LG c9 OLED

Shimmyhill said:
In the real world there are people with 2016 OLED screens with no burn
Click to expand...

What about all the people who have gotten burn in on their set? Or do you only look at success stories and ignore all the failures & therefore burn in = impossible?

  1. I have a 2016 Panel with burn in.
    80 vote(s)

  2. I have a 2016 Panel without burn in.
    169 vote(s)
Click to expand...
https://www.avforums.com/threads/po...urn-in-note-your-vote-will-be-public.2197134/

A shill can measure just as well, for the most part. That's why I have no issue with making use of hard data but don't go by their subjective interpretations of said data (e.g. scores; like I said before, when an OLED has top scores for use as a PC monitor, the system is compromised). Besides, I was talking about Vincent Teoh who has many sponsorships from these companies, hence all the events you see. That he moved on from massaging the truth (eg in the chroma issues on the 2017 & 2018 OLEDs where LG barely even got a slap on the wrist from him) to straight lying (burn in is not a concern, even though if you check for yourself the burn in is clear on the slides he used; I guess he just expects most people to not check & or think for themselves) is what ticked me off.
 
Poneros said:
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.



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. ;(
Click to expand...

You’ve got the cumulative thing wrong too, it’s only how you suggest it is if you put in the exact same content is used on the same pixels all the time and every OLED has pixelshift to lessen this but having things on for 20 hours lessens the randomness of this - you also do not have the same content on screen for the same 20 hours that they do in the tests - remember there is no letup in the 20 hours as they are looping the footage, no menus, pause screens or loading and this is before we get into pixel refreshing that will happen vastly more often in real world usage than in their tests again slowing down the burn in.

The reality of the FIFA test is you would need to put more years of only playing Fifa into the tv than you will own the tv for!
 
Nexus18 said:
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

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...

This was my take away too.

If you look at the angle of the camera and position of the sun, part of the sun has already passed the horizon. If you were standing in those streets when that video was taken it would be nearly pitch black outside already and you wouldn’t see the sun from the ground.

Given this the scene should be very dark but the time of day looks 1 to 2 hours earlier on the qled and so the lighting on the qled does not match the position of the sun. But this is easily the most pronounced picture difference I have seen. Both panels were in HDR mode

I did notice it - even the VA suffers from it but wow those LG nanocell panels really get hit hard. I wonder who made my asus IPS monitor panel - it already has one pixel stuck on red and has shown temporary image retention in the past - and this is a “gaming” panel
 
Last edited:
I will summarise my argument and leave it at this, he who cares may research further.

1. All the OLED subpixels have a certain lifespan. This lifespan varies based on the content seen, and also based on the OLED panel, as the panel subpixel size varies year-by-year.
2. (The exact hours apply only for the 2017 OLEDs at 200 nits) For a particular subpixel arranagement (by which I mean something like the same element being shown on screen, e.g. a logo, though it could be something else if that something else used the subpixel arrangement in the same manner) we can expect it to go out between 600 & 2300 hours of usage, where usage means that particular subpixel arranagement was used (e.g. showing Fifa's ticker for 600 hrs of gameplay, etc).

If those are risks acceptable to you, great! Whether you care about them or not, and what you weigh them at, is UP TO YOU. I make no judgement on whether anyone should buy an OLED or not, I just want people to know the facts and make up THEIR OWN MINDS. And NOT listen to people who make up subjective judgements for others "you have nothing to worry about, there's no real burn in chance".

Interesting discussions here, with some nerd investigations such as:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2512070&stc=1&d=1547743537

** Do not hotlink images **

Peace, and burn away! :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Poneros said:
What about all the people who have gotten burn in on their set? Or do you only look at success stories and ignore all the failures & therefore burn in = impossible?

https://www.avforums.com/threads/po...urn-in-note-your-vote-will-be-public.2197134/
Click to expand...

The AVF data is interesting but you will always have more people complaining than being positive and I have never said you can’t get burn in - without the conditions that led to burn in the data is pointless because unless everyone without burn it was doing the exact opposite of everyone with burn in there are too many factors to make it a fair comparison.

The discussion here is more about gaming and burn risk which is minimal, I wouldn’t use an OLED for news type stations on for long hours of the day as there is an obviously greater risk there.

FWIW I’ve followed that thread and the OLED forum in general for years, my mate is an early adopter and had a 1080p OLED (not sure if 2015 or 16 screen) and ever since then I’ve wanted one so did loads of research and waited far longer than I expected to replace my plasma as so many false dawns with QLED and other plamsa/OLED killers but last year the prices had a significant drop so was an easy choice to jump in, I expect to change the screen within 3 years - the longest I’ve had a screen since 2004 has been 4 years so maybe I minimise the risks myself as much like half brightness plasma I will not own a screen long enough for such issues to build up.
 
Shimmyhill said:
I expect to change the screen within 3 years - the longest I’ve had a screen since 2004 has been 4 years so maybe I minimise the risks myself as much like half brightness plasma I will not own a screen long enough for such issues to build up.
Click to expand...

Which is fair enough. I'd happily buy an OLED with all the risks involved when e.g. the B8 dropped to £1k & under, if I cared about dark scene performance more.

That's why I don't judge the OLEDs as a purchase - that's a subjective judgement. I just want to know the hard data & nothing else, so everyone can decide on their own.
 
peahead said:
Click to expand...

Most of the gaming comparisons I've seen where they use an AC game is done during the day to show off the brighter highlights of the q90r - but this video used the game at night which showed a massive win for the oled.
I was very surprised to see how much cleaner the colors look and how much better the contrast is in this game - in addition the Q90R almost looks like it has a white film or layer on top, like a bit of mist

gdleb3ox.4i5.jpg




ypmjhwzl.rdz.jpg
 
Grim5 said:
Most of the gaming comparisons I've seen where they use an AC game is done during the day to show off the brighter highlights of the q90r - but this video used the game at night which showed a massive win for the oled.
I was very surprised to see how much cleaner the colors look and how much better the contrast is in this game - in addition the Q90R almost looks like it has a white film or layer on top, like a bit of mist
Click to expand...


Can't go by what the camera captures. It will look very different to what your eyes see.
 
Poneros said:
Which is fair enough. I'd happily buy an OLED with all the risks involved when e.g. the B8 dropped to £1k & under, if I cared about dark scene performance more.

That's why I don't judge the OLEDs as a purchase - that's a subjective judgement. I just want to know the hard data & nothing else, so everyone can decide on their own.
Click to expand...

I had a first gen 1080 lcd and blacks were great just reduce backlight . Not far off the pioneer plasma.
 
Poneros said:
Can't go by what the camera captures. It will look very different to what your eyes see.
Click to expand...

Correct you are, youtube will not 100% match real life. However Vincent brought up these exact differences in the video as he saw them with his eyes too and that’s why I posted those images
 
Does not impact the C9 with the newer processor, but the, yet unpatched, LG 2018 issue with the low bitrate/freeview source occupies my head-space more than ageing/burn-in now, did Vincent, update, on that ?

I don't watch tv in the dark, but if you do, are backlights still recommended to reduce eyestrain, especially if you're watching alternating light/dark material too, but,
maybe the game action above is predominately in the dark, so that rule does not apply. (psychos the only one I've ever seen promote them)
Edit: although, I suppose there are no backlights at the cinema

Pixel shift has presumably been outdated by the logo recognition tech .. was the former ever, really, of any use ? since most logos are multiple pixels wide.
 
Last edited:
If qled flagship was.like £1000 cheaper than sure. But the other LCDs looked a bit poop with washed out image the usual brightness too high look with poor blacks, but the top end Samsung are good, whether or not in dark room good enough I don't know. But if you adjust backlight but I guess that affects max hdr nits...but I wouldn't want hdr to vapourise my retinas either
 
I think this is what puts me off OLED on top of the retention/burn-in:

SDR Sustained 100% Window
QLED 558 cd/m²
OLED 141 cd/m²

I remember with my plasma when you had adverts and such with a majority white screen it would go to a dull grey, admittedly situations aren't all that common outside of adverts but I'd rather give up a bit of black level than have a TV that does that again. Even cheap TV's can produce a pure white screen.

I agree with hornetstinger high end QLED needs to come down in price to be more competitive, as far as I know the lower end ones are only edge lit so are they all that much better than other edge lit TV's?

It seems to me that there are advantages and disadvantages to all TV types, none are perfect.
 
jpaul said:
after q6fn discussion £300 less than a £1k oled, I think it'll give it/b8 a run for its money
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-q6fn-vs-lg-b8/623/647?usage=7318&threshold=0.1
:) when you see the sdr/hdr brightness side by side too ? and it's got the input lag & vrr
Click to expand...

The q6fn doesn’t have local dimming and it’s probably similiar to my ks8000 - and take it from me the oleds look much better in terms of colour contrast and they have more "pop" in HDR too. The OLEDS also don't make your whole screen a washed out grey when you watch game of thrones season 8 ;)


hornetstinger said:
but I wouldn't want hdr to vapourise my retinas either
Click to expand...

It’s a legitimate concern.

I recently read an article from an optometrists who said in recent times people are damaging their eyes by new forms of lights in our lives that are super bright and harmful.

The culprits?

Bright LED TVs
LED light bulbs
LED daytime running lights in cars

The optometrist was advocating for a mandatory upper limit of how bright manufacturers can make these products because currently they are bright enough that they are causing eye damage.
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
after q6fn discussion £300 less than a £1k oled, I think it'll give it/b8 a run for its money
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/samsung-q6fn-vs-lg-b8/623/647?usage=7318&threshold=0.1
:) when you see the sdr/hdr brightness side by side too ? and it's got the input lag & vrr
Click to expand...

I really don't think that's a great comparison, rtings themselves say in the summary:

The LG B8 is much better than the Samsung Q6FN for most people, unless you are too concerned about burn-in. The LG B8 has perfect blacks and is amazing for dark room viewing. The LG B8 has better reflection handling and better viewing angles, so if you have a large room with many small light sources, then it is a better choice. The Samsung Q6FN, on the other hand, can fight better bright room glare, has a lower input lag and supports FreeSync, which is great for gaming.
Click to expand...

I've said before on these forums, you should always go for a TV with proper local dimming, either FALD LED or OLED. Edge-lit TVs are inherently inferior, they just can't produce the same results as a TV with local dimming and they often suffer from light bleed, particularly as they age. I'd only buy one if I really didn't have much to spend on a TV.
 
nicktay2605 said:
I've said before on these forums, you should always go for a TV with proper local dimming, either FALD LED or OLED. Edge-lit TVs are inherently inferior, they just can't produce the same results as a TV with local dimming
Click to expand...

This is what happens without proper dimming


My understanding is that that nanocell panel actually has 50 dimming zones, but it's clearly nowhere near enough

Also, brilliant review for gaming which most reviewers don't spend much time on

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom