Article: Has OLED reached its peak?

raymondo77

Member
:rotfl: All 27 of them :laugh: :love:
:smoke:

Oled isn't going nowhere, I will be getting a new oled soon..
Can't see any other options available anytime soon at a sensible price, by sensible price i mean 5k - 7k.

After having oleds since 2014 I still find myself gobsmacked at times, I still occasionally checkout demo material and drool.. And gaming on oleds is just second to none :love::love::love::love:
The only thing going down in regards to OLED is the price. So when I decide to get no 28 it'll be the cheapest one I've had yet. 😁
 

Evinger

Well-known Member
The only thing going down in regards to OLED is the price. So when I decide to get no 28 it'll be the cheapest one I've had yet. 😁
Still on my first OLED after moving on from a dying Plasma, still absolutely loving the picture quality and whenever it becomes necessary to replace this one, right now I would simply buy another.
But our viewing is different from many; No Daytime TV, no Game playing (Got a dedicated PC for that), just Seasons & Movies, & anything that needs / deserves Cinema-like darkness, we drop the blinds.
 

CliffordinWales

Standard Member
Still on my first OLED after moving on from a dying Plasma, still absolutely loving the picture quality and whenever it becomes necessary to replace this one, right now I would simply buy another.
But our viewing is different from many; No Daytime TV, no Game playing (Got a dedicated PC for that), just Seasons & Movies, & anything that needs / deserves Cinema-like darkness, we drop the blinds.
Vincent Teoh has just uploaded a YouTube video comparing the last, best Panasonic plasma from 2013 with the HZ2000, their top-of-the-line OLED for 2020. What struck me most was his segment comparing the relative brightness of the two TVs.

People often complain about OLED lacking brightness relative to QLED-LCDs and being inadequate for brightly-lit rooms. But the plasma could only manage a full-field brightness of 35 nits vs c.150 nits (IIRC) for the OLED. Likewise, peak brightness for the plasma on a 10% window was <150 nits vs something >900 nits on the OLED. I can't remember Vincent's exact measurements but they were in that ball park.

Of course, the plasma's black levels were good, but nowhere near the pure-black 0 nits an OLED can display. And obviously only 1080p plasmas were ever marketed - apparently a massive prototype >100in 4k plasma screen was once demoed, but it weighed half a ton (literally).

Sometimes we forget how good OLEDs are in terms of picture quality, form factor and energy use relative to the last generation of TVs. I'm still using an ancient plasma myself and I'm desperate to upgrade.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Thanks.
Yes it was one of his FOMO video's
Of course I don't know, but he appears to really know his stuff and has a very deep interest about all that's going on behind the scenes.

It might have been this video which explained the problem:

I've been tempted to just go BIG and cheap for now, and by the time I'm ready for a replacement, perhaps we'll have micro-led or something out.

Crazy to hear that 65" and bigger are now regarded as the most popular sizes people want.
I remember a 20" CRT being the norm :)

65'' is tiny too. I have a 77'' panel and honestly, it's not big enough for watching films compared to a 100''+ projector.

As times change, people will slowly come round to having a bigger TV being better. Its just for now, people can't afford the big high quality TVs so will invariably convince themselves that they don't need them. It's human nature.

I don't think enough people have experienced a big screen in their homes. We had family over who got to see the projector in action (during the day) and were blown away. All they kept talking about amongst each family group is how and when they could put a similar setup in place in thier own family homes.

You won't have microLED for a very long time and if price is your concern now, it will only become a bigger concern later as microLED is not about to be launched at a bargain basement price.



OLED's biggest issue for me is
1. Panel uniformity issues
2. Price of the 88'' panel
3. Lack of 3D


Number 2 + 3, I venture microLED is not going to help at all.
 

Evinger

Well-known Member
Vincent Teoh has just uploaded a YouTube video comparing the last, best Panasonic plasma from 2013 with the HZ2000, their top-of-the-line OLED for 2020. What struck me most was his segment comparing the relative brightness of the two TVs.

People often complain about OLED lacking brightness relative to QLED-LCDs and being inadequate for brightly-lit rooms. But the plasma could only manage a full-field brightness of 35 nits vs c.150 nits (IIRC) for the OLED. Likewise, peak brightness for the plasma on a 10% window was <150 nits vs something >900 nits on the OLED. I can't remember Vincent's exact measurements but they were in that ball park.

Of course, the plasma's black levels were good, but nowhere near the pure-black 0 nits an OLED can display. And obviously only 1080p plasmas were ever marketed - apparently a massive prototype >100in 4k plasma screen was once demoed, but it weighed half a ton (literally).

Sometimes we forget how good OLEDs are in terms of picture quality, form factor and energy use relative to the last generation of TVs. I'm still using an ancient plasma myself and I'm desperate to upgrade.
Our viewing area is a 4 m long 2 m wide "Alcove" of sorts, so we don't go big. Our 50" 1080p LG Plasma, THX Certified, was fantastic, but then after years of use it gradually got vertical lines showing up. Still, everything until then looked great on it. So after checking reviews & viewing it, we got the 55" LG B7 at a great price, thinking "this should be the modern equivalent", but when we got it set up where the Plasma had been we were totally blown away by how much better everything looked. The uptick in PQ from Plasma to OLED (Mostly of course due to the 1080P to 4K transition) was very noticeable, but I cannot see anything new improving on our enjoyment with what we have now, at least for several years.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Our viewing area is a 4 m long 2 m wide "Alcove" of sorts, so we don't go big. Our 50" 1080p LG Plasma, THX Certified, was fantastic, but then after years of use it gradually got vertical lines showing up. Still, everything until then looked great on it. So after checking reviews & viewing it, we got the 55" LG B7 at a great price, thinking "this should be the modern equivalent", but when we got it set up where the Plasma had been we were totally blown away by how much better everything looked. The uptick in PQ from Plasma to OLED (Mostly of course due to the 1080P to 4K transition) was very noticeable, but I cannot see anything new improving on our enjoyment with what we have now, at least for several years.

Agreed. This plasma myth of it being some super incredible technology which was wrongfully ditched isn't completely accurate. Sure the motion is good but as Vincent has illustrated, OLEDs have now caught up nearly and LCDs IMO were always around there on the higher end sets.

The peak brightness on a plasma is awful and its black levels were not ever as good as an OLEDs. Their colour and dynamic range also don't match an OLEDs.

And we're not even taking into account 4K, HDR et al which offer an entirely different experience.

Plasma's only unique selling point would be 3D but it never had the brightness to do 3D justice anyway, so its a moot point.



For people that watch broadcast material, Eastenders, BBC news and Emmerdale; a plasma is excellent and all they need. But Gamers, netflixers, streamers, HDR 4K Bluray-ers... they will get exponential gains moving to OLED or even high end LCDs.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
The thin CRT things looked like they were going to be great but they never got to the marketplace.
I can never remember the name of them.
Each pixel was basically a tiny CRT.
Perfect black of course.
Anyone remember that?
 

Evinger

Well-known Member
65'' is tiny too. I have a 77'' panel and honestly, it's not big enough for watching films compared to a 100''+ projector.

As times change, people will slowly come round to having a bigger TV being better. Its just for now, people can't afford the big high quality TVs so will invariably convince themselves that they don't need them. It's human nature.

I don't think enough people have experienced a big screen in their homes. We had family over who got to see the projector in action (during the day) and were blown away. All they kept talking about amongst each family group is how and when they could put a similar setup in place in thier own family homes.
Of course size of TV will always depend on where you have room to put a TV & how important it is in your Family's Life.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
^Lovely TV's
But was puzzled why neither of them said at any time.
"Look at how much stronger the blue's are, or something related to the blue"

I mean........ Should ice/sea be that blue?



And the Helicopter



They kept saying about them being identical, though looks much more saturated to me on the left esp with the blues.
 

CliffordinWales

Standard Member
The thin CRT things looked like they were going to be great but they never got to the marketplace.
I can never remember the name of them.
Each pixel was basically a tiny CRT.
Perfect black of course.
Anyone remember that?
You're talking about SED, which Toshiba and Canon were developing in the early 2000s.

Whatever happened to SED TV?

I've seen articles and posts indicating the SED technology maxxed out at 450 nits and wouldn't have been as thin or as energy-efficient as OLED. So, an interesting dead-end in display tech unfortunately.
 

fat jez

Distinguished Member
They kept saying about them being identical, though looks much more saturated to me on the left esp with the blues.
For any sort of meaningful comparison, both TVs should be calibrated. I've not watched the video, so I don't know if they said, but I'd have thought blues would look very similar if they were.
 

Evinger

Well-known Member
^Lovely TV's
But was puzzled why neither of them said at any time.
"Look at how much stronger the blue's are, or something related to the blue"

I mean........ Should ice/sea be that blue?



And the Helicopter



They kept saying about them being identical, though looks much more saturated to me on the left esp with the blues.
You're going to give OLED's a Bad Case of the Blues with comments like that! :p
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
You're talking about SED, which Toshiba and Canon were developing in the early 2000s.

Whatever happened to SED TV?

I've seen articles and posts indicating the SED technology maxxed out at 450 nits and wouldn't have been as thin or as energy-efficient as OLED. So, an interesting dead-end in display tech unfortunately.
Thanks, yes that was it. Ahhh, shame about the nits.
I remember it being spoken about and coming to nothing. I guess doe to LCD prices dropping so fast, which is great of course, but also must have killed off other things that simply could not compete.
LCD's are cheap and good enough for most people, so it's an easy win.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
For any sort of meaningful comparison, both TVs should be calibrated. I've not watched the video, so I don't know if they said, but I'd have thought blues would look very similar if they were.
They calibrated for hours by a top professional before the test.
So no idea why the colours are so different.
The Saturation seemed way off on some of the footage.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
^Lovely TV's
But was puzzled why neither of them said at any time.
"Look at how much stronger the blue's are, or something related to the blue"

I mean........ Should ice/sea be that blue?



And the Helicopter



They kept saying about them being identical, though looks much more saturated to me on the left esp with the blues.
It doesn’t matter what colour the ice is meant to be in real life.

what matters is what the artists intent was as everything is colour graded to fit a tone.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Problem yet to be addressed fully?

Interesting video about the desperate lack of colours at the lower end.

Also another question:
Why does a monitor look dead when compared to reality?

Number of colours?
The fact the colours are being faked by pixels?

Somethings wrong.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Problem yet to be addressed fully?

Interesting video about the desperate lack of colours at the lower end.

Also another question:
Why does a monitor look dead when compared to reality?

Number of colours?
The fact the colours are being faked by pixels?

Somethings wrong.
Yup. Also dark video is incredibly hard to capture.

If you look at taking a photo in the dark or video, even with professional cameras, outside of Sony's sensor magic (which still isn't perfect), doing dark footage is never easy.
 

fat jez

Distinguished Member
Problem yet to be addressed fully?

Interesting video about the desperate lack of colours at the lower end.

Also another question:
Why does a monitor look dead when compared to reality?

Number of colours?
The fact the colours are being faked by pixels?

Somethings wrong.
When we watched Paddington 2 in 4k HDR (I know it's upscaled from the 2K DI ) it felt like looking through a glass window at the picture, it was eerie. So a monitor doesn't have to look dead when compared to reality.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Home AV, TV, Tech News & Reviews, Plus The Best of July 2020

Trending threads

Latest News

Mulan to premiere on Disney+ on 4th September
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Has Amazon Prime Video dropped Dolby Atmos?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
JBL launches 4349 Studio Monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG Display next generation OLEDs showcased at SID 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom