question in regards to what I should go for, so although I hope that I'll own an OLED some day, I guess I'll wait to see what LG's SHUD offerings will be.

 

[Nexus18]

That sounds like you're babysitting to me...

I'm looking to upgrade my TV at the end of the year and Dolby Vision is one of the requirements. And while I "want" an OLED as I love my films, as stoofa said - you shouldn't be paying significant amounts of money for the risk of your TV getting burn in. I like to watch my football and if I want to watch 2-3 games on a Saturday I should be able to without fear of the DOG potentially being burnt in, which there is the possibility of it happening with an OLED over time. I don't care who you are - £1500 is a hell of a lot of money to be paying for a TV.

I think I've answered my own question in regards to what I should go for, so although I hope that I'll own an OLED some day, I guess I'll wait to see what LG's SHUD offerings will be.

How is it baby sitting with my usage? As said, I always keep my brightness lower than most because I don't find any need for a high level and it is better for my eyes, I wouldn't be using a luminace setting of 85 nits on my LCD monitor if I liked a high brightness..... I never have and never will watch news or sports as again, never have and never will have interest in this stuff and I don't limit my gaming time at all either, if I can get more than 3 hours a day of gaming then great but that is very rare when I haven't had any good games lately and again, turning off HUD elements is something I have always done purely for an immersiveness aspect.

Now if I was someone who actually wanted to and liked watching news and sports, have an eye blinding 100% OLED light setting as well as having all the hud elements that clutter games up but was avoiding such content and avoiding a high oled light setting as well as turning HUD elements off for fear of burn in, then yes that would be called baby sitting for my usage.

Probably racked up a good 200-300 hours now and no sign of any burn in, not even had temporary image retention I only paid £1099 for my LG 55E7 so even if burn in does happen (of which I am confident it won't with my usage), I can't complain too much As it is and for my requirements, LCD just can't come close to the IQ that OLED provides.

 

[pioneer2000]

Have you actually had a high end LCD? I went from a KS8000 to a B7 (because it couldn't be repaired) and whilst the OLED is certainly good in that it doesn't exhibit any blooming etc like the LCD did, it gets nowhere near as bright, takes longer to turn on (a KS series is instant on), has a worse design (KS is all hidden with back panels / nicer design) and never shows any image retention ever.

HDR is supposed to be 1000 LCD / 540 OLED nits, having to babysit an OLED and run it well under it's max brightness (which is less than the equivalent LCD) just to avoid image retention is pretty naff in the grand scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I like my B7 but in many ways the KS8000 was better and I struggle to see how it was worth £750 extra (£1,500 for my 65" KS8000, £2,250 for my 65" B7).

 

[Nexus18]

Have you actually had a high end LCD? I went from a KS8000 to a B7 (because it couldn't be repaired) and whilst the OLED is certainly good in that it doesn't exhibit any blooming etc like the LCD did, it gets nowhere near as bright, takes longer to turn on (a KS series is instant on), has a worse design (KS is all hidden with back panels / nicer design) and never shows any image retention ever.

HDR is supposed to be 1000 LCD / 540 OLED nits, having to babysit an OLED and run it well under it's max brightness (which is less than the equivalent LCD) just to avoid image retention is pretty naff in the grand scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I like my B7 but in many ways the KS8000 was better and I struggle to see how it was worth £750 extra (£1,500 for my 65" KS8000, £2,250 for my 65" B7).

Seen friends LCD TVs ranging from Samsung to Sony to Panasonic (all calibrated too) and came from a Panasonic plasma myself.

The high end LCD with FALD are very good but still not anywhere as good as OLED IMO. OLED just can't be matched where blacks and contrast ratio is concerned (people always go on about resolution, brightness and so on but very rarely this despite it making a massive difference to IQ) and then other things like perfect viewing angles.

With HDR content LCD is much better and closer to OLED then but SDR content is where OLED pulls ahead big time.

I have had a c7 and my current e7 and they both turn on instantly, sounds like yours might be faulty as my second e7 was a bit slow for turning on (think it was something wrong with the remote though). Also, iirc, there is a setting in the menu which enables/disables a quick start.

Design is a subjective thing, I loved the looks of the c7, e7 isn't much of a looker (although many rave about the picture on glass and soundbar design, doesn't do much for me tbh) but I don't really care for it as long as the image it produces is good.

For the record, I don't turn down brightness for HDR content, I leave it at the default of 100% OLED light setting (if adjusting this didn't mess with the tone mapping, I would reduce this though as some scenes are far too bright and strain my eyes out). 30-40% OLED light setting for any SDR content is plenty bright for me.

What I will say about LCD though is that it is far better for lesser quality stuff i.e. broadcast, crappy quality films/tv shows etc. LCD hides issues such as banding, noise/grain amongst other things where as all these issues are shown on OLED far more so yeah you need to be feeding flawless quality content to be getting the best results from OLED, thankfully everything I watch is the best quality you can get but still there are some things that have issues in the source, which are "masked" on LCD and shown on OLED i.e. marco polo, one of the episodes looks awful on OLED but "amazing" on LCD, unfortunately though, you get clueless people saying it is OLEDs fault when the issue is in the source..... This is where madvr is good as you can reduce/remove certain issues that are present in the source.

 

[Hedge]

Seen friends LCD TVs ranging from Samsung to Sony to Panasonic (all calibrated too) and came from a Panasonic plasma myself.

The high end LCD with FALD are very good but still not anywhere as good as OLED IMO. OLED just can't be matched where blacks and contrast ratio is concerned (people always go on about resolution, brightness and so on but very rarely this despite it making a massive difference to IQ) and then other things like perfect viewing angles.

With HDR content LCD is much better and closer to OLED then but SDR content is where OLED pulls ahead big time.

I disagree with your statement saying "not anywhere as good as OLED". I own a Panasonic DX902B and it produces a spectacular picture. I wouldn't have bought it had I not tested OLEDs beforehand. OLED is certainly awesome but considering I got my Panasonic for about £700 less than LGs prices at the time, the difference was not justifiable.

A FALD LCD is very good and I think you are being harsh to say its nowhere near OLED. Because mine certainly is.

 

[Spook187]

Sky news banner has ruined my plasma which has burnt into my screen forever, would never of happened if there was a option to knock the dreadfull things off, sky as ever totally deny it can cause image retention bunch of clowns, i don't fancy dishing out 3 grand on a new telly to have the same problems.

 

[RoboCod]

Can confirm, been watching sky news for hours. No burn.

 

[Nexus18]

I disagree with your statement saying "not anywhere as good as OLED". I own a Panasonic DX902B and it produces a spectacular picture. I wouldn't have bought it had I not tested OLEDs beforehand. OLED is certainly awesome but considering I got my Panasonic for about £700 less than LGs prices at the time, the difference was not justifiable.

A FALD LCD is very good and I think you are being harsh to say its nowhere near OLED. Because mine certainly is.

Agree to disagree

Like I said, HDR content, difference isn't as big (still noticeably better to my eyes though especially on dark/space like scenes, no surprise though as with oled, every pixel is emissive where as LCD relies on FALD zones) but come to SDR then OLED pulls ahead big time IMO and again, to really see the difference, you need to be feeding the very best quality content.

And yes, I wouldn't have spent more than £1500 on an OLED TV (or any TV for that matter) as no TV is worth more than that. If you can get an OLED for the deal price of £1350 or less then it is great value though.

Sky news banner has ruined my plasma which has burnt into my screen forever, would never of happened if there was a option to knock the dreadfull things off, sky as ever totally deny it can cause image retention bunch of clowns, i don't fancy dishing out 3 grand on a new telly to have the same problems.

Not 100% sure on this but I've seen people say that some TVs can now detect harsh logos etc. and reduce the brightness of them or something along those lines, I know there is software which can do this as per recently posted on avsforums.

 

[Hedge]

Agree to disagree

Like I said, HDR content, difference isn't as big (still noticeably better to my eyes though especially on dark/space like scenes, no surprise though as with oled, every pixel is emissive where as LCD relies on FALD zones) but come to SDR then OLED pulls ahead big time IMO and again, to really see the difference, you need to be feeding the very best quality content.

.

What do you mean by SDR? Do you mean sub 1080p stuff?

Ive never watched a non HD sky channel in about 2 years lol .

 

[Nexus18]

What do you mean by SDR? Do you mean sub 1080p stuff?

Ive never watched a non HD sky channel in about 2 years lol .

SDR - standard dynamic range
HDR - high dynamic range, it will be things like HDR 10, UHD and dolby vision (netflix)

Not 100% sure but I don't think sky have any HDR support yet.

 

[RoboCod]

SDR - standard dynamic range
HDR - high dynamic range, it will be things like HDR 10, UHD and dolby vision (netflix)

Not 100% sure but I don't think sky have any HDR support yet.

No they don't, but it's in the pipeline... Shame they're pricing themselves out the market though when the likes of Netflix and Amazon give HDR and UHD at a much lower price. The top package on Netflix is just £10/pm and no fixed contract.

https://www.whathifi.com/news/sky-q-to-get-hdr-update-double-4k-offering-and-spotify