LG c9 OLED

Stephanie Peterson said:
The b8 i got for just over 1600 in 65" form, the c8 in the same size ..... best i found was like 1800, the c9 was a LOT more expensive up there at silly money.

Yeah its better and so is the c8 over the B8 but its mostly just onboard processing and well.. i am sure the pc could compensate maybe with all sorts of image fiddling.

All 3 are epic panels though.
Click to expand...

Sorry to take thread off topic...

But I managed to get a price match with John Lewis (against Electronic Empire) for the 65" C8 at £1679. Also comes with a £100 voucher until the 9th June. They don't usually accept price matches with this retailer so you may have mixed luck, depending who picks it up. Had to put an S in front of electronic just to get it through their auto block.

Dunno if it's any use to you now, but if you were bothered about the C8 and able to return it....:)
 
Imagine the Q90R with mini LED backlighting ? i hope next year we start to see some LCD panels with mini backlighting it will probably close the gap even more.

I would personally have a C9 over a Q90R if i was buying today.
 
Last edited:
Good old Vincent calling out people overblowing screen burn risks of burn on OLED esp in gaming ;)

For two top tier screens it’s pretty conclusive the C9 is the better tv unless you watch telly in a conservatory and a pretty decisive victory for gaming on the C9.
 
Just been looking at prices and the C9 65" OLED works out cheaper than the Q90R 65" so another reason to go with the C9. its crazy to think OLED is now cheaper than most current high end LCD screens.

More and more manufacturers and jumping in to OLED now i have just seen a Hisense OLED launching soon so hopefully prices will keep coming down..
 
JDMaverick said:
Sorry to take thread off topic...

But I managed to get a price match with John Lewis (against Electronic Empire) for the 65" C8 at £1679. Also comes with a £100 voucher until the 9th June. They don't usually accept price matches with this retailer so you may have mixed luck, depending who picks it up. Had to put an S in front of electronic just to get it through their auto block.

Dunno if it's any use to you now, but if you were bothered about the C8 and able to return it....:)
Click to expand...

Thats a hell of a deal.
 
I've just watched the video and it looks like a slam dunk for the OLED, especially considering price. BUT the Automatic Brightness Limiter and Dimming he mentions is a bit of a put off.
 
Shimmyhill said:
So more like 4000 hours not the 500 you said and Rtings are still saying that with varied content there is practically no risk of burn when you include gaming and that’s what Vincent is quoting.
Click to expand...

My bad, not 500. 2240 hrs in fact, it starts at week 16, but is not very pronounced then.

http://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/real-burn-in/real-burn-in-week-16-tv-5-green-large.jpg

That's a very good case for it though. If you look at CNN (not max), it starts at week 4 on magenta. That means ~560 hours of lifespan more or less for the individual pixels. For HDR gaming that's nothing. The hours I put into Origins & Odyssey could easily achieve that. Forget everything else.

But hey, if you want to take the risk, go for it. It means nothing to me, but I don't appreciate all these shills who get sponsored by these companies all the time lying to the public, and then others parroting back the lies even though anyone with eyes can see, and with a brain can add up what this means.

OLEDs have a shorter lifespan than traditional LCDs. This is a trade-off for the benefits of the technology. Why can't people just accept there's a trade-off and instead have to engage in both deception and self-deception? Would the reality of burn-in make the TVs unusable all of a sudden? I don't get it.
 
That Fifa burn in even at 4000 hours is actually very mild, tbh if I didn’t know what to look for in the pictures you posted I wouldn’t have seen it.

How many hours a day did they play?
 
Last edited:
Poneros said:
My bad, not 500. 2240 hrs in fact, it starts at week 16, but is not very pronounced then.

http://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/real-burn-in/real-burn-in-week-16-tv-5-green-large.jpg

That's a very good case for it though. If you look at CNN (not max), it starts at week 4 on magenta. That means ~560 hours of lifespan more or less for the individual pixels. For HDR gaming that's nothing. The hours I put into Origins & Odyssey could easily achieve that. Forget everything else.

