A90J and G1 peak brightness updated - 3 second boost

Michael7877

Active Member
Btw, I do fully understand @Michael7877 is trying to say.

I know it's doesn't sound like a big deal when we look at numbers but the way I see it is every little helps with an OLED.

With the lights off and doing a side by side, these should become noticeable.

50 nits increase in the lower end of the scale and 100+ nits on the higher end of scale combined with new panel properties to drive certain sub-pixels hard plus improved picture processing would all help.

I just said the difference is less than 5 percent. 5 percent is negligible.

There is no increase at the lower end. Everything under 200-300 nits is displayed the same, only the roll off of peaks is different for tvs with different peak brightnesses.

Well over 99% of HDR video content is under 250 nits, probably over 99.9%. The only 5% difference is seen at the very top end of the curve.

A TV with a peak brightness of 700 nits might show 400 nits as 350 nits, and a TV with a peak brightness of 775 nits might show 400 nits as 365. Much less than 5% brighter. The further from 100% brightness you go, the more the 5% shrinks to 0%, when you reach approximately 250 nits - at which point everything is displayed at the same brightness on both sets

Hopefully this clears things up - if it doesn't nothing else will
 

fzst

Member
There is no increase at the lower end. Everything under 200-300 nits is displayed the same, only the roll off of peaks is different for tvs with different peak brightnesses.

Well over 99% of HDR video content is under 250 nits, probably over 99.9%. The only 5% difference is seen at the very top end of the curve.
Well yes but th problem is current OLEDs can't display 250 nits fullfield. Current OLEDs can only display something around 120-150 nits on a 100% window - which is not enough to accuratly display bright scenes in HDR, even in a dark room.
That's where the biggest area of improvemet lies IMO. Brighter specular highlights are good and all but where OLEDs (well at least my CX) are lacking th most are bright scenes not in 10 percent windows - there they are already pretty sufficient for most HDR content today. In bright scenes however, you definnately notice a lack of brightness sometimes.
 

Ash26

Standard Member
Is measuring nits really a good way of evaluating how good the colour looks on a TV? i think you need to consider the contrast ratio which for OLED is infinite and therefore HDR has a better impact on OLED even though the level of brightness (nits) isn't that high compared to LCD panels. This is why specular highlights are important because they "pop" more on OLED. I have two OLED TVs in bright rooms and have no issue with the level of brightness.
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
Is measuring nits really a good way of evaluating how good the colour looks on a TV? i think you need to consider the contrast ratio which for OLED is infinite and therefore HDR has a better impact on OLED even though the level of brightness (nits) isn't that high compared to LCD panels. This is why specular highlights are important because they "pop" more on OLED. I have two OLED TVs in bright rooms and have no issue with the level of brightness.
The processor also has a big impact. Some TVs are very bright, but the processor loses the contrast between the midrange/upper brightness and the highlights.
 
Well yes but th problem is current OLEDs can't display 250 nits fullfield. Current OLEDs can only display something around 120-150 nits on a 100% window - which is not enough to accuratly display bright scenes in HDR, even in a dark room.
That's where the biggest area of improvemet lies IMO. Brighter specular highlights are good and all but where OLEDs (well at least my CX) are lacking th most are bright scenes not in 10 percent windows - there they are already pretty sufficient for most HDR content today. In bright scenes however, you definnately notice a lack of brightness sometimes.
Cobblers.
 

Michael7877

Active Member
Well yes but th problem is current OLEDs can't display 250 nits fullfield. Current OLEDs can only display something around 120-150 nits on a 100% window - which is not enough to accuratly display bright scenes in HDR, even in a dark room.
That's where the biggest area of improvemet lies IMO. Brighter specular highlights are good and all but where OLEDs (well at least my CX) are lacking th most are bright scenes not in 10 percent windows - there they are already pretty sufficient for most HDR content today. In bright scenes however, you definnately notice a lack of brightness sometimes.

A9G (2019) measured 174 nits full field white, compared to A90J's 180. Granted that's in game mode. Still, it's over 150 nits in custom mode, like most other post 2017 sets. 155 to 180 nits is still close to only a 5% increase in brightness in the brightest scenes.

Very rarely are specular highlights attenuated in HDR content due to ABL (my bet is less than 0.1% of the time). I'd also bet that when they are, a ~5% increase in brightness would hardly be noticeable, even with the TVs side by side.

The point is we're being told this year's OLEDs are massive improvements - this is very clearly not the case.
 

dion 6

Active Member
A9G (2019) measured 174 nits full field white, compared to A90J's 180. Granted that's in game mode. Still, it's over 150 nits in custom mode, like most other post 2017 sets. 155 to 180 nits is still close to only a 5% increase in brightness in the brightest scenes.

Very rarely are specular highlights attenuated in HDR content due to ABL (my bet is less than 0.1% of the time). I'd also bet that when they are, a ~5% increase in brightness would hardly be noticeable, even with the TVs side by side.

The point is we're being told this year's OLEDs are massive improvements - this is very clearly not the case.
I watched Vincent's review of the C1 and there another video of a side by side comparison of the CX and the C1 both on the same settings not calibrated with being fed the same content and the guy came to the conclusion there was very little difference in picture quality but with about £700 price difference and he if he needed a new tv he'd go with the older model
Just realised where talking about the G1 😂😂
 

Michael7877

Active Member
I watched Vincent's review of the C1 and there another video of a side by side comparison of the CX and the C1 both on the same settings not calibrated with being fed the same content and the guy came to the conclusion there was very little difference in picture quality but with about £700 price difference and he if he needed a new tv he'd go with the older model
Just realised where talking about the G1 😂😂

I saw an A9G beside an A90J in store, all same settings, and they were indistinguishable
 

supa koopa

Active Member
You really do seem to have some sort of personal agenda here. You don't think the new TV's are enough of an upgrade this year for you, we get it, how about moving on with the rest of your life now? :D
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
You really do seem to have some sort of personal agenda here. You don't think the new TV's are enough of an upgrade this year for you, we get it, how about moving on with the rest of your life now? :D
There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject that has significance. People are spending thousands of dollars buying new TVs and so any intellectual input is appreciated.
 

Michael7877

Active Member
You really do seem to have some sort of personal agenda here. You don't think the new TV's are enough of an upgrade this year for you, we get it, how about moving on with the rest of your life now? :D

I'll reiterate - this years sets aren't any reason to spend a few grand if you already have an OLED.
I'll continue responding in threads I start (not necessarily to trolls). Sorry if that's a problem for you.
 

supa koopa

Active Member
I don't have a problem and I'm not a troll.

Any valid information is always welcome, but I'm sorry but your posts come across as someone who is bitter about something and it's trying to satisfy their own personal agenda.

How can you say there is no reason to buy a TV if you already have an OLED. How do you know what I or anyone else has? How can you make such a blanket statement without knowing everyone's circumstances. I have 55 inch B6 and I'm changing to a 65 inch new TV this year. The change in size, improvement in picture quality, gaming advantages, better sound, etc all make it worthwhile for me, but according to you I'm wasting MY money.

In reference to the other tripe you are spouting, after reading and watching reviews and reading feedback from actual owner's all say there has been an improvement in this year's sets. Now whether you think that's enough of an improvement or not is for you to decide but to force your biased opinion on others is what I was calling out.
I saw an A9G beside an A90J in store, all same settings, and they were indistinguishable
This is against everything I have read, but I have no idea what you were actually watching at the time. For all I know it was in a store with an SDR broadcast split across many sets. Obviously the best conditions to make such a bold statement.

A member on another forum had a Sony A90j for a couple of weeks, he thought it wasn't worth the money so returned it and bought an A80j instead. Well after a week or so of that one he's returned it again and bought another A90j as he said the A80 just didn't pop like the other and he knew he'd made a mistake. Obviously a complete contrast to your statement.

Also the last time I did basic mathematics 150 to 180 is a 20% increase which is the statement LG have made, but who gives a flying monkey's what the nits are. An image is not just about how bright it goes, but if that is what you want to base your buying decision on then please knock yourself out. Let's just try and keep your facts in the realms of some sort of reality, otherwise we'll all be believing that we never went to the moon and we'll need to wear tin foil hats all the time. :D
 

Michael7877

Active Member
I don't have a problem and I'm not a troll.

Any valid information is always welcome, but I'm sorry but your posts come across as someone who is bitter about something and it's trying to satisfy their own personal agenda.

I'm glad you aren't a troll and don't have a problem with me replying to posts in threads I start. I'm going to address everything you say here. I hope you will not ignore parts of my replies in your next reply - it's not good for discourse.

How can you say there is no reason to buy a TV if you already have an OLED. How do you know what I or anyone else has? How can you make such a blanket statement without knowing everyone's circumstances. I have 55 inch B6 and I'm changing to a 65 inch new TV this year. The change in size, improvement in picture quality, gaming advantages, better sound, etc all make it worthwhile for me, but according to you I'm wasting MY money.

If you want a bigger set or your previous OLED is on its way out, go for it. OLEDs don't last forever. If you want VRR for better gaming, sorry, that's not working properly yet. Last year Sony released a gaming TV and said VRR would be coming in an update - it still hasn't arrived to that TV or any of their other TVs. LG has problems with gamma when VRR is enabled. As far as I know, it's not available or is improperly implemented on all OLED TVs. I have a 3080, and I wanted to upgrate my A8G to an A90J for VRR, better colour volume, and higher peak brightness. Unfortunately, the A90J fails at VRR, and the peak brightness and colour volume are essentially the same except for when using the unusable vivid mode. Vivid mode and games? There's input lag on top of the looking ugly part.

In reference to the other tripe you are spouting, after reading and watching reviews and reading feedback from actual owner's all say there has been an improvement in this year's sets. Now whether you think that's enough of an improvement or not is for you to decide but to force your biased opinion on others is what I was calling out.

This is against everything I have read (regarding me saying A9G looked the same as A90J side by side in store), but I have no idea what you were actually watching at the time. For all I know it was in a store with an SDR broadcast split across many sets. Obviously the best conditions to make such a bold statement.

I'm not forcing a biased opinion, I'm stating facts and observations like anyone else can. And the "tripe" I'm spouting? You're very insulting, but I'll answer you anyway. I went to a big box store and spent a couple hours there with a Sony rep. We set both TVs to custom mode (the most accurate mode) and made every other setting match, and then watched the demo content. The demo content is varied scenes of 4k HDR and SDR content which looks good. It looks good because it's designed to showcase the capabilities of their expensive TVs. It's very likely the HDR signal had 100% white and completely saturated colours in it for this reason. There was NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE in the sets. Even the Sony rep agreed -he was glad we did the test.

A member on another forum had a Sony A90j for a couple of weeks, he thought it wasn't worth the money so returned it and bought an A80j instead. Well after a week or so of that one he's returned it again and bought another A90j as he said the A80 just didn't pop like the other and he knew he'd made a mistake. Obviously a complete contrast to your statement.

I guess the A80J doesn't look as good as an A9G then.

Also the last time I did basic mathematics 150 to 180 is a 20% increase which is the statement LG have made, but who gives a flying monkey's what the nits are. An image is not just about how bright it goes, but if that is what you want to base your buying decision on then please knock yourself out. Let's just try and keep your facts in the realms of some sort of reality, otherwise we'll all be believing that we never went to the moon and we'll need to wear tin foil hats all the time.


You don't know how light works, and you don't seem to care either. Which is odd for someone talking like you (like you know how light works)...
Yes, 150 nits to 180 nits is a 20% increase in light energy, but does it look 20% brighter to the eye? The answer is no, it absolutely, positively, without a doubt does not. It looks 6% brighter. Not sure why you're bringing up the moon or hats. A fallacy, you're trying to discredit me by associating me with crazy people. Nice try.

Peak brightness is one item that I consider, but why do you try to make it sound like it's the only thing I would base my purchasing decision on? No offence, but that's something a troll would do.

I don't have an agenda. If I do, maybe it's accurate reporting. You seem pretty worked up by the truth - are you sure its not you who has the agenda?
 
Last edited:

supa koopa

Active Member
was NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE in the sets.

I'll let others start the answer for me.




I don't want to get in to the tit-for-tat discussion as it doesn't do any good for anyone. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I'd ignored your original post as it was your opinion, but you just keep digging. I felt like I had to reply to try and balance things a little. It's the statements like your quote above that elicits a response. It's clear from the 3 YouTube videos above that there is a perceptible difference. The reviewers state there is a difference, although Vincent found it less than he expected, so 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE' is not a fact as proved above but your assessment of what you believed you saw or chose to see. Someone else may see the same thing and choose it is enough of a difference to buy a new set. So all I was trying to say it's let's keep things as opinions 'for me there wasn't enough perceptible difference to justify changing my set' rather than trying to falsely state facts 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE'.

I'll now leave you to your thread before we both get a warning. :D
 

Michael7877

Active Member
I'll let others start the answer for me.




I don't want to get in to the tit-for-tat discussion as it doesn't do any good for anyone. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I'd ignored your original post as it was your opinion, but you just keep digging. I felt like I had to reply to try and balance things a little. It's the statements like your quote above that elicits a response. It's clear from the 3 YouTube videos above that there is a perceptible difference. The reviewers state there is a difference, although Vincent found it less than he expected, so 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE' is not a fact as proved above but your assessment of what you believed you saw or chose to see. Someone else may see the same thing and choose it is enough of a difference to buy a new set. So all I was trying to say it's let's keep things as opinions 'for me there wasn't enough perceptible difference to justify changing my set' rather than trying to falsely state facts 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE'.

I'll now leave you to your thread before we both get a warning. :D

Even with all your attacks and insults sprinkled in with your second post, I gave you another chance by politely addressing all of your stated concerns and being open to debate. But you have nothing to say except that what I say doesn't matter to you. So I'm glad you want to end our discussion here - it will allow things to stay on topic. That said, I want you to know that if you change your mind and want to learn through civil discourse, you can always send me a PM in the future. As of now, you're unwilling to address my points. You can say it's because you don't care to, or that it's beneath you to, or whatever you want to say - it doesn't matter. Why? Because to anyone who knows their stuff, it's obvious what's happening here: you do not have the required knowledge to disprove anything I've said. If you did, you'd have nothing to say anyway, because, well, I'm right.
 
Last edited:

JustTheFacts

Active Member
I'll let others start the answer for me.




I don't want to get in to the tit-for-tat discussion as it doesn't do any good for anyone. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to one. I'd ignored your original post as it was your opinion, but you just keep digging. I felt like I had to reply to try and balance things a little. It's the statements like your quote above that elicits a response. It's clear from the 3 YouTube videos above that there is a perceptible difference. The reviewers state there is a difference, although Vincent found it less than he expected, so 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE' is not a fact as proved above but your assessment of what you believed you saw or chose to see. Someone else may see the same thing and choose it is enough of a difference to buy a new set. So all I was trying to say it's let's keep things as opinions 'for me there wasn't enough perceptible difference to justify changing my set' rather than trying to falsely state facts 'NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE'.

I'll now leave you to your thread before we both get a warning. :D
Good Decision. I don't respond to Michael7877 either. Like the saying goes, if i talk to crazy who's the crazy one.
 
Last edited:

raymondo77

Member
Pot, meet kettle.
 

jmacc

Distinguished Member
A member on another forum had a Sony A90j for a couple of weeks, he thought it wasn't worth the money so returned it and bought an A80j instead. Well after a week or so of that one he's returned it again and bought another A90j as he said the A80 just didn't pop like the other and he knew he'd made a mistake. Obviously a complete contrast to your statement.
Lol I know who your talking about there :D
he got a Samsung neo led, was best thing ever, then a90j, then a80j, then A90J again, all the best TVs ever while totally slagging off the old one he just returned, now he's saying the A90J isn't worth the extra money and only a slight ( 5% ) increase in brightness :laugh:
I seen he's looking to return it for another a80j or a LG g1 :rotfl:
and he just got banned yesterday for all this slagging of the tv he just got rid off lmao.

total popcorn stuff :D
 

supa koopa

Active Member
Good Decision. I don't respond to Michael7877 either. Like the saying goes, if i talk to crazy who's the crazy one.

Thanks for this. I did start to question myself at one point as no one else was responding, then it dawned on me that most people have done what I've elected to do and add him to my ignore list. :D

Lol I know who your talking about there :D
he got a Samsung neo led, was best thing ever, then a90j, then a80j, then A90J again, all the best TVs ever while totally slagging off the old one he just returned, now he's saying the A90J isn't worth the extra money and only a slight ( 5% ) increase in brightness :laugh:
I seen he's looking to return it for another a80j or a LG g1 :rotfl:
and he just got banned yesterday for all this slagging of the tv he just got rid off lmao.

total popcorn stuff :D
Yeah I've read all this recently and then thought he probably wasn't the best example to quote. :laugh:

Hopefully some of the members will be getting their own sets soon so we'll be able to have valuable opinions on them. 👍
 

jmacc

Distinguished Member
Thanks for this. I did start to question myself at one point as no one else was responding, then it dawned on me that most people have done what I've elected to do and add him to my ignore list. :D


Yeah I've read all this recently and then thought he probably wasn't the best example to quote. :laugh:

Hopefully some of the members will be getting their own sets soon so we'll be able to have valuable opinions on them. 👍
Lol he is (was) good entertainment over there :D :laugh: :thumbsup:
 

Clearandcolour

Active Member
I don't have a problem and I'm not a troll.

Any valid information is always welcome, but I'm sorry but your posts come across as someone who is bitter about something and it's trying to satisfy their own personal agenda.

How can you say there is no reason to buy a TV if you already have an OLED. How do you know what I or anyone else has? How can you make such a blanket statement without knowing everyone's circumstances. I have 55 inch B6 and I'm changing to a 65 inch new TV this year. The change in size, improvement in picture quality, gaming advantages, better sound, etc all make it worthwhile for me, but according to you I'm wasting MY money.

In reference to the other tripe you are spouting, after reading and watching reviews and reading feedback from actual owner's all say there has been an improvement in this year's sets. Now whether you think that's enough of an improvement or not is for you to decide but to force your biased opinion on others is what I was calling out.

This is against everything I have read, but I have no idea what you were actually watching at the time. For all I know it was in a store with an SDR broadcast split across many sets. Obviously the best conditions to make such a bold statement.

A member on another forum had a Sony A90j for a couple of weeks, he thought it wasn't worth the money so returned it and bought an A80j instead. Well after a week or so of that one he's returned it again and bought another A90j as he said the A80 just didn't pop like the other and he knew he'd made a mistake. Obviously a complete contrast to your statement.

Also the last time I did basic mathematics 150 to 180 is a 20% increase which is the statement LG have made, but who gives a flying monkey's what the nits are. An image is not just about how bright it goes, but if that is what you want to base your buying decision on then please knock yourself out. Let's just try and keep your facts in the realms of some sort of reality, otherwise we'll all be believing that we never went to the moon and we'll need to wear tin foil hats all the time. :D
""Also the last time I did basic mathematics 150 to 180 is a 20% increase which is the statement LG have made, but who gives a flying monkey's what the nits are""

From 150 to 180 nits full field is nothing in brightness..
Then take a samsung qn90A with far over 600 nits.. That would be a real difference.. But I have an oled. SO I don't say we need it..
 

supa koopa

Active Member
""Also the last time I did basic mathematics 150 to 180 is a 20% increase which is the statement LG have made, but who gives a flying monkey's what the nits are""

From 150 to 180 nits full field is nothing in brightness..
Then take a samsung qn90A with far over 600 nits.. That would be a real difference.. But I have an oled. SO I don't say we need it..
Agreed, I was simply pointing out this is in line with LG's claims of a 20% increase in brightness. What this actually means in real terms or based on arbitrary scales created by viewers is completely different. LG claimed a 20% increase and those figures do back it up in some small way. Obviously Sony don't have to prove anything as they never release figures anyway. 😂😂
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on UK streaming services for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Austrian Audio launches Hi-X65 headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku expands streaming content with Roku Originals
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 12th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom