Question TV for bright living room in Australia (Pics attached)

Discussion in 'What Is The Best TV For You?' started by Benzyl53, Jul 10, 2018.


    1. Benzyl53

      Benzyl53
      Novice Member

      Joined:
      May 12, 2018
      Messages:
      3
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      4
      Location:
      Australia
      Ratings:
      +0
      Seeking recommendation for a set in a bright living room:

      Background: I had a 55" Sony X900E that I was generally happy with. I had some uniformity issues and the unresolved frame repeat errors with 50hz; so I returned it for a refund. I am now using an old 40 inch Sony from 2011 that I am looking to replace. In hindsight a 55 seemed large in the room; but a 65 would be even better for 10ft? I would wall mount the set.

      Viewing Distance: 9ft on TV Stand, 10ft Wall mounted - generally from in front only.

      Viewing habits: Mostly Sports (F1, rugby, cricket motorsports), News. I am able to stream the sports coverage at 720i/50. Occasionally 1080i/50

      I am not really much of a movie/tv show/netflix buff.

      I can afford a: 65" Sony XF900 or a 55" A8F or 55" LC C8. Save several hundred dollars and get a 55" X900F or LG B7. Panasonic not an option here at the moment yet.

      Area (before furniture during day): https://i.imgur.com/IWPoBTq.jpg

      Area today (night): https://i.imgur.com/mHmWrqO.jpg

      Example image of static content I will view fairly frequently (old X900E) (I hear orange/yellow/red is not good for burn in?): https://i.imgur.com/Yk4gQsX.jpg

      Concerns: Having 5 days of a cricket test match on during summer an OLED (burn in?) or an entire 9 hour Bathurst 1000 with the static content above. Is an OLED bright enough in the room? (see image above for during the day).

      It is not in direct sun; but the room is quite bright and complete blinds in the room are not practical at the moment.

      Probably not going to see the benefits of an OLED with my viewing habits?

      Thanks for your suggestions.
       
    2. Dodgexander

      Dodgexander
      Moderator

      Joined:
      May 29, 2007
      Messages:
      15,247
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +4,411
      Sounds like you could well be susceptible to burn in, it would depend not only on how long you watch that content but how regularly though. The OLEDs can probably cope fine wiping any temporary image retention from long races or test matches but if you regularly watch them then you're taking a risk. OLED Burn In Risk

      Viewing distance wise 9-10 feet is about optimal for 1080p content on a 55". If you want to benefit more from UHD detail or wanted more immersion then 65" would be better but it seems like most of your content is going to be 1080 or lower so going bigger would mean that will look worse.

      The OLEDs have very good anti reflection filters and they will beat anything for picture quality for what you watch (especially sport with no motion blur), but if you wanted to swoop on a good deal I'd keep an eye on the XF9005 and Samsung Q9FN and Q8DN (not sure if the latter is available in Oz).

      The risk with the OLEDs would be burn in, but the risk of another LCD is more likelihood of losing the panel lottery, although you can lose that with OLEDs too its not as common.

      Kudos btw lasting the full 9 hours, almost as hard as driving, jk.
       
    3. Benzyl53

      Benzyl53
      Novice Member

      Joined:
      May 12, 2018
      Messages:
      3
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      4
      Location:
      Australia
      Ratings:
      +0
      Thanks for your suggestions!

      I had a solid read of the OLED burn in thread and your cases. I'm not sure my accumulation of hours would be that high on one particular type of content. Accumulating 2 or 3 hours of Sky News a day is over 1000 hours in a year; I estimate what I am watching would only add up to maximum 150 hours a year on one particular content type.

      It took 6 weeks (900 hours) for the RTINGS CNN to start showing at that is arguably a more extreme case than mine?

      I am tempted to "risk" the OLED; tell me I am crazy!
       
    4. Dodgexander

      Dodgexander
      Moderator

      Joined:
      May 29, 2007
      Messages:
      15,247
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +4,411
      I don't think it's crazy at all. There is no doubt burn in is a risk but it's nothing new (we have had burn in risk ever since Plasma TVs). Sadly there is a lot of info online and a lot of cases can be found where people have shared stories about their own TVs showing burn in. This makes it look like there is a larger chance of burn in than there actually is. Of course the internet being a place where people come where they have problems, not when they don't.

      That aside I do not think you will see burn in given the info you have shared about your usage, as you correctly saw already the CNN test didn't show it until 6 weeks of constant usage and that was a loop daily for hours at a time. I don't think any real world scenario really gets close to that, certainly not the odd race and cricket match lasting a few hours at one time.

      OLED suits your situation and will give you the best viewing angles. If you don't go for one then you have to take a step down in quality to look at TVs with IPS panels instead. You may be happy with both options but you will not be wowed unless you chose the OLED I'm sure.

      Hope this helps!
       
    5. Tim2049

      Tim2049
      Active Member

      Joined:
      Jun 25, 2018
      Messages:
      516
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      66
      Location:
      Harrogate
      Ratings:
      +445
      I'm no techie, but I think I'm relatively safe in saying that LED may suit you best. Oled burn-in MAY be an issue given your viewing habits. If you were really into films I'd say it's probably worth the risk, but news channels and sports, in a bright living room? I can't think of many reasons why an OLED would be best for you.

      Best of luck!
       
    6. Hixs

      Hixs
      Distinguished Member

      Joined:
      Jul 24, 2015
      Messages:
      3,553
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Location:
      France
      Ratings:
      +2,188
      The new Samsung Q9 (if budget allows) would get as close an LCD can to OLED without the burn in issues. Bit pricey for your viewing though.
       
    7. Goodmane

      Goodmane
      Active Member

      Joined:
      May 26, 2011
      Messages:
      309
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      UK
      Ratings:
      +152
      For a bright room and no critical movie watching, I would just get whatever TV is the right size and price. LED is cheaper and brighter so I'd get that.

      You state that you got rid of your previous TV. You said it was uniformity issues and the 50hz problem. I think you should just get a new 55" or 65" TV, one that doesn't have that problem; I can't imagine that OLED will give you anything worth paying for if you are not watching movies or dark scenes.

      Do you use motionflow/ frame creation features to help with motion? If you do, then it might be worth researching and or testing different implementations of it. If you have them turned off for whatever reason, then I wouldn't think too much about the purchase beyond looks and price.
       
    8. Goodmane

      Goodmane
      Active Member

      Joined:
      May 26, 2011
      Messages:
      309
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      UK
      Ratings:
      +152
      Have you ever thought of adding a projector by the way? You have a nice flat wall for it, and could have a screen drop down in front of the TV for night viewing.

      I think bias lighting would look really cool in your room too, i.e. a light directly behind the TV. It can reduce eye strain which would be good for viewing long events. It can also dramatically increase perceived contrast and black levels, i.e. give your eyes the illusion of OLED blacks for the price of a light bulb / LED string. :)
       
      Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
    9. Dodgexander

      Dodgexander
      Moderator

      Joined:
      May 29, 2007
      Messages:
      15,247
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +4,411
      I personally believe the recommendation of an LCD over a OLED in a bright room is a misconception, OLEDs are not dim TVs for SDR viewing and have some of the best anti reflection filters to deal with ambient light.

      The only time you have an issue with an OLED being dim would be a 100% white screen in very bright viewing conditions due to abl and even then it will be 1-2x brighter than the brightest Plasma TV was.

      I think an OLED will perform fine in a bright room and brings more than only better blacks/contrast. It brings benefits to sources more in all areas compared to older LCD tech and it can of course shine even more when you watch in the evening when the sun goes down.
       
    10. Goodmane

      Goodmane
      Active Member

      Joined:
      May 26, 2011
      Messages:
      309
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      1
      Trophy Points:
      46
      Location:
      UK
      Ratings:
      +152
      I agree with what you have written but don't understand the last paragraph. I've never owned an OLED TV, only OLED tablet and phones (Samsung) so may be missing something.

      What else is there besides blacks that an OLED can offer better than an LED in your opinion? My own TV downstairs will probably break over the next 12-24 months. It's a 32" w5500 Sony LCD from about 2009. It works absolutely fine for normal day to day, but struggles with black detail in dark movie scenes. With a bias light on, the perceived black level is fine, but detail is a bit crushed if someone were watching something like Dark Knight; it's not the latest and greatest LCD in that regard. That is all fine, as non-kids movies are a rarity/non-existant on our telly these days. But I was planning to replace with a cheap HDR-capable LED as it's quite bright in the room as per original post...

      What is OLED better at besides blacks? Do you mean that when buying an OLED a lot of the other features like reflection filter are top tier, because it's a premium product generally?
       
    11. Dodgexander

      Dodgexander
      Moderator

      Joined:
      May 29, 2007
      Messages:
      15,247
      Products Owned:
      0
      Products Wanted:
      0
      Trophy Points:
      166
      Ratings:
      +4,411
      Outside of the top tier features like you say such as better anti reflection filters, possibly better picture processing if you notice it:

      1. Per pixel dimming vs local/edge lighting with zones. A far more refined picture with details clearer as the transition between one pixel 100% bright to another 0% bright isn't governed by lack of precision from backlights of LED driven LCDs.
      2. Usually far better uniformity than LCD, for the same reasons relating to backlighting above. Although it has to be said no tv is perfect in this regard and OLEDs can also suffer from worse uniformity/tinting than LCDs. No more clouding, backlight bleed or terrible screen uniformity although as I said there too can be bad examples with OLEDs.
      3. Next to no motion blur natively, most people love OLED motion because of this and for sports fans thats great.

      With LCDs:
      1. Can get brighter with HDR if you prefer brighter HDR to more refined HDR on an OLED. It has to be said that I don't think many OLED owners feel their TVs need to get brighter with HDR since the difference in contrast compared to an LCD makes them seem brighter.
      2. Depending on the TV and manufacturer higher end LCDs tend to be better at reducing stutter and judder if you use motion enhancements, despite having more blur. This can introduce flicker though.

      Motion is a little subjective, some people can't get over sample and hold motion on an OLED and feel it stutters more, some brands let you use motion controls to reduce this better than others but there are also a small group of people who feel LCD motion feels more natural because of this. Certainly the fact you have no motion blur to begin with can make it seem more like there is stutter to the picture.

      All the brightness talk with TVs now has become a bit overwhelming, the introduction of HDR has meant nits is a hot topic and its raised the capable brightness levels of even the dimmest of LCDs to be a lot brighter but calibrated SDR brightness levels are usually a lot lower so this talk doesn't really apply to SDR where even the cheapest of TVs will perform decently in a bright room. You only need a TV over 500 nits for SDR if you are in very, very bright environments. Thats over 4x the recommended SDR calibrated nits level.

      And whilst brighter LCDs do look better with HDR, usually viewing HDR on a LCD TV that can only reach up to 500 nits isn't going to be ideal anyway leaving mid range LCDs kind of pointless in my view.

      HDR and brightness aside the benefits aren't too different from the LCD vs Plasma debate.
       

    Share This Page

    Loading...