• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Bacus

Distinguished Member
I think its a backwards step really.
We have had 1080p Oled's, so its old hat really.
Most folk when looking to get a new TV set want a great picture. Now 4K is available as a source from the likes of Sky i really can't see the point in this TV :thumbsdow
 

Rob20

Prominent Member
How many channels do Sky have that broadcast 2160p? :hiya:

I would love to test this tv against the B7 from my 4m viewing distance and see whether I or anyone else could really notice a significant difference. I've read many a time how you needed a 50" tv minimum for 1080p, so I can't really see that 55" would be big enough for 2160p and hence 1080p would probably suffice!?

Imagine comparing a 1080p Blu-Ray vs the 2160P Blu-Ray. Ignoring HDR for now.
 
Last edited:

Bacus

Distinguished Member
How many channels do Sky have that broadcast 2160p? :hiya:

I would love to test this tv against the B7 from my 4m viewing distance and see whether I or anyone else could really notice a significant difference. I've read many a time how you needed a 50" tv minimum for 1080p, so I can't really see that 55" would be big enough for 2160p and hence 1080p would probably suffice!?

Imagine comparing a 1080p Blu-Ray vs the 2160P Blu-Ray. Ignoring HDR for now.

Its not just Sky !!! There's Netflix, Amazon and UHD discs etc etc !!

In my eyes its still a backwards step to realise a new TV with only 1080p.

But each to there own, if people wanna stick with a lower resolution than what is available and don't want to move on to a newer format then that's there choice :p
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
At present, this TV has no HDR and that's a big minus. The article speak about HDR coming to full hd oled TV next year

I see the point of this TV if the price is right to get it to the masses. I see the benefit of this TV with 55 size.
Content is there in 4k but at the right price (£1k and below), it does make a lot of sense
I see the benefit of this TV to reduce the upscaling strain on the processor when not needed.
At 65, I am not sure it is worth having a full led oled but it will still give a great picture. I am more interested by HDR than 4k potentially especially for a 55

Just shared this french article as it is simply an interesting development
 
Last edited:

dmw3

Established Member
I think its a backwards step really.
We have had 1080p Oled's, so its old hat really.
Most folk when looking to get a new TV set want a great picture. Now 4K is available as a source from the likes of Sky i really can't see the point in this TV :thumbsdow

If you want to pay for it and then if you want to watch sport or blockbusters.

I did a lot of research on UHD content last autumn before buying a 1080p LG 910V. I wanted nope, needed a TV to replace my ailing 9 year old 1080 Panny plasma before it went poof without going overboard on the budget. I wanted a great picture so went for an OLED, I'm one of those LCD picture averse types.

We are a BBC drama and documentary watching household, little to no sport and few modern blockbuster films. Prefer classics, other half loves old Pinewood. Has a mid range entertainment subscription with Sky, just switched to Virgin, we pay to maximise HD content and get a few extra channels. Look, we got excited when one of our favourite channels finally went HD a couple of years ago, BBC4 :rotfl:

I'll get a UHD OLED in 4 or 5 years time when there is actual content I want to watch and, the HDR and HDMI standards are set.

As long as this new 1080 OLED is priced at the mid priced market under £1k I can see the point for middle aged fuddy duddys like us, who want a good picture but atm can't see the point in UHD cos there is nothing to see from our POV.

Also, the article is in French, is this TV aimed at the English speaking TV market?

Most UHD ready to watch content is thanks to our US cousins. Most UHD is therefore made in English for an English speaking market. I can see how a 1080 OLED would sell well in markets with little legitimate access to UHD content.
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
The benefit of this TV is négligeable in current form even at low price because of lack of HDR
However if things pick up next year with HDR and across all manufacturers, that will be great news if at the right price

Imagine proper full hd oled 55 below £1k for everyone?
Thats possible easily from next year.
 

Rob20

Prominent Member
Its not just Sky !!! There's Netflix, Amazon and UHD discs etc etc !!

In my eyes its still a backwards step to realise a new TV with only 1080p.

But each to there own, if people wanna stick with a lower resolution than what is available and don't want to move on to a newer format then that's there choice :p

Resolution alone is not the be all and end all. We only have numbers so that tv manufacturers can differentiate new from old in order to sell us new expensive products; whether we need them or not. Who here thinks we really need 8K in the home when most cinemas are still only 2K and yet tv companies are already preparing 8k tvs for us to buy in the near future. Let's get colour accuracy perfect first!

I think 2160p is great for larger tvs say 65" plus. I'm just not convinced it matters all that much on a 55" tv!? Not for me anyway, not from my 4m viewing distance. If 50" was said to be the minimum for 1080p, what is the minimum needed for 2160p?

I also don't think that there is enough native 2160p content yet. SKY has 0 2160p channels but almost 100 1080p channels. Surely a case could be made in the short/medium term to buy a tv that perfectly matches the resolution of 100 channels rather than 0? Especially at the rate some people replace their tvs! Currently on Sky 2TB, only the main box outputs 2160p. For any satellite boxes in the home you will only get 1080p..

Isn't colour reproduction the main benefit of OLED?

To get 2160p I would have to pay for SKY's premium £90pm sub, Netflix's premium sub, Amazon Prime and buy a new BR player; with only a handful of discs I may wish to buy setting me back £20-£25 a pop. On top of that I will have to pay a premium for a 2160p tv. IMO it's just too much outlay for not enough content. Imagine after all that expense if I were only to see a minor improvement over 1080p. Imagine my disappointment! A good 1080p Blu-Ray still looks amazing on my 50" plasma.

On top of Sky's 100 1080p channels, there is Amazon, Netflix, Blu-Rays etc... and much cheaper!

It's not so much that a 1080p tv is a backward step, rather that it perfectly matches 95% of the content out there and would still offer a significant improvement over many lcd/plasmas in terms of colours and black levels.

In order for us to buy new stuff we have to be convinced that we are unhappy with what we have or that we are in someway missing out. It's like a kind of emotional blackmail. If you are happy with a 'lower resolution' and 'don't want to move on' sounds like a salespersons pressure selling.

I want to pay for what I need, not pay a premium for something I ultimately don't. Its in this way that I would be happy with a Tesla model 3 that does 0-60 and costs £35,000 rather than a Tesla model S that does 0-60 in 3 secs but would cost nearer £100,000.
 
Last edited:

Rob20

Prominent Member
The benefit of this TV is négligeable in current form even at low price because of lack of HDR
However if things pick up next year with HDR and across all manufacturers, that will be great news if at the right price

Imagine proper full hd oled 55 below £1k for everyone?
Thats possible easily from next year.
A sub £1k tv would be perfect to replace the crappy LCD in the lounge where the BR player and Sky box only output 1080p. Maybe in the future to replace the LCD on the kitchen wall!? When the price falls to £500. :)
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
I just realised we don't have hdr on hd movies unless someone correct me.
We will have it on streaming content most probably
Thats more annoying for hdr when available on full hd oled
 

Bacus

Distinguished Member
To get 2160p I would have to pay for SKY's premium £90pm sub.

I want to pay for what I need, not pay a premium for something I ultimately don't

But isn't SkyQ silver, Sky's top tier 2tb UHD 2160p the premium Sky box ?
 

Rob20

Prominent Member
But isn't SkyQ silver, Sky's top tier 2tb UHD 2160p the premium Sky box ?
Sorry, I meant as a hypothetical. In that if I didn't already have SKY's top package with UHD I would have to pay for it. Yes, in the tv room, we have a 2TB box that has outputs 2160p, though the satellite box in the lounge will only do 1080p.

Saying that, my 18 month £56 deal must be coming to an end soon. If SKY wants to charge me full price I'll most likely cancel. £92pm is too much if you ask me.
 

dmw3

Established Member
Sorry, I meant as a hypothetical. In that if I didn't already have SKY's top package with UHD I would have to pay for it. Yes, in the tv room, we have a 2TB box that has outputs 2160p, though the satellite box in the lounge will only do 1080p.

Saying that, my 18 month £56 deal must be coming to an end soon. If SKY wants to charge me full price I'll most likely cancel. £92pm is too much if you ask me.

:clap:es.

last Autumn I did the maths as they say.

someone with a Sky mid range entertainment package, no movies or sport would need to spend another £100 a month to maximise UHD content; Amazon, Netflix, premium Sky subscription, BT Sports. Even then the average TV viewer would still struggle to find enough TV content to fill 1/4 of their TV viewing in UHD unless they watched, an awful lot of sport or movies or just, chose content on the basis of resolution rather than well, content.

For my household it would be less than 1% of our viewing and that's for an extra £100 per month. Um no thanks.

£100 per month is £1200 per year, the cost of an OLED every year, not UHD just an 'out of date' 1080, that displays 99% of what I watch at it's best. Those figures assume you already have and pay for, high speed broadband, assuming you can get it. You need that to stream all that UHD data after all. there are still fairly large geographical parts of the UK that can't get high spend broadband or SKY/Cable too well, ask large parts of Cornwall or Cumbria for instance.

That maths doesn't even include the cost of a UHD player and discs nor, buying a new AV amp.

The £1150 I spent on my 910V was a bargain in that context. I can buy a UHD TV in a few years time when the content both in terms of breadth and cost are better, then 910v can go upstairs in my(wo)man cave

Future proofing: is that really about HDMI or HDR standards? How long have the BBC been rumoured to be launching a 4k channel and still nothing on the horizon. Within 12 months of the first full 1080 consumer plasmas being in shops, for an extra £10 a month on my Sky package, i was watching 50% of my non sport/non movie TV viewing in HD on my First gen full HD Panny plasma. So i am no Luddite, very early HD adopter.

How long have 4 k TVs been available? How much content TV programing wise is out there, not a lot in comparison. This is because HD was broadcaster led ( a way to standardize global TV formats) , 4K is TV manufacturer led. Then there is bandwidth, of the airwaves type, half of free-view/broadcast TV is still in SD and too many of the so called HD channels are heavily compressed, not enough room out there.

I totally agree with what you have said in this thread, with a big caveat. It's the 21st century, a TV isn't just a telly, it's that big screen home cinema display for the movie buff or the huge sport fan, it's a display for the gamer. For those people, UHD is something they can enjoy now and will have more of in the next few years and is worth investing in.
 
Last edited:

marksovereign

Prominent Member
There's obviously demand for such a set as not everyone wants to stream 4k content or pay the ridiculous extra subscription premiums. When I look at what i watch a 1080p set handles nearly everything so why pay a premium for a 4k or UHD set when you aren't going to use it?
 

Mensy

Distinguished Member
i can see a market for this tv if the price is right, i have a sony A1 but the only 4k i have is netflix and amazon, i bet there 4k isnt hitting the bandwidth a full blown 1080p bluray does so its really not full 4k. I aint and never will pay for uhd with sky or virgin, i dont even have the full package with any of them just virgin's internet. There is a market for this tv if its set a reasonable price. OLED is the best tv on the market whether its 4k or 1080p so why not bang a 1080p model out thats cheaper
 

Rob20

Prominent Member
Would a 1080p screen be brighter than a 4k screen as there are fewer pixels?

It would be interesting to compare a 1080p Blu-Ray vs a 4k stream. I wouldn't be surprised if the 1080p BR still gives the better picture.
 
Last edited:

Kotatsu Neko

Distinguished Member
4K is a subtle upgrade even at 65", and at 50" or under you'd need super human eyes to see any difference.

OLED is all about black levels. The rest is all fluff in my opinion.
 

Kotatsu Neko

Distinguished Member
Sorry, I meant as a hypothetical. In that if I didn't already have SKY's top package with UHD I would have to pay for it. Yes, in the tv room, we have a 2TB box that has outputs 2160p, though the satellite box in the lounge will only do 1080p.

Saying that, my 18 month £56 deal must be coming to an end soon. If SKY wants to charge me full price I'll most likely cancel. £92pm is too much if you ask me.

I'm always amazed that so many people pay the utterly obscene amounts of money Sky charge.

Netflix is what, £8 or £9 a month for the top package? I have an Amazon sub too but I could lose it and barely notice the difference. Netflix has pretty much become my one stop shop for TV shows now.
 

sub routine

Established Member
Ye, id go with a faux k rather than a 4k. Upscaling would be alot more practical. I want a new telly but I dont see alot of point with UHD until they can sort out one main delivery for it with a fixed universal standard.
1080 p telly and maybe an Epson7300 will suffice for a good few years.
 

Rob20

Prominent Member
I'm always amazed that so many people pay the utterly obscene amounts of money Sky charge.

Netflix is what, £8 or £9 a month for the top package? I have an Amazon sub too but I could lose it and barely notice the difference. Netflix has pretty much become my one stop shop for TV shows now.
To be honest, if I cancel Sky it won't be the end of the world. With iPlayer, my brothers Netlix account and my mother's Amazon I'm sure I would find enough to watch.
 

Deepbass

Established Member
If this was priced around £1k then I'd love it as a TV for a second room. Does anyone know if they're planning to release it in the UK?
 

nenito2k

Established Member
i live in north africa and this TV landed a few days ago at the LG retailer (is also sold across middle east) Seeing it in action: looks lovely and image is fantastic. it was next to the B6 OLED...seems to me B6 was a little brighter.
As i understood the main issue with the oled EG910 was its lack of brightness...
something that was solved on 4K oled's only

anyway here prices are more expensive than UK and the 55eg9a7v costs 1650 euros. B6 is 1000 more here.

the real question is: is this panel...quality ? does it have the same problems that EG910 had: pink tint, purple reflections etc...
i read on many forums people CLAIMING this panel is the same as 2015 EG910 ! how can they say such nonsense when it clearly is not ?

the old one is curved, this one is not
the old one is 3d, this one is not

so no...it IS NOT the same panel.
 
Last edited:

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
i live in north africa and this TV landed a few days ago at the LG retailer (is also sold across middle east) Seeing it in action: looks lovely and image is fantastic. it was next to the B6 OLED...seems to me B6 was a little brighter.
As i understood the main issue with the oled EG910 was its lack of brightness...
something that was solved on 4K oled's only

anyway here prices are more expensive than UK and the 55eg9a7v costs 1650 euros. B6 is 1000 more here.

the real question is: is this panel...quality ? does it have the same problems that EG910 had: pink tint, purple reflections etc...
i read on many forums people CLAIMING this panel is the same as 2015 EG910 ! how can they say such nonsense when it clearly is not ?

the old one is curved, this one is not
the old one is 3d, this one is not

so no...it IS NOT the same panel.

Do you have any oled produced locally
Heard that a brand in Algeria produces an oled. Don't remember the name

This oled is missing hdr otherwise it will be a superb proposition...at a very attractive price.
 

nenito2k

Established Member
@Goldorak indeed there are 3 brands that make local oled: BRANDT 4k HDR model, CONDOR with 4K model, and IRIS 4k HDR

these are 55" for around 2200 euros and 3300 euros for 65" version; but basically it is impossible to know what LG panel generation is implemented in these...so too risky ! that is why the 1080p EG9A7v is my best option in a few months if it goes down in price...
 

The latest video from AVForums

SVS Prime Wireless Pro Powered Speakers - Review Coming Soon
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom