Why? Why on earth would it be as low as 100? LG have never made a OLED screen yet with sustained brightness as low as 100.
32" OLED has arrived - LG 32EP950
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
Why? Why on earth would it be as low as 100? LG have never made a OLED screen yet with sustained brightness as low as 100.
I said ish, not 100 exactly. Welcome to the world of OLEDs.
SDR - Sustained 100% Window - 133 cd/m²
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/bx-oled
to be fair you picked a bad example. They even said it was down to the massively aggressive ABL that dimmed the brightness of the screen, the more bright bits were shown on the screen. And you couldnt switch it off totally either.
plus the 100% white screen isnt a reflection of reality which is why they only allocate 2% of their score to that and 63% is the real scene max brightness av which in that TV;s case was 454 nits and ranged from 358nits to 534nits. After playing around with the settings to put the screen in the brightest possible setting for a bright room them got that up another 200 nits.
So good effort and well done for going to try and find a 100 nits OLED screen
Yes OLED are dimmer and are only 400-600 nits but honestly, unless you are watching in bright sunlight, 400-600 in a living room on an evening with the curtains shut and a table light on or main lights dimmed is enough to make it slightly uncomfortable on your eyes and I could never live with a 2000 nits LCD TV.
I and many others on here have their LCD monitors running at 120 nits anyway so as long as it can do that sustained and 400 peak then thats more than good enough for 99% of their intended market.
Last edited:
I like how you hand-wave away the ABL, which btw for a monitor it's something you'll encounter frequently due to the nature of windows and text work in general, not to mention other content which can also suffer from ABL fluctuations such as most obviously hockey but also HDR games. Not only that, but you somehow go to the it's 400-600 nits as a general idea, when in reality even if we go from 100% to 50% it's still only up to 276, and in fact even worse for HDR where it's 220. Furthermore, I challenge you to go find me the OLED monitors where they have superior brightness & abl compared to the TV variants - they don't exist*. In fact whenever we've seen OLEDs on desktop, even the TV-like Alienware OLED 55", it was ALWAYS with lower brightness and more aggressive ABL than the TVs.
You're content with 120 nits - that's fine, but what I'm discussing is the actual capabilities of these displays. Up to the individual to then decide how they feel about it. The measurement of the display's brightness is not up to subjective interpretation though.
* Exception being professional reference monitors ($30,000+), which amusingly have also been discontinued in favour of LCD variants with miniLED or dual-cell backlights.
@Greebo
You're content with 120 nits - that's fine, but what I'm discussing is the actual capabilities of these displays. Up to the individual to then decide how they feel about it. The measurement of the display's brightness is not up to subjective interpretation though.
* Exception being professional reference monitors ($30,000+), which amusingly have also been discontinued in favour of LCD variants with miniLED or dual-cell backlights.
@Greebo
Not to mention the heat and power draw - the few 3000 nit LCD screens out in the wild draw 800w from the wall, now imagine 16000nits
You'll we calling your electricity distributor to install a large commercial sized connection to your home before you hit OLED level of contrast 
A 1500nit LCD draws around 250w, 3000nit 800w. I did some rough linear scaling - you're looking at around 20000 watts of power needed for a 16k nit panel but in reality it's probably a logarithmic scale and your need more 100,000 watts to power it. 22 pounds per hour of electricity cost , I bet gaming would look great though
Last edited:
i agree OLED dont have superior brightness to TVs, i never said they had. I just dont see why people think they need 2000+ nit screens. To me TV manufacturers are trying to fix the poor dynamic range by just increasing the max brightness ever generation because they know there is nothing they can do to fix the poor black level.
I waved it away cause its a TV with super aggressive ABL but what makes you think LG aare going to make their pro monitors with super aggressive ABL? Quite an assumption?
And yes thata screen is only 276nits at 50%, personally I think thats more than bright enough for sdr sustained. Even Rtings state you only need 365nits for a bright room so its not that far behind. And they do say if play around with the controls and settings, if retina burning brightness floats your boat, they managed to increase sustained brightness by 20%
And since some LCD TVs have 2000+ nits brightness nowadays, why dont LCD monitor makers make their LCD monitors that bright? Reason being you are sat in front of the screen about 60cm away/
Anyway, thankfully monitor manufacturers dont make their screens for the super bright crowd (thank god)
My 6 year old Benq pro 4k screen I have been using only has a max brightness of 350nits and I have used it for 6 years photo editing at 35% on the brightness settings so around 120nits, like almost every pro user in the world does.
I waved it away cause its a TV with super aggressive ABL but what makes you think LG aare going to make their pro monitors with super aggressive ABL? Quite an assumption?
And yes thata screen is only 276nits at 50%, personally I think thats more than bright enough for sdr sustained. Even Rtings state you only need 365nits for a bright room so its not that far behind. And they do say if play around with the controls and settings, if retina burning brightness floats your boat, they managed to increase sustained brightness by 20%
And since some LCD TVs have 2000+ nits brightness nowadays, why dont LCD monitor makers make their LCD monitors that bright? Reason being you are sat in front of the screen about 60cm away/
Anyway, thankfully monitor manufacturers dont make their screens for the super bright crowd (thank god)
My 6 year old Benq pro 4k screen I have been using only has a max brightness of 350nits and I have used it for 6 years photo editing at 35% on the brightness settings so around 120nits, like almost every pro user in the world does.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't completely agree, because most people only have one monitor and it's the same screen they are going to use for browsing, productiving, gaming etc. etc.
For me, it's simply the fact that it's used as a desktop display that causes the issue, not specifically that it's for 'gaming' or 'professional' use.
To be fair, I haven't watched the video but if it is being marketed for professional use I'm assuming it's due to colour accuracy and contrast levels etc?
I reserve the right to look into it more and do a U-turn on my opinion
It's being touted as a professional monitor judging by the fact they are quoting color accuracy specs.
I think seeing this tech, in a high refresh rate monitor is probably more likely CES 2022.
Just have to hope my trusty DGM 27" from about 2014/5 hangs in there for me.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't completely agree, because most people only have one monitor and it's the same screen they are going to use for browsing, productiving, gaming etc. etc.
For me, it's simply the fact that it's used as a desktop display that causes the issue, not specifically that it's for 'gaming' or 'professional' use.
To be fair, I haven't watched the video but if it is being marketed for professional use I'm assuming it's due to colour accuracy and contrast levels etc?
I reserve the right to look into it more and do a U-turn on my opinion
How many monitors someone has doesn't change the fact that burn-in is a risk inherent to OLED. Not that it's guaranteed by any means, but the longer someone spends in the same application with static menus, the risk WILL be greater. And it's a safe bet that in such an unforuntate scenario, it won't be covered by warranty. Personally, as big a fan of OLED as I am (I own an LG 55"), I would never use one for work given the many consecutive hours I spend with the same applications on-screen.
On a side note, many dedicated professional use monitors aren't really suited for anything but the most casual of gaming. That may likely be the case with this OLED, given it appears to be 60Hz and there is no mention of any VRR functionality. I'm sure a gaming spec variant will arrive eventually now they're actually making OLED panels at this size, but this doesn't appear to be the monitor most OLED (gaming) fans are looking for. The price tag will also be rather high I suspect.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 88
- Location
- North East UK
to a point yes, but content creators will have the displays calibrated down to about 100-120cd which on an oled is roughly about 25-30% brightness on the oled light so burn in probably won’t be a problem for a greater length of time. Gamers tend to run their displays with 100% oled light and hdr where burn in will be a bigger problem on static elements like hud’s
Great screens them, i remember driving to ocuk to get mine for £299 (i think) as new shop launch day price.
I think it might have been £199 but that's when I got mine too. The power brick went a while back but I found a better replacement on ebay.
Don't think you understand how the brightness works
When watching things in HDR like this You tube video it nothing like turning the Brightness on your monitor to 100% while browsing . Go into a shop that running a HDR demo and you will see it not a blinding kind of brightness
Guessing the Best way i can explain the 1000nits on my LCD is that it makes the colours really pop & shine so the picture looks almost exactly the same as it does on my OLED
Last edited:
no, I understand about sustained brightness and peak brightness esp HDR and highlights. but to suddenly say that this OLED will only do 100 sustained brightness and then show an example oled TV (with flaws with too aggressive ALM) is just wrong. Even that flawed OLED TV did peaks of brightness on small areas on HDR at 600-700 nits,
And some uses on here do set their monitors at 100% and view their screens at 450 nits baseline, even more in peaks with HDR.
But I still say you will never get a pro using his screen like that and the normal peak brightness of around 500 nits is fine for this new monitor.
I am not convinced though that a 1000 nits LCD screen looks as good as a 600 nits OLED screen IMO.
I no remember saying this OLED only does 100nits sustained brightness
I've used a c6 as a pc monitor for about 5 years and there's no screen burn.
That's with dimming disabled using service remote and regularly running at 100% brightness with artificial scanlines on emulated 16bit games.
It's genuinely hard to burn these things in and that's a 5 year old model
That's with dimming disabled using service remote and regularly running at 100% brightness with artificial scanlines on emulated 16bit games.
It's genuinely hard to burn these things in and that's a 5 year old model
Because it categorically doesn't, not side by side in regular/low light conditions. The per pixel illumination sees to that when viewing dark content such as star fields/space scenes, a flashlight in a dark room (so basically every horror film ever made), and anything else of that nature. OLED utterly destroys LCD in these situations, this isn't even subjective.
HOWEVER, add lots of ambient light in your environment, something like a nature programme, a colourful scene full of bright colours etc. then you will see a top-end FALD LCD pop more.
Interesting...
Of course, with typical monitors delays, this should be available sometime in 2025.
So its not really arrived has it.