But hey, if you want to take the risk, go for it. It means nothing to me, but I don't appreciate all these shills who get sponsored by these companies all the time lying to the public, and then others parroting back the lies even though anyone with eyes can see, and with a brain can add up what this means.

OLEDs have a shorter lifespan than traditional LCDs. This is a trade-off for the benefits of the technology. Why can't people just accept there's a trade-off and instead have to engage in both deception and self-deception? Would the reality of burn-in make the TVs unusable all of a sudden? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Thing is though, the rtings test is an extreme use scenario. The TVs are run for five hours a day, four times per day, so twenty hours in total. Nobody uses their TV for 20 per day. Also, that's twenty hours a day of the exact same thing every day. Yes, a lot of games have a static HUD, but the likelihood of someone only ever playing the same game constantly, without changing game or using it for TV viewing, are incredibly slim. Also, FIFA is an extreme example within gaming, because it has constant, bright HUD elements (the score in the top left and the player names at the bottom left and right. CoD:WWII was run on one of the other OLED TVs in the test and that has permanent HUD elements as well, such as a mini map, but because those HUD elements are mostly grey they didn't cause any burn-in.
 
More games need to give the option of HUD brightness

I’ve playing Division 2 and in HDR it lets me change the HUD brightness down to 100 nits if I wish
 
With regards to the pics comparing the cityscape, remember, just because the detail might be there in the source doesn't necessarily mean that it is suppose to be seen..... See the same thing come up time and time again about "shadow detail" and people saying you are losing detail etc. etc. I also thought the image looked extremely dark and hated not seeing the back wall etc. in scenes when compared to my plasma and other LCD screen but then realised that the image was in fact far more accurate than those displays and was in fact displaying the image "correctly".

Once again, a good example for this is Morgan Freeman in Oblivion:

https://www.avforums.com/review/panasonic-tx-65cz950-4k-uhd-oled-review.11860

The final side-by-side had us looking at an image area I feel too many people misunderstand and that is shadow detail and what you should be able to see in a given scene. Sowa highlighted this with Morgan Freeman’s introduction in Oblivion, where he lights a cigar and then his face disappears into the darkness. You should just make out the very left edge of his face and his eyes. Everything else should be in complete black.

The LG was showing too much of this scene where we could actually see the back wall behind Freeman. Just because that data might be in the image when mastered and brought out with incorrect gamma or panel brightness, it doesn’t mean you are supposed to see that detail. This is important in a scene like the one being highlighted as it can completely change the feeling and mood towards the character. He no longer looks menacing if you can see him clearly, like he was displayed on the LG. Again, we had no control over this aspect of the demo, but it did make sense and highlighted the expertise of the old plasma technicians managing to get the gradations between absolute black and just above correct. There were other examples shown where the CZ950 handled shadow detail without clipping and in a more dynamic way.
Click to expand...

Poneros said:
The hours I put into Origins & Odyssey could easily achieve that. Forget everything else.
Click to expand...

I have put in a lot of hours for games with bright HUD elements and not a single sign of retention on my e7, this is with HDR too so overly bright HUD elements at times, including those games you have played (although not as many hours), division, spiderman, HZD, last of us, rdr 2, batman games, far cry games etc. etc.

My TV has over 2k hours now.

The problem is people are over exaggerating the "burn in" issues, yes it "may" happen but the chances of it are extremely slim.

One thing I always find amusing with those rting results is how people don't see the issues with the uniformity issues of LCD after a certain amount of time ;)

J30s27zh.png.jpg

Hc38kHFh.png.jpg
 
nicktay2605 said:
Thing is though, the rtings test is an extreme use scenario. The TVs are run for five hours a day, four times per day, so twenty hours in total. Nobody uses their TV for 20 per day. Also, that's twenty hours a day of the exact same thing every day. Yes, a lot of games have a static HUD, but the likelihood of someone only ever playing the same game constantly, without changing game or using it for TV viewing, are incredibly slim. Also, FIFA is an extreme example within gaming, because it has constant, bright HUD elements (the score in the top left and the player names at the bottom left and right. CoD:WWII was run on one of the other OLED TVs in the test and that has permanent HUD elements as well, such as a mini map, but because those HUD elements are mostly grey they didn't cause any burn-in.
Click to expand...

It's not an "extreme" use scenario, unless playing video games is an extreme case scenario. And the 20 hrs a day doesn't matter because the damage is cumulative. This is why I'm talking about hours of usage and not something else. Whether you use it for 1 hour a day for 20 days, or 20 hours for 1 day, it's the same thing. Ofc, for the individual this can mean something different because of different usage hours, but that's up to each said individual to judge for themselves if the risk is worthwhile. My very simple point is - there IS a risk, and here's what it is.

And the Fifa scenario is one of the best cases, because the ticker is BLACK. That's why I'm saying look at CNN. That's where you can see the lower bounds of the pixels' lifespan, which is not an extreme use case either because there are plenty of HDR games which have HUD elements that are similar in terms of colours & brightness.

That's why we need to be very honest about burn-in, because people deserve to know the truth - there's a significant risk that if you play similar games (esp in HDR) certain pixel arrangements will go within 1000 hours.

Nexus18 said:
One thing I always find amusing with those rting results is how people don't see the issues with the uniformity issues of LCD after a certain amount of time ;)
Click to expand...

It's not LCD it's LG. ;)

Source: even their damn phones' LCD showed near-permanent image retention (about 4 generations of phones, in fact). Sadly, I know from experience. ;(

Edit: about the cumulative part:

LG has confirmed to us that the length of the on/off cycle does not matter, only the hours of cumulative usage. For example, 20 hours on then 4 hours off each day would be expected to have the same outcome as 4 cycles of 5 hours on 1 hour off, or 8 cycles of 2.5 hours on 0.5 mins off.
Click to expand...
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...s-oled-burn-tests-updated-9.html#post55341690
 
Last edited:
Poneros said:
My bad, not 500. 2240 hrs in fact, it starts at week 16, but is not very pronounced then.

http://i.rtings.com/images/reviews/tv/lg/real-burn-in/real-burn-in-week-16-tv-5-green-large.jpg

That's a very good case for it though. If you look at CNN (not max), it starts at week 4 on magenta. That means ~560 hours of lifespan more or less for the individual pixels. For HDR gaming that's nothing. The hours I put into Origins & Odyssey could easily achieve that. Forget everything else.

But hey, if you want to take the risk, go for it. It means nothing to me, but I don't appreciate all these shills who get sponsored by these companies all the time lying to the public, and then others parroting back the lies even though anyone with eyes can see, and with a brain can add up what this means.

OLEDs have a shorter lifespan than traditional LCDs. This is a trade-off for the benefits of the technology. Why can't people just accept there's a trade-off and instead have to engage in both deception and self-deception? Would the reality of burn-in make the TVs unusable all of a sudden? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You obv have your bandwagon and want to bang a drum about it so we obv will never convince you other wise, if you take your worst case scenario you need to play 2000 (still 4 times more than your original outrage claim) hours of fifa and nothing else and you will get some minor burn... and that’s if you go back in time and get a 2017 screen, the last year they used same size red pixels.

In the real world there are people with 2016 OLED screens with no burn, people who have put thousands of hours into games but as they don’t only play the same game and no other content it’s a minimal risk and the claim still stands that if you have varied content then there is no real risk in owning an OLED.

You may call them shills but seem happy to use their research when it backs up your point in your mind even when it doesn’t back it up because you didn’t play 2200 hours of Assasins Creed with no other content in between. I can offer some real world heaving gaming testing as I have put in approaching 2000 hours of Destiny series on a plasma with no issues of retention and must be a few hundred hours of gaming on my OLED with no issues. I don’t however leave my screens on CNN for 20 hours a day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom