New LG CX owner

BadgerUK

Standard Member
I’ve used this forum many times for help and information over the years, but one thing it helped me with recently was deciding whether to buy a new OLED or QLED TV.
Eventually I settled on the LG CX 65“ to replace my Panasonic 58AX802B.
Having owned the CX for a few days now I thought I would post my thoughts on it in the hope that it might help a few people struggling with the same concerns I was having.
Once the set arrived I set it up next to my Panasonic so I could do a direct comparison between the two. I expected the LG to be better, but I was shocked at the difference between the two sets. The Panasonic didn’t have HDR and I think that is probably the single biggest difference between the two sets. If you don’t currently have an HDR TV then frankly I would say that literally any TV you choose to buy that has HDR is going to destroy your current one. The change in colour, depth and vibrancy is astonishing. The Panasonic looked like it had a brownish grey film over the screen compared to the LG. It was a complete night and day difference.
Secondly, one of my biggest concerns about buying an OLED was whether the screen was going to be bright enough. I had read so many things about QLED‘s being so much brighter than OLED’s and that if you have a bright room then OLED probably wasn’t the right choice. Well in my experience that’s just not the case. The CX is more than bright enough, in fact I had to turn my OLED light level down to 50 after a few hours because it just looked too bright. I’ve just been watching the TV with sunlight pouring in through a huge window to the left of the TV and it still looks fantastic.
Another issue I had read about was reflections compared to the Samsung QLED’s. Having looked instore at the CX and the Q90t a few months ago I had to agree that the reflections on the CX were definitely worse than the Q90t, however, I did notice the “rainbow” effect on the Samsung and I did find it very distracting at times. With the CX now in my living room though, no matter how “bad” the reflections are compared to the Q90t, they are nothing compared to my old Panasonic. That had reflections bouncing off it all over the place. If you compare the CX to more current TV’s than my previous Panasonic then I am sure it’s not the best at reflection handling, however if you are comparing it to an older TV that you own then it looks like the reflective surfaces used now are vastly improved, even in the “worst” case examples so I wouldn’t worry about that too much.
Setting up the LG was a breeze. It connected to my Onkyo receiver via ARC with no issues whatsoever. My PS4 is recognised by the TV and switches to game mode as soon as it’s on. I have paired the remote with my Virgin V6 box and that works fine. I can screen mirror my iPad to the TV and play music and view photo‘s through USB, all with no problems whatsoever.
Frankly so far I can’t find a single fault with the CX and I am very happy with my purchase. I’m not suggesting it’s a “better” TV than the Samsung QLED’s or any other TV for that matter, just that all the things that were worrying me about the purchase have proven to be unfounded.
I hope that this might help someone struggling with the same concerns I had and thanks to everyone who posted any one of the many posts I read trying to make my mind up!!!
 

Tim2049

Well-known Member
Good little summary there. An interesting reflection of how 'myths' compare to real world experience.

People bemoaning OLEDs lack of brightness is utterly bewildering, as you've highlighted...
 

BadgerUK

Standard Member
Good little summary there. An interesting reflection of how 'myths' compare to real world experience.

People bemoaning OLEDs lack of brightness is utterly bewildering, as you've highlighted...

Thanks.
I think the problem is that reviewers, no matter how good they are, always compare this new piece of tech that's out this week, to this other piece of tech that was launched 1 month ago.
You hardly ever see a review of a new TV compared to one from 7 years ago, which is probably how the average person does it. In that respect you could probably spend 2 grand on a TV and 7 years later spend 500 quid on a new one and you'll be blown away.

As for the brightness thing, from my experience i just can't imagine anyone sticking an OLED in their living room and thinking it isn't bright enough. How bright do you want it? I personally just don't get it, but i guess it's each to their own.
 

Michael7877

Active Member
Thanks.
I think the problem is that reviewers, no matter how good they are, always compare this new piece of tech that's out this week, to this other piece of tech that was launched 1 month ago.
You hardly ever see a review of a new TV compared to one from 7 years ago, which is probably how the average person does it. In that respect you could probably spend 2 grand on a TV and 7 years later spend 500 quid on a new one and you'll be blown away.

As for the brightness thing, from my experience i just can't imagine anyone sticking an OLED in their living room and thinking it isn't bright enough. How bright do you want it? I personally just don't get it, but i guess it's each to their own.

OLEDs are bright enough mostly, but you're missing some information I think.
OLEDs are said to not be bright enough for bright rooms for a couple reasons and in a couple situations.

First, with SDR content:
OLEDs typically have a peak brightness of 300-400 nits, with ABL (auto brightness limiter) taking that down to about 150 nits when the whole screen is lit up.
In TV shows and movies, a fully lit screen is somewhat rare, but not uncommon. It usually happens for a few seconds, or for a fraction of a second (camera/gun flash etc). Commercials have more, but they don't matter really, you still get the point of the commercial.

For the multi second situations it'll happen a few times over the entire duration of many movies or TV shows (a sky pan shot for example, or a fade to white). Instead of it being 300-400 nits, for anything more than about 0.1 seconds, the screen dims to 150 nits - it makes the scenes less impactful. It's not the end of the world, but can be anti-climactic
In another way, things are better than the reviewers state for full field brightness on OLED displays. I know for sure my A8G is severely understated for full field peak, and it's not the most expensive OLED (or cheapest either, it's upper mid range performance, mid range cost).

Rtings says (give or take 20 nits) full field brightness is 130-150 nits, and sustained brightness is about the same, so 130-150 on all the OLEDs they've reviewed.
My Sony A8G (2019 model) is much better than that in some cases- it seems that for full field white for 0.1-0.2s, my "peak" is about 250 nits, maybe even a bit more: almost double of what it settles to (145 nits). Making gun flashes or camera flashes in SDR about as impactful as they're supposed to be. I don't know if all OLEDs are like this, but reviewers missed it on the A8G. I haven't tested it with equipment, but to me it's very obvious visually. You can test it by minimizing a full screenweb browser with google. When you maximize it, watch the white level go way up, and drop down quick to ~150.

The same thing happens with HDR, with some additional issues.
If there's too much bright content on the screen, the brightest elements are brought down in intensity with the rest of the image (like SDR) to keep the average picture level about 150 nits. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does.

HDR on any display is often complained about for looking dim even on reference displays because it was mastered to be watched in a dark room. The way it works is fundamentally different, too, so it can't be brightened the same way as SDR. If it was, insanely bright screens would be required to pull it off.
Brightening the darker parts and then tone mapping the brighter parts down to within the display's capability is what's needed to brighten HDR. On OLED, the peak brightness is lower, and the end result of brightening HDR is more of a SDR appearance than you'd get with a very bright LCD.

Also, colour volume is related to HDR brightness. It's how bright solid (saturated) colour can be related to peak white. I believe most OLEDs colour subpixels get about 2/3 as bright as the white subpixel can. So if there's red listed to be displayed at over ~425 nits, the colour starts getting diluted with white to keep brightness where it should be to have the HDR effect continue.

I've seen it on car brake lights, stage lights, neon lights in bars/stores affected. And when brightening HDR with tone mapping, other things can become affected.

The PQ curve is modified to roll off sooner than it should on a lot of OLEDs which is what makes them great for dark room performance - the high contrast of black and decent brightness capabilities makes things look great in dark rooms, but not good for watching in bright rooms. After brightening HDR, only SDR looking performance can be had in a bright room with OLED. It still looks great from the excellent colours and general display quality, but it's hardly a HDR experience. LCD, with 3x the brightness allows for higher contrast in a brightly lit room, coming closer to an HDR experience in a sunlit room



Edit: the LG CX would be helped greatly by a Panasonic DP-UB820 Blu-Ray, Netflix, and Amazon Prime player. All OLEDs are.
You can set it to HDR10 mode, and use Panasonic's renowned flagship HCX processor to improve your video experience with the TV. you'd be attaching it to one of the brightest OLEDs. The colours it puts out for display are amazing, it has colour upscaling to 4k 4:4:4, and it has many advanced picture adjustment features (like adjusting the tone curve near black and near white).
You can turn up the "HDR dynamic range" when you're watching HDR in a bright room (or if the movie was just mastered too dim), and get an amazing experience that would have been lacking.

I got it after a year with my OLED, and I wish I got it when I first got my OLED. I didn't know it existed
:(
Even with everything at default, the increase in Netflix picture quality compared to the TV's built in app was huge. Colours were SO much better, and motion was slightly smoother. Then after a bit of tweaking (setting the player's display type to OLED and enabling HDR optimizer in HDR10 mode), I got ALL highlight detail displayed with no change in picture level otherwise.

Literally a perfect presentation of the content within the TV's capabilities. Then, with bad content (ie mastered for viewing in a black room, improperly encoded too dim), or just in a bright room, you have the ability to more than double the brightness of the video to your taste in 1/12 individual steps.

oops, wrote another essay lol
 
Last edited:

BadgerUK

Standard Member
Thanks for that 👍
You're absolutely correct in everything you say, but all I know is the CX is more than bright enough for me, whether in highlights or larger areas of the screen. The blacks are black, the highlights are bright and I can't even imagine how I could benefit from anything being any brighter.
At the end of the day, this TV absolutely blows my old, beloved Panasonic out of the water and I couldn't be happier!
You do make some very valid points though.
 

dion 6

Well-known Member
Edit: the LG CX would be helped greatly by a Panasonic DP-UB820 Blu-Ray, Netflix, and Amazon Prime player. All OLEDs are.
You can set it to HDR10 mode, and use Panasonic's renowned flagship HCX processor to improve your video experience with the TV. you'd be attaching it to one of the brightest OLEDs. The colours it puts out for display are amazing, it has colour upscaling to 4k 4:4:4, and it has many advanced picture adjustment features (like adjusting the tone curve near black and near white).
You can turn up the "HDR dynamic range" when you're watching HDR in a bright room (or if the movie was just mastered too dim), and get an amazing experience that would have been lacking.

I got it after a year with my OLED, and I wish I got it when I first got my OLED. I didn't know it existed
:(
Hi I`ve got a 65 inch Panasonic GZ950 which has the HCX processor and also does HDR10+ the picture quality from the Netflix and Amazon prime apps is superb as Amazon prime do a lot of HDR10+and not so much dolby vison are you saying the LG CX picture quality without the Panasonic blu-ray players HCX processor is poor on the apps makes you wonder would it have been better just to buy a Panasonic oled
 

Michael7877

Active Member
Hi I`ve got a 65 inch Panasonic GZ950 which has the HCX processor and also does HDR10+ the picture quality from the Netflix and Amazon prime apps is superb as Amazon prime do a lot of HDR10+and not so much dolby vison are you saying the LG CX picture quality without the Panasonic blu-ray players HCX processor is poor on the apps makes you wonder would it have been better just to buy a Panasonic oled

I wouldn't say that the CX has poor image quality, but it has inferior video processing compared to Sony and Panasonic sets. Sony and Panasonic have more experience with optimizing displays for video playback.
Although it's not an optimum combination of equipment for video playback (I'd recommend a Panasonic or Sony over LG to a non gamer any day), it will result in a system with unique benefits and better than standard video performance (from LG's built in apps or even an apple tv 4k through HDMI).

LG allows for a higher peak brightness on their panels compared to Sony and Panasonic (except $7k G/HZ2000), and some good options for near black calibration, which, when configured correctly and paired with the UB820's output, should yield picture quality for films approaching the performance of A8/1000, with better peak brightness.
Fine tuning the colour, tone curve, white level, and gamma in the very small increments the player is capable of will bring the picture on the CX closer to the competition, and it obviously won't lose 4k120 in the process.
I have a Sony A8G, and even my TV was improved significantly over the built in Netflix/Prime apps. First, when I got the Apple TV 4K I had improvements (mainly with motion, slight colour). I thought "this can't get better", and used it for 6 months. Finally I decided to get a Blu-ray player, the Panasonic 820, coincidentally with netflix and Prime. The difference between it and my Apple TV was huge, beyond what I thought possible. I noticed the increase in picture quality immediately and with everything, everything at default settings. The LG should benefit almost as much, still retaining its character and higher peak brightness
 

The latest video from AVForums

Movies Podcast: Star Trek in 4K. Is the new boxset worth it?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom