32" OLED has arrived - LG 32EP950

Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
8,970
Location
West Sussex, England
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
43,203
Location
Co Durham
it is confirmed at 60hz but its a pro monitor offering 99.9% of all the important colour gamuts with top end colour fidelity.

It will without doubt be the best looking OLED screen money can buy.

But the fact there are actually making 32" OLED panels is whats important. Hopefully the following year we will see 144Hz gaming versions.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
23,450
Location
Guernsey
Interesting...

https://hexus.net/tech/news/monitors/147261-lg-intros-32-inch-uhd-ultrafine-32ep950-oled-monitor/
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/l...tor-announced-with-4k-for-professional-users/

I'm betting the 400 nits is to prolong the life and mitigate burn-in.

Of course, with typical monitors delays, this should be available sometime in 2025. :p
only 400 nits :( what a waste ,
Did they forget to stick a 1 in front of the 4 :rolleyes:

Guess just have to wait to see what these 1400 to 1600 nits 32 inch mini led are like
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
If for SDR, you really want 120 nits (recommended luminance unless in a very bright room or/and a room with poor lighting setup....) but yes if that is 400 nits for hdr peak brightness, then not great!

Saying that, I find my 55e7 exceedingly bright at times in hdr content to the point where when sitting up close like with a monitor would be rather uncomfortable I imagine....
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
43,203
Location
Co Durham
only 400 nits :( what a waste ,
Did they forget to stick a 1 in front of the 4 :rolleyes:

Guess just have to wait to see what these 1400 to 1600 nits 32 inch mini led are like

OLEDs are all low nits. The best is only just over 700 nits from memory. The 48 cx peaks at around 600 but is only 262 in SDR mode. But OLED offer 50 times the dynamic range of a LCD which is HDR1000 certified and offering 1000 nits.

Personally i am happy with 400-600 nits as max brightness for a pc monitor. I never understand how people use bright screens. I have mine calibrated to 120nits and use 200nits when gaming but sometimes even then it becomes too bright sometimes.

LCD are only pushing 1500nits or more because they cant compete with the perfect blacks of OLED screens so are trying to expand the dynamic range by increasing brightness.

In order to pull off the same dynamic range as an OLED screen though they need to bring out a LCD monitor with about 20,000 nits peak brightness.

The thing that is putting me off the 1400/1600 hdr mini led monitors is that in order to take advantage of the good hdr they the have, you will have to suffer peak brightness of 1600 nits. Painful IMO.

1600nits is the same as staring at a 100W bare lightbulb. That would hurt my eyes and I just wouldnt be able to use it.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
only 400 nits :( what a waste ,
Did they forget to stick a 1 in front of the 4 :rolleyes:

Guess just have to wait to see what these 1400 to 1600 nits 32 inch mini led are like


Why do people obsess over brightness? CONTRAST matters far more. If you're in a very bright room with lots of natural daylight then yes, screen brightness comes into play, but with OLEDs infinite contrast and per pixel illumination, even at 400 nits, it will leave every LCD far behind.

Mini LED will be very nice I'm sure, but its 1000+ dimming zones won't avoid blooming and can't touch the per pixel illumination of OLED. I've also yet to see any evidence that mini LED will see the end of glow/bleed, which can utterly ruin a viewing experience. OLED doesn't suffer with either.

As Greebo states, you simply don't need high bightness on OLED for an amazing experience, and dismissing this monitor because it's "only" 400 nits is just crazy. What we don't know yet however is the refresh rate or price... both of which could end up disappointing us.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
Why do people obsess over brightness? CONTRAST matters far more. If you're in a very bright room with lots of natural daylight then yes, screen brightness comes into play, but with OLEDs infinite contrast and per pixel illumination, even at 400 nits, it will leave every LCD far behind.

Mini LED will be very nice I'm sure, but its 1000+ dimming zones won't avoid blooming and can't touch the per pixel illumination of OLED. I've also yet to see any evidence that mini LED will see the end of glow/bleed, which can utterly ruin a viewing experience. OLED doesn't suffer with either.

As Greebo states, you simply don't need high bightness on OLED for an amazing experience, and dismissing this monitor because it's "only" 400 nits is just crazy. What we don't know yet however is the refresh rate or price... both of which could end up disappointing us.
Exactly.

That's one thing which people always forget with oled, that each pixel is self emissive so there's no need to worry about halo'ing/blooming plus, the most underrated advantage of this tech. is the fact you can get perfect blacks even in sdr content too.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
23,450
Location
Guernsey
Guessing everyone different as I have owned my Sony OLED for around 2 years now and if I remember the specs right it does around 650 nits and it really does not look that bright so I hate to see what one with only 400nits is like..
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
43,203
Location
Co Durham
Guessing everyone different as I have owned my Sony OLED for around 2 years now and if I remember the specs right it does around 650 nits and it really does not look that bright so I hate to see what one with only 400nits is like..

You must watch it in bright sunlight all the time? 650 nits is pretty damn bright. I mean even back in 2015 with SOny top end LCD TVs, reviewers were talking about setting them up at 140 nits for the best viewing picture

https://www.avforums.com/reviews/sony-kd-65x8505c-4k-ultra-hd-tv-review.11902

And my current PC monitor only has max peak brightness of 600 nits and max normal of 400 nits and honestly if i set the brightness above 30% which is around 200 nits, I feel like I will go blind if i keep watching it (appreciate thats in a darkened room and sitting close to the screen but still)

And look at this list, there are loads of 2018/19 LCD screens with worse max brightness levels than the LG OLED or just as bad.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness

We consider a TV that gets to over 400 cd/m2 in our 50% window of the SDR peak brightness test to be bright enough that the TV will look good in a bright room, and one that brightens to over 1000 cd/m2 in our 2% window HDR peak brightness test to be good for HDR highlights.

OLED TVS arent good for bright living rooms , thats a downside of them but thats it really. By every other metric they beat LCD hands down.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Posts
5,930
Why do people obsess over brightness? CONTRAST matters far more. If you're in a very bright room with lots of natural daylight then yes, screen brightness comes into play, but with OLEDs infinite contrast and per pixel illumination, even at 400 nits, it will leave every LCD far behind.
There's two aspects to contrast not just black level, and to the human eye it's not about just the relative value but also the absolute values, i.e. just because you have "infinite contrast" at 100 nits doesn't mean your picture is going to look better than 10000:1 contrast at 1000 nits. Brightness doesn't impact just contrast, it also heavily affects the colour volume, which I would hope people also find important. It's also a double whammy for the WOLED because as you push their brightness up it's actually the white subpixel which drives most of that which in turn washes out the colours comparatively. It absolutely cannot compete with a QD LCD on that front.

You are also overrating the OLED's contrast's strength in any scenario outside of a pitch black room.
https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-25-26-33643&id=380371

getImage.cfm


Worst of all, it's not gonna be 400 nits anyway, that's just the peak. For sustained brightness I bet it's still going to be around 100ish.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
There's two aspects to contrast not just black level, and to the human eye it's not about just the relative value but also the absolute values, i.e. just because you have "infinite contrast" at 100 nits doesn't mean your picture is going to look better than 10000:1 contrast at 1000 nits. Brightness doesn't impact just contrast, it also heavily affects the colour volume, which I would hope people also find important. It's also a double whammy for the WOLED because as you push their brightness up it's actually the white subpixel which drives most of that which in turn washes out the colours comparatively. It absolutely cannot compete with a QD LCD on that front.

You are also overrating the OLED's contrast's strength in any scenario outside of a pitch black room.
https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-25-26-33643&id=380371

getImage.cfm


Worst of all, it's not gonna be 400 nits anyway, that's just the peak. For sustained brightness I bet it's still going to be around 100ish.


You certainly don't need pitch black for OLED to shine. LCD is just trash. I've never seen a single one, no matter the cost, that can compete with OLED in a dimly lit room. Brightly lit, lots of daylight, your argument holds some merit, but otherwise, OLED all the way. I've tried both, wasted lots of money in the process, and I know what I find best for my needs in the environment I like to view content.

You're also forgetting the utterly appalling QC on every LCD manufacturing line, resulting in dead/stuck pixels, dirt/dust under the panel and horrendous bleed and glow. IPS panels will ALWAYS suffer from this, and while VA is better, it has terrible viewing angles. Mini LED panels are all IPS, so they will suffer from glow, not to mention blooming. There's a reason all the major manufacturers are ceasing LCD production. Its days are numbered.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2014
Posts
146
my guess would be 60hz as it’s not marketed as a gaming monitor.

probably be upwards of 2500 grand too, Most colour calibrated professional displays like Eizo are and I think LG are aiming for the same markets.

I agree. Actually expect it will be 120hz (because it's non trivial for OLED), but if you're after the holy grail of gaming monitors (spoiler alert - it doesn't exist), then "this is not the monitor you are looking for".
It will probably be aimed at professional content creators and will not be suitable for typical daily use, because it will probably have burn in issures.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Sep 2009
Posts
1,052
And cost £10,000 -£20,000?

It's certainly not going to be a gaming "Telly".
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
I agree. Actually expect it will be 120hz (because it's non trivial for OLED), but if you're after the holy grail of gaming monitors (spoiler alert - it doesn't exist), then "this is not the monitor you are looking for".
It will probably be aimed at professional content creators and will not be suitable for typical daily use, because it will probably have burn in issures.


Professional use is where the burn-in concern for OLED actually means something though. It's really not a concern for gaming, unless someone is playing the same game, day in, day out for weeks on end. But content creators tend to work in the same application(s), day in, day out, continuously. This poses a far greater risk of burn in than it will for the vast majority of gamers.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Dec 2019
Posts
106
Finally. Been using a 55 inch OLED tv as a monitor for about 5 years. Can't wait for 32 inch to become affordable
 
Top Bottom