QLED vs OLED

exactly my point.

why stick with old expensive tech which is outdated and miss out on things like the joys of 4k and HDR? altered carbon looks insane on a decent HDR tv. i watched it first time around on my old panny plasma (1080p) and second time around on an xf900 and the difference is like going from VHS to blu ray. the colours were just insane. it's like a demo showcase for HDR it's ridiculously good.

i hope more content like altered carbon comes out soon.
 
I've learned this lesson with GPUs a long time ago, now I apply it to other electronics as well (TVs, Phones, etc). Mid-range more often > high-end less often. There's definitely an (albeit subjective) price/performance curve and for some products the two variables perfectly align, e.g. this year I'd say for TVs that has generally been the XF90 (though if I look at the UK the LG 55B8 could be another).

The one possible exception would be speakers, I think.
 
Poneros said:
I've learned this lesson with GPUs a long time ago, now I apply it to other electronics as well (TVs, Phones, etc). Mid-range more often > high-end less often. There's definitely an (albeit subjective) price/performance curve and for some products the two variables perfectly align, e.g. this year I'd say for TVs that has generally been the XF90 (though if I look at the UK the LG 55B8 could be another).

The one possible exception would be speakers, I think.
Click to expand...

the 3 tv's to buy this gen are

NU8000 - if on a very tight budget
XF90 - for gaming and pc usage
LG Oled - for varied usage

no other mid to high end tv makes sense in the value for money category
 
Psycho Sonny said:
i don't want a 75 inch tv though. it would look ridiculous in my home. unless i converted the garage and stuck it in a dedicated room.

so he's bought a 75 inch because he's in a 5 bedroom house. i'm in a 3 bedroom so i have a 55 inch. they will both give the same viewing experience as i will be sitting closer. so it's not apples and oranges at all.

he could have bought 3 x 55 inches. my point is buying the best every year is a stupid way to do things. you spend £3500 on a tv then a year later you are left disappointed because a new killer improvement has been made and your tv doesn't have it.

i know someone who spent £3500 on the first pioneer plasmas it wasn't even HD. they launched a year later. he kept that tv until it died like 15 years later. he missed out on HD plasmas, etc. had he spent less like £1K he could have easily upgraded to a full HD panny plasma a few years later for around £1K. he would still have £1.5K in his pocket and a newer and better tv. but he persevered with a non hd pioneer for 15 years saying it was the best tv he had ever seen. until i showed him my panny plasma. that was when he decided to get a HD LCD for a different room but he kept the pioneer until it died.

buying top end in the TV market is like buying a top end GPU every year. only for those with money to literally throw away. it's not a sensible way to do things. or it's for those that don't understand how tv's advance very quickly.

best to buy value and buy more often. value doesn't mean cheap crap. it just means bang for buck. 55" FALD with amazing HDR and blacks can be had for £1K. a tv which should easily do the next 3-5 years for most folk.

then when the next big thing launches you can get that in 3-5 years time.
Click to expand...
But it all depends on what suits, I had to comprise on 'only'a a 60 (which is too small) as we sit approx 15 foot away. We have since rejigged tthe room and I reckon a 75 will fit (but getting it past the Mrs won't be easy) I tend to go for mid to high range every few years, the TV is ju6800 (trust me 60" is far more of a nichenichearket that either a 55 or a 65), and I bought a gtx 1080 (bit the top but should last pretty well).
 
Psycho Sonny said:
the 3 tv's to buy this gen are

NU8000 - if on a very tight budget
XF90 - for gaming and pc usage
LG Oled - for varied usage

no other mid to high end tv makes sense in the value for money category
Click to expand...

Hi,
Im buying a 65" TV very soon, do you think the XF90 is a genuinely better buy for PC gaming than the Q7FN (with Freesync) ?

Im torn betweent the 2 at the moment :( (dont think I can justify the extra for the Q9)

Cheers ! :)
 
bigbilly50 said:
Hi,
Im buying a 65" TV very soon, do you think the XF90 is a genuinely better buy for PC gaming than the Q7FN (with Freesync) ?

Im torn betweent the 2 at the moment :( (dont think I can justify the extra for the Q9)

Cheers ! :)
Click to expand...

100% YES. Samsung TVs don't play well with sRGB so when used with a PC it ends up that the colours are overly-saturated with no real way to tweak it to normal. Freesync is nice but the range is limited, and the input lag difference isn't big enough to justify the PQ difference (2ms at 1080p 120hz or 8ms at 4K 60 RGB HDR). The biggest advantage of the XF90 is that it has Full Array Local Dimming which means you can actually get to enjoy HDR videos & gaming, something which the Q7FN would be very poor at. Also XF90 has better calibration out of the box so you'll get a better image in general. Samsung also misses out of Dolby Vision. Q7FN like all other Samsung TVs also have some awful PWM backlighting which can cause headaches in some people, but are irritating regardless. The motion handling is also noticeably inferior.

I would say the biggest disadvantage of the XF90 compared to the Q7FN is its android OS is gaaaarbage (mostly due to the chips used rather than the OS itself), and even hooked up to the PC you'll end up with frustrations due to its lagginess when changing settings/navigating etc. Sometimes it's fine, albeit a bit slow, other times it makes me want to smash it to bits.
 
Thanks for the reply, think my mind is made up now.

I currently have a 42" Bravia and was fancying a change with the size upgrade - gonna stick with Sony.

Thanks again :)
 
Poneros said:
The biggest advantage of the XF90 is that it has Full Array Local Dimming
Click to expand...
It's a token gesture though, and as I had told Sonny, has a limited number of zones ... I don't see the justification of the £200 premium over the less-zoned Panasonic,
but - yes, its an individual choice based on everyones varying viewing requirements, and experience with that brand.
 
jpaul said:
It's a token gesture though, and as I had told Sonny, has a limited number of zones ... I don't see the justification of the £200 premium over the less-zoned Panasonic,
but - yes, its an individual choice based on everyones varying viewing requirements, and experience with that brand.
Click to expand...


The 65 inch has more zones than the 48 on the 55 inch.

It's 8 vertical rows and 6 horizontal.

The 65 has more.

Looking at reviews the xf90 is comparable in picture quality to the xe94 which has 500 zones which came in only a 75 inch model and no other size.

My mate has one of them he paid around £3k for it. I own the xf90. Apart from the massive difference in size. I can't see the difference in zones.

The xf90 has enough zones to keep blacks black and whites white. If there is blooming it's localised to a very small area it works extremely well.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/sony-x940e-vs-sony-x900f/433/585#usage*4854!threshold*0.01

There you go side by side comparison of both of our tv's.

The xf90 is quite frankly a brilliant tv. The fact it's better for gaming than one which cost considerably more with 500 zones shows how far Sony has come in a year.

For gaming I believe only the q9 qled is better but it's twice the price. Which isn't worth the small improvement which will be barely noticeable.
 
maybe hisense will fill the middle ground - technique has been discussed before ...- but someones doing it

The press conference held by Hisense at CES 2019 confirmed the release of the TV with double LCD panel . The technology used is called ULED XD , an acronym for eXtreme Detail . ULED XD TVs use a "dual-cell" structure consisting of a Full LED backlight that combines two LCD panels , a Full HD and an Ultra HD . The Full HD panel works in grayscale (it is not provided with color filters) and acts as a backlight control system . It can therefore manage over 2 million zones (1920 x 1080 pixels) for local dimming .
The light emitted by the backlight and filtered by the Full HD panel then reaches the Ultra HD substrate with color filters. In this way the brightness is further adjusted on the black screen with direct benefits on the contrast ratio. The electronics downscales the signals in Ultra HD to get an image in Full HD (colorless). This data is used to provide a control system on the single pixel (of the Full HD panel) and to optimize the yield for the color image produced by the Ultra HD panel.

46660506301_edd426d4f1_o_d.jpg
 
..and, if you care about blacks, Vincent's LG expose would have me worried (sharing posturization problem with recent pan fx700 thread)
since I would be getting (LG)oled to try out viewing in a darkened room,
OK I should probably accept I will need to invest in a HQ uhd-disc source too.
jpaul said:
just watched this new vincent video ... that reconfirms my panasonic preference ... he looks pretty stressed out compared to usual style .. you'll see why.
LG 2018 OLED TV (B8, C8, E8) Near-Black "Flashing" Problem Analysed
Click to expand...
poor Vincent has a fatwa.
 
i have 3 tv's in the house - panny plasma (GT50), LG IPS (fake 4k and fake HDR) and the Sony XF90.

they all have their pro's and cons. if you could take the best from all of them then it would make the perfect tv however not even OLED can do that.

i'll get an OLED to replace the plasma at some point. i'm waiting for the tech to mature to a point where i can get a current gen new 55" OLED for less than £1K without having to keep an eye on HUKD day in and day out.

probably 2 years time then for me. i don't know what i'll do with the GT50 likely sell it for £150. will be a shame as it's still a ridiculously good tv for 1080p content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom