Can a new TV ever be justified on power consumption savings?

Simon0001 said:
Lol no.

Motion. Brightness. Uch.
Click to expand...

Motion was about the only thing that Plasma had over LG OLEDs, Sony Motion handling is better. But even that advantage is gone now.
Brightness? What on earth are you talking about. Plasma's can't get anywhere close to OLED in that regard.

You might prefer Plasma, but, that doesn't make plasma better. By nearly any objective measure, OLED is better.
 
Simon0001 said:
I just prefer what's best. Another year or so I'm sure it will oled. But for now a 500m or s/zt60 is still king
Click to expand...

In your opinion. For most of the rest of the world, OLED has been better for years.

Sorry, I guess if you mostly watch SD TV and like really heavy TV's then, yes, Plasma are still king.
 
My 65inch LG C9 OLED power use is all over the place, between 70w and 300w depending on what is displaying, I have it on a smart plug that monitors power, not because I care, more so because its a smart tv and I can't get to the plug easily to switch it off if it crashes.

It is on about 10hours a day with family use, the highest Kwh it has used per month is 42 units, lowest 25kw, I would probably average it at 1.5KWh per day looking at charts.

Peanuts really, might be able to save £100 a year with an LCD but I'd rather have the better image of the OLED.
 
sandys said:
My 65inch LG C9 OLED power use is all over the place, between 70w and 300w depending on what is displaying, I have it on a smart plug that monitors power, not because I care, more so because its a smart tv and I can't get to the plug easily to switch it off if it crashes.

It is on about 10hours a day with family use, the highest Kwh it has used per month is 42 units, lowest 25kw, I would probably average it at 1.5KWh per day looking at charts.

Peanuts really, might be able to save £100 a year with an LCD but I'd rather have the better image of the OLED.
Click to expand...
If you watched a lot of space stuff you'd probably find the oled cheaper anyway:cry:.
 
You probably want to use the term 'input lag' as that more accurately describes what I think you're talking about. There's a lot of marketing confusion on things like refresh rate, pixel response time etc. but input lag is what really matters in terms of responsiveness when gaming (although it's unclear in the OP if this is a concern). For other content, as long as audio and video are in sync, input lag is not an important measurement as far as I know.

Plasma panels seem quite variable and although there are some good modern methods for measuring this, not many people are measuring Plasma panels since those became available as most are now landfill. Googling about would suggest that most Plasma screens are 30-45ms or higher depending on the input used. A new OLED could reach as low as 10ms or slightly less depending on how much scaling is being done. For reference, a CRT would be near as instant (<1ms) in this kind of measurement. I have an OLED for media consumption and modern gaming (PS3 and newer) and maintain a few CRTs for retro gaming (console and PC). I've never desired to own a plasma for gaming content. I would only consider one for consumption of standard def media/broadcast TV but to be honest most things now are available HD or higher and the OLED is just so good at that.
 
the heat produced by the plasma will offest the increased cost to heat the house so keep the plasma :D

I still have a Panasonic plasma btw - 70ms input lag - tested with crt and plasma connected to the pc and a timer running on both screens, I blame it for me being rubbish at games :p
 
I've owned both plasma and oled. My house only has oleds in it now. For gaming, 4k, HDR, Dolby vision, movies, the lot. An oled far surpasses a plasma in 90% of the cases.

I say sell the plasma and get yourself a shiny shiny new TV. It's not just about cost savings, it's about new features and getting a great picture for most case scenarios. You'll find that watching 4k HDR footage will blow you away and it will encourage you to watch more of it.
 
413x said:
It made me feel sick. It also looked completely artificial.
It was almost hyper smooth,too fluid.
I could only watch for minutes at a time.

It's hard to explain, I also thought the characters looked too 'pop out' from the scenery like they were layered on.
Click to expand...
reminds me of lord of the rings HFR edition.
 
413x said:
It made me feel sick. It also looked completely artificial.
It was almost hyper smooth,too fluid.
I could only watch for minutes at a time.

It's hard to explain, I also thought the characters looked too 'pop out' from the scenery like they were layered on.
Click to expand...

its the motion smoothing doing it. The reason that it looks fake is that it identifies sections of the image which it can match as close to being the same between the real source frames ( say like an eye ) It’ll then inset additional frames between the real source frames. It seems to take the first frame section and drag it across smoothly to where the next real frame would be, then it will change that section to what the next real frame should show for that bit of space.

So say for an eye, the eye section will move smoothly to its new place for the next frame, but the image of the eye within that section wont change while moving, it’ll always be what the first frame showed. When you start doing this for multiple parts all across the picture, particularly a face, you’ll start to see things move around smoothly, but that they might not maintain their position relative to each other. So the left eye might move differently to the right eye, and nose, mouth, cheek, chin. So tha face looses is proportions slightly.

Its subtle, but noticeable, at the same time, which to me makes it unwatchable. I turn if off, always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom