Quantcast

NEWS: OLED Shootout Results in a win for Philips

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
I was at the Philips event last night and thought that I would post some details of the testing, the results and my thoughts on those results.

I wanted to start by thanking Philips for setting this up. I have never before seen a test where a manufacturer puts their set against competitors sets and has an independent team calibrate all of the displays so they are each doing what they should.

Test Setup
Although we knew the TV models being tested (Sony A1, Panasonic 952, Philips 9002 and LG C7) this was set up as a truly blind test. All of the 55” displays were set up in a line, with their height adjusted so that the screens were all at the same level. The bezels of each set were covered so that it was not possible to identify which display was which. They even went as far as covering the screens when changing sources to ensure that the display of the source signal on each TV wouldn’t give away the manufacturer.

Each screen was identified with a letter below it, from A to D. We were told that we were to watch a number of clips and were to identify which we thought was the best display for each clip according to our own personal preferences.

During the test the room was reasonably dark but not blacked out.

All of the displays had been calibrated by Steve Withers from AVForums, who was together with Phil Hinton, the AVForums editor. Danny Tack, picture processing guru from Philips lead the evening.

Intent of the Test
Danny Tack started off with a description of what he was aiming to achieve with image processing. Many of us on the forums regard a calibrated image with no motion processing as the ideal. Danny though was aiming to demonstrate that with good quality image processing a TV can produce an image which is actually better to watch than one with no such processing.

For movies you ideally want to see exactly what the director intended. However, for other content such as sports, general TV viewing and lower quality sources such as streaming - additional processing really can help.

Testing Methodology
The tests were split into two parts.

The first part was to compare the TVs as they would be set up for ideal movie watching. This meant displaying a calibrated image with all the image and motion processing turned off.

The second part of the test was to compare the TVs with the same set of clips when set to Vivid. (More on this later.)

Content of the Clips

The clips covered a broad range in terms of source quality and content. The sources varied between low quality Netflix, high quality Netflix, SDR bluray and HDR UHD bluray. In terms of content the clips included one still image, baseball (to test motion handling of the ball) and a clip with a large number of big vertical and horizontal pans of detailed shots of buildings.

Note that the HDR clips were only shown during the second, Vivid phase, of the testing. The argument was that calibrating HDR is still a bit of a grey area. It wasn’t mentioned explicitly but I assume that the HDR clips were all HDR10. While the Sony and the LG support Dolby Vision the Panasonic and the Philips do not. (Philips have recently joined the HDR10+ alliance.)


Calibrated Testing
All four sets are based upon the same LG provided OLED panel. Therefore, the differentiating factor between the sets in terms of image quality is the image processing capabilities that each manufacturer can bring to the table.

Comparing these sets when fully calibrated and with the image processing disabled was therefore an interesting proposition.

In practice, during the calibrated testing, it was very difficult to spot any significant difference between any of the sets in any of the clips.

Personally, I found myself generally putting B and C down as my preference for each clip although there really wasn’t much in it. This did make me realise that as I was sat fairly centrally, sets B and C had an advantage in being straight on to me. Even though OLED doesn’t have the viewing angle issues of LCD, a picture directly in-front of you will always look better than one at an angle. (According to Phil Hinton there can also be some minor colour shifts even with OLED when viewing off angle.)

It was interesting to me to note that there were some noticeable colour differences between the sets. For example, at times the picture on set B was noticeable more red than the picture on display C. These differences arise because even a calibrated consumer set isn’t perfect for all colours for all brightness levels. Additionally the sets vary in how much flexibility their calibration controls provide. For example, on Sony sets you can calibrate the grey scale but there is no colour management system to directly calibrate the primary and secondary colours. Philips has a 2 point grey scale control whereas all the other sets have 10 point grey scale controls.

One test that really stuck out to me was the one with the vertical and horizontal panning. Here all four sets juddered horribly. This shows that if you don’t like judder on such shots, you have to use some level of motion processing.

The overall result to me was that if you are a movie watcher viewing a calibrated set with no motion processing then it really doesn’t matter which of these 4 sets you pick.


Vivid Testing
Now this was an interesting one and there is a valid question over how fair this test is. Personally, I would avoid using the vivid setting on any TV. Primarily, this is because the typical approach for a manufacturer is to set the Vivid mode up so that everything is cranked up to 11. Generally, I find the colours massively over-saturated and unnatural. The sharpness being cranked up gives rise to hard outlines and noise. Finally, using the maximum motion interpolation often leads to motion artefacts.

However, what Danny at Philips has done is different. He has aimed for a Vivid mode that is much more natural than a typical Vivid mode.

First impressions of vivid mode tests on all the sets was that everything was brighter and more saturated.

Throughout the various tests display C was generally much more natural than all of the others. It had the right amount of additional sharpening to improve the low quality source and a nice saturated image without seeming too unrealistic.

One of the lower quality streaming clips was a scene from Friends. In this scene there was a dim wall in the background which was noisy and heavily compressed. Set B somehow made this wall pulse as its brightness level fluctuated. Set A was applying so much sharpening that the noise was exaggerated. Sets C and D did much better.

The motion tests were particularly significant. With the scene with horizontal and vertical panning the juddering was removed from all of the sets - bar set A. I did notice occasional minor artefacts but these were far less of an issue to me than the horrible juddering seen previously. Both sets B and D also struggled with the baseball test showing a baseball moving across a green field. Set B had some double ball issues. On set D the baseball momentarily disappeared!

There are potentially other things to discuss about what we saw but I don’t want to cover these here as this is long enough already and there is the whole question of the validity of testing all the TVs in Vivid mode.

Additional Testing
At the very end there was a test of the HDR clips again in Cinema mode rather than vivid. This set of tests wasn’t originally planned. This was prompted by discussion around the different tone mapping used by the different sets during the HDR Vivid testing. In some high contrast scenes it was very clear that different manufacturers had very different HDR tone mapping in Vivid. For example, what may look black on one set was dark grey on another set.

Now watching in Cinema mode is a much more realistic test - as many people will use this and manufacturers generally set this up pretty well.

Watching this test reminded me of the calibrated test at the beginning. While there were differences between the sets it was subtle and it wasn’t clear which set, if any, was better than the others. Unfortunately we didn’t get to watch the non-HDR clips in cinema mode.

The Results
Calibrated testing - Set C was the winner but not by much. The results were fairly mixed and “No preference” did well. In discussions among the group it became clear that generally preferences were not strong for any of the sets. Overall, I don’t think that the win for C was very significant (statistically speaking) - especially as it had the advantage of being one of the two central sets.

Vivid Testing - set C walked away with this one with nothing else coming close.

There were no results taken for the Cinema mode HDR testing.

The Reveal - which set was which?

A - Sony A1
B - Panasonic 952
C - Philips 9002
D - LG C7

My Thoughts on the Results
It is fair to say that the test proved the point that Danny was trying to make. Image processing, when done well, can significantly improve an image - especially when you have issues such as juddering and noise and low quality sources. So if you have some particular issues with what you are watching, then it is at least worth trying some of the image processing options on your TV - especially for non-movie content.

Philips (Danny) should be congratulated on coming up with a Vivid mode that adds sharpness, motion smoothing, etc, in a way that really can improve some content without many of the issues with the Vivid mode of other manufacturers.

Personally, I have some other conclusions to draw from the test.

Firstly, if you watch a calibrated image with processing turned off it really makes very little difference which set you choose. Go for the one that matches your budget and personal preference for brand, aesthetics or features - such as Ambilight or Dolby Vision. The same may also apply if you watch in cinema mode. However, without watching the full set of clips - especially the motion ones - and without knowing what level of other settings relating to motion and sharpening, it is difficult to be definitive.

Secondly, most TV companies have really awful vivid modes. This in itself, isn’t really an issue as most of us on these forums would never use Vivid mode anyway. I regard it as a mode only used on the shop floor.

So we cannot necessarily say from this test that the Philips has the best image processing overall - only that it has the best processing when set to Vivid.

For the other three sets, if they had had different settings then we may not have seen some of the issues that we saw.

A much fairer test to determine which display has the best picture quality overall would have been to set the image processing for each set to a more realistic level. Danny himself pointed out that on the judder test there was a setting on the Sony that would have made the image just as smooth as on the other sets but it wasn’t used because it would have resulted in other motion issues but we didn’t get to see that. Would the Panasonic and LG have dealt better with the baseball clip with different motion settings applied?

So overall, we cannot say from this test that Philips have the best OLED or the best picture processing. I am not in any way denigrating the Philips saying this. Just that a test based only on the Vivid settings is a very limited test.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree with @GadgetObsessed I must admit that it has changed my opinion about processing. For as long as I got my first plasma screen (or was it my projector back in 2000) I switch off all that nonsense...Seeing this has made me think that actually there maybe something into it...I really liked what I saw....

I normally see the calibrated option, but I actually really liked the Vivid option of the Philips as well...In hindsight and I didn't think about it last night...Having the calibrated option with the smooth panning from the processing would be the ideal combination :)
 

Bungral

Active Member
I have to agree with pretty much all of your write up @GadgetObsessed .

I was talking to a couple of people after the tests and brought up pretty much everything said above! It's interesting that we shared near identical opinions on the results and had similar thoughts with regards to the testing / modes and even that it doesn't matter which you buy as when calibrated, they are all very capable sets with very little between them. Deciding factor should definitely be budget / differing features between models that suit your needs.
 

Khazul

Well-known Member
On set D the baseball momentarily disappeared!
I'm generally not a fan of motion processing - I cant put my finger on what specifically it is, it just a sense of 'wrongness' about it on almost any TV where I have witnessed it. However I have tried it on my LG B7V and I keep getting the feeling that at the end of a situations where the motion processing really kicks in (for eg a smooth pan) when the scene pan stops, or radically changes there sometimes seems to be an almost subliminal frame skip as though it realised it got a frame wrong and had to just throw it away and revert to original frame.
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
@GadgetObsessed you deserve a medal for such a quality output.
Very informative but I am frankly tired of hearing this « processing is bad » nonsense. When applied with moderation and control, it is a game changer...try sony smooth graduation if you don’t believe me.

What this demonstrated to me is that all this year set are very very close to each other’s. Budget and specific features is what makes the difference. I however would like to add something we don’t put Ahead enough: how user friendly the tv is to use (and not just Os) plus manufacturer continuous improvements...

I love Philips and they may have the Best TV in the world but means nothing if it is never to be found...we are in Nov for god sake. Wait a bit and you can pretend it Is a 2018 release at ces in jan!!!
 

dollag

Well-known Member

Suave

Distinguished Member
Hi All,

First of all I want to say, I trust fully any events like this which is overseen by Phil & Steve - especially when they themselves calibrated all the sets & ensured that the whole set up was fair & even so no way could any partiality take place.

I was there too last night & I pretty much agree with most of what has been reported but do feel the on the tests shown - the Philips did have the various PQ attributes better. I found the whites cleaner, the image naturally sharper & with better shadow detail. Some of these were subtle & others easier to distinguish. I also felt that on certain demo material, the Philips set had more depth to the image.

There were indeed some visible colour differences & variances between the sets - even in calibrated mode. I felt the Philips gave the more natural & better skin tones but it was close.

Considering their prices, I was kind of disappointed in both the Sony & Panasonic - I felt they were better than the LG on many of the tests but nothing (to me at least) justify the large premium they price their sets at over the LG for example & especially since (imo) the Philips bettered both of them. This was surprising as I expected the Sony & Panasonic to be 1st & 2nd respectively since they are supposed to have the best processing out there but it really did not show in practice. In quite a few cases, they were worse (again to my eyes). Out of the two, I was more disappointed in the Panasonic as it's image just seemed duller & softer in quite a few of the tests & to me, in the context of things, the Sony just looked a bit pedestrian overall - maybe I was expecting a huge difference since it is priced so much higher but it was simply not the case.

The Vivid mode tests were a complete train wreck & the Philips aced these on every single one by a huge margin. All the others almost looked like defective sets - no way could they ever be considered as a normal/watchable viewing experience. Out of the remaining 3, I felt that apart from a motion test, the Sony performed better, the Panasonic next best & the LG last. If people are watching OLED in these vivid/dynamic modes etc then it would explain why there might be those who give OLED a bad rap.

There was one particular test (I cannot remember whether which one it was but think it was one of the Vivid ones - someone please correct me if I am wrong) that showed a scene of a train tunnel inside a mountain with daylight breaking in at the end & the only on the Sony were the blacks anything like black - all the others failed badly at this with the black image actually being varying level of Grey - the Philips was next best but way behind the Sony, then the Panasonic which was noticeably greyer than the Philips & by very far, the worst was the LG - the blacks were actually a sort of lightish/mid grey.

My personal scores were confirmed by the test results as I too had scored mainly for C & then between A & B.

I think were the Philips might also really shine is when it needs to upscale Non-4K Material due to the power of its processing. I might get slated here for saying this but I genuinely felt it was best of the bunch including the more expensive Sony & Panasonic. I left there thinking that after watching the tests, there was no way the extra hundreds in costs for the Sony & Panasonic was worth it - especially since in quite a few tests they were bettered. Maybe they were the best before, but even as a novice, to my eyes, not anymore & hence not worth the extra.

My results were 1) Philips 2) Sony 3) Panasonic & 4) LG. Of course just my take & we all might see things differently but I am only honestly & impartially reporting on what I concluded.

Based solely on this shoot out, if I were to buy an OLED anytime soon, rather than go for the more expensive Sony or Panasonic, I would buy the Philips & then pay for a professional calibration & will still probably save money over the other two.

By the same token, if I am spending that much on TV, I would also then rather spend a couple of hundred more on the Philips over the LG & not possibly have regrets afterwards by not buying the better set for not that much more. The Philips was sandwiched between the Panasonic & LG so I was able to get a very good look (centre, front & second rows) & again, to my eyes, the Philips was better than the LG in nearly every single department to a noticeable level.

Listen guys, I am just a novice (so I went with an open mind & no brand loyalty etc) but even then, my eyes do not lie but also be informed that the room was probably full of a bunch of far more tech savvy folks than I & some might hopefully agree with me & if not, I hope my finding do not offend anyone that was there & might disagree - we were told be be honest with what we saw!

Hope that helps somehow!

Suave!
 

Steve Withers

Reviewer
According to Philips the 9002 will be in John Lewis on Monday, they said the stock is with them and it's just a matter of John Lewis actually putting it on their system. There will also be a 65" model available in late January or early February.
 

Steve Withers

Reviewer
@GadgetObsessed you deserve a medal for such a quality output.
Very informative but I am frankly tired of hearing this « processing is bad » nonsense. When applied with moderation and control, it is a game changer...try sony smooth graduation if you don’t believe me.

What this demonstrated to me is that all this year set are very very close to each other’s. Budget and specific features is what makes the difference. I however would like to add something we don’t put Ahead enough: how user friendly the tv is to use (and not just Os) plus manufacturer continuous improvements...

I love Philips and they may have the Best TV in the world but means nothing if it is never to be found...we are in Nov for god sake. Wait a bit and you can pretend it Is a 2018 release at ces in jan!!!
Clearly this shootout was about picture quality but I agree that the operating system, smart platform and video streaming services are almost as important these days.
 

El_MUERkO

Active Member
I would have been cool if Philips allowed AV Forums to calibrate all the TV's for a variety of content, UHD, HD & Sports, then allowed people to view them post calibration. I wonder if we would have seen similar numbers or would it have averaged out more.
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
Hi All,

First of all I want to say, I trust fully any events like this which is overseen by Phil & Steve - especially when they themselves calibrated all the sets & ensured that the whole set up was fair & even so no way could any partiality take place.

I was there too last night & I pretty much agree with most of what has been reported but do feel the on the tests shown - the Philips did have the various PQ attributes better. I found the whites cleaner, the image naturally sharper & with better shadow detail. Some of these were subtle & others easier to distinguish. I also felt that on certain demo material, the Philips set had more depth to the image.

There were indeed some visible colour differences & variances between the sets - even in calibrated mode. I felt the Philips gave the more natural & better skin tones but it was close.

Considering their prices, I was kind of disappointed in both the Sony & Panasonic - I felt they were better than the LG on many of the tests but nothing (to me at least) justify the large premium they price their sets at over the LG for example & especially since (imo) the Philips bettered both of them. This was surprising as I expected the Sony & Panasonic to be 1st & 2nd respectively since they are supposed to have the best processing out there but it really did not show in practice. In quite a few cases, they were worse (again to my eyes). Out of the two, I was more disappointed in the Panasonic as it's image just seemed duller & softer in quite a few of the tests & to me, in the context of things, the Sony just looked a bit pedestrian overall - maybe I was expecting a huge difference since it is priced so much higher but it was simply not the case.

The Vivid mode tests were a complete train wreck & the Philips aced these on every single one by a huge margin. All the others almost looked like defective sets - no way could they ever be considered as a normal/watchable viewing experience. Out of the remaining 3, I felt that apart from a motion test, the Sony performed better, the Panasonic next best & the LG last. If people are watching OLED in these vivid/dynamic modes etc then it would explain why there might be those who give OLED a bad rap.

There was one particular test (I cannot remember whether which one it was but think it was one of the Vivid ones - someone please correct me if I am wrong) that showed a scene of a train tunnel inside a mountain with daylight breaking in at the end & the only on the Sony were the blacks anything like black - all the others failed badly at this with the black image actually being varying level of Grey - the Philips was next best but way behind the Sony, then the Panasonic which was noticeably greyer than the Philips & by very far, the worst was the LG - the blacks were actually a sort of lightish/mid grey.

My personal scores were confirmed by the test results as I too had scored mainly for C & then between A & B.

I think were the Philips might also really shine is when it needs to upscale Non-4K Material due to the power of its processing. I might get slated here for saying this but I genuinely felt it was best of the bunch including the more expensive Sony & Panasonic. I left there thinking that after watching the tests, there was no way the extra hundreds in costs for the Sony & Panasonic was worth it - especially since in quite a few tests they were bettered. Maybe they were the best before, but even as a novice, to my eyes, not anymore & hence not worth the extra.

My results were 1) Philips 2) Sony 3) Panasonic & 4) LG. Of course just my take & we all might see things differently but I am only honestly & impartially reporting on what I concluded.

Based solely on this shoot out, if I were to buy an OLED anytime soon, rather than go for the more expensive Sony or Panasonic, I would buy the Philips & then pay for a professional calibration & will still probably save money over the other two.

By the same token, if I am spending that much on TV, I would also then rather spend a couple of hundred more on the Philips over the LG & not possibly have regrets afterwards by not buying the better set for not that much more. The Philips was sandwiched between the Panasonic & LG so I was able to get a very good look (centre, front & second rows) & again, to my eyes, the Philips was better than the LG in nearly every single department to a noticeable level.

Listen guys, I am just a novice (so I went with an open mind & no brand loyalty etc) but even then, my eyes do not lie but also be informed that the room was probably full of a bunch of far more tech savvy folks than I & some might hopefully agree with me & if not, I hope my finding do not offend anyone that was there & might disagree - we were told be be honest with what we saw!

Hope that helps somehow!

Suave!
No need to apologies. Your feedback like all the others are greatly appreciated and respected.
My concern is a test with all processing off and based on a vivid mode. I don’t understand this last one at all...who use vivid mode? Why on Earth test a vivid mode?
 

ryanvincent

Banned
Shocking how bad the panny did compared to other shootouts....what with it's excellent colour accuracy and 1st class picture processing.
 

JH4

Well-known Member
I didn't see anywhere how many people carried out the testing ? Any women ? I only ask, as fewer women have the colour blind issues that men have. I absolutely mean no offense to those who attended, but I only found out very late in life that I had a slight colour blind issue. A lot of men do. Whether that would have made any difference to the results is a moot point, of course ! Glad it was a "blind" test this time, tho..
 
Last edited:

Suave

Distinguished Member
My concern is a test with all processing off and based on a vivid mode. I don’t understand this last one at all...who use vivid mode? Why on Earth test a vivid mode?


Hi,

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not something to do with demonstrating how in general Philips takes a somewhat different approach to constructing its images/PQ compared to all the other brands & they want to demonstrate how effective it is on it's own on the worst PQ Mode with out any processing applied?

I think Phil mentioned a sentence or to about the different approach they use? Also, I think they were also trying to say that as their set has clearly demonstrated how "clean" it is from all noise, artefacts, blurring etc in base Vivid mode then it sort of then allows their processing to work even better as it does not to first clean up a bunch of mess first (like the other sets have to do) before being able to work on the finer/more accurate stuff?

Suave!

 

GadgetObsessed

Well-known Member
There was one particular test (I cannot remember whether which one it was but think it was one of the Vivid ones - someone please correct me if I am wrong) that showed a scene of a train tunnel inside a mountain with daylight breaking in at the end & the only on the Sony were the blacks anything like black - all the others failed badly at this with the black image actually being varying level of Grey - the Philips was next best but way behind the Sony, then the Panasonic which was noticeably greyer than the Philips & by very far, the worst was the LG - the blacks were actually a sort of lightish/mid grey.
Suave!
That test of the car driving though and out of a tunnel, where some of the sets seemed to "fail" with grey blacks was run under Vivid mode. However, when that test was repeated using Cinema mode there were no grey blacks to be seen and there was very little to pick between them.

So there is no reason to think that any of the sets had better black levels than others for general use - assuming that you set your TV up reasonably.

I have difficulty in drawing any meaningful comparison between the sets given what we saw last night. In calibrated mode and in the cinema mode there was little difference between the sets. All the Vivid tests proved to me was that your TV is badly set up if it is a Sony, Panasonic or LG and you use Vivid mode.

When all are set to Vivid mode (and we have no idea what the motion settinges etc were on all the sets) then the Philips was clearly the best. However, given that Vivid mode is generally a setting that you wouldn't use for the other three sets then the Vivid test results cannot be the basis of any firm conclusions on the TVs image quality generally.

For example, the Panasonic (and LG) had issues with the baseball in the motion test but without seeing whether there were different motion settings on these sets that may have resolved these issues we cannot say that these sets generally have issues with this type of motion.

The Sony was (to me) the worst overall performer when set in Vivid mode. Again this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a poorer performer than the others when set up in anything other than vivid mode.

All I really took away from the Vivid test was that Philips have a better Vivid setting than the other three. How relevant this is in terms of a purchase decision is up for each of us to decide.
 

Suave

Distinguished Member
That test of the car driving though and out of a tunnel, where some of the sets seemed to "fail" with grey blacks was run under Vivid mode. However, when that test was repeated using Cinema mode there were no grey blacks to be seen and there was very little to pick between them.

So there is no reason to think that any of the sets had better black levels than others for general use - assuming that you set your TV up reasonably.

I have difficulty in drawing any meaningful comparison between the sets given what we saw last night. In calibrated mode and in the cinema mode there was little difference between the sets. All the Vivid tests proved to me was that your TV is badly set up if it is a Sony, Panasonic or LG and you use Vivid mode.

When all are set to Vivid mode (and we have no idea what the motion settinges etc were on all the sets) then the Philips was clearly the best. However, given that Vivid mode is generally a setting that you wouldn't use for the other three sets then the Vivid test results cannot be the basis of any firm conclusions on the TVs image quality generally.

For example, the Panasonic (and LG) had issues with the baseball in the motion test but without seeing whether there were different motion settings on these sets that may have resolved these issues we cannot say that these sets generally have issues with this type of motion.

The Sony was (to me) the worst overall performer when set in Vivid mode. Again this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a poorer performer than the others when set up in anything other than vivid mode.

All I really took away from the Vivid test was that Philips have a better Vivid setting than the other three. How relevant this is in terms of a purchase decision is up for each of us to decide.
Hi,

Perfectly reasonable & relevant comments there & no argument from me - it was as you say, in calibrated modes, very close overall.

I must admit that as a novice, at the time when Vivid modes were used with the god awful results it produced, gave me the impression that the worst offending sets would/may cause PQ greater issues in general viewing (like sports/action etc) than the Philips as they had more inherent nasties to deal with so to speak but I may be totally wrong on that - just my thoughts.

I found that the Panasonic seemed a little duller & had a sort of light brownish tinge, The LG pic seemed flatter with less accurate colours & the Sony had a darker tinge than the Philips.

To me, the Philips had better contrast, shadow detail & more depth with a natural sharpness over the others in HDR/Calibrated Mode & a brighter picture.

Do you remember the images that focused on the lady's blue eyes may I ask? To me, that was quite revealing on the Philips. I also found that the LG seemed to have less shadow detail & seemed to crush blacks more than all the others - did you find/feel the same?

I think if the Philips is available for around £1800 or so in the coming weeks/months then it will be able to compete very well with the current LG price points & having the 3- sided Ambi-Light might really sweeten the deal for some.

Like you say, if properly calibrated, most would be happy with anyone of these - it's just the value proposition of each that might need to be taken into account.

Suave!
 

Khazul

Well-known Member
Just out of interest - which firmware version was on the LG TV?

I assume it was the lest, but worth asking.
 

Winnie1221

Active Member
Some interesting results there.

But personally I never use Vivid mode.

No matter what TV i've seen it's always looked fake.

The images I get across the board on my LG OLED from HD to 4K HDR and Dolby Vision are fantastic.
 

racunseen

Standard Member
Event was organised by Philips and independent team calibrate all of the displays.

avforums i dont know what to say. I am sad. :(
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

LG launches Gram laptops for 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Hisense U8QF TV heads UK 2020 range
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 24th May 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Sky HDR launch rumoured for 27th of May
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom