Discussion in 'Televisions' started by Phil Hinton, Jan 8, 2017.
We choose our favourite OLED and LED LCD TVs from CES 2017.
Watch the video.
LG only unveiled W7 (due to it's thinness) from their 2017 OLED range, would have been nice to see the rest of the range.
I think Samsung QLED top tier TVs are quite interesting, for the first on LCD TV, the viewing angles have been improved and colours are even better when viewed off angle than OLED, it claims. Though it's edge lit, but claims to offer better blacks and does need local dimming to produce that. Will be interesting to see.
I think it's may be superior to Sony ZD9, the current LCD king.
Everyone likes the Sony OLED, it's a striking design with sleek look, though the Android operating system could be a nightmare that you might bang your new TV with a hammer out of frustration.
Pana OLED looks ok but spoilt it with daft built in sound bar, no doubt the picture would be nice, though not very bright at 800 nits.
The future is HDR and it needs lots brightness to enjoy the format, and currently OLED is struggling with that.
In the near future CLEDIS or similar self-emissive tech would take over from OLED, as it has the Blackness and viewing angles of an OLED and brightness of an LCD. Best of both worlds.
Nothing from Disney regarding UHD Blu Rays which is really disappointing
I find 2016 OLED difficult to watch and would never buy one unless it improves quite happy with current LED/LCD picture . For me the new H formats IMO are a waste of time & money ,marketing strategy to try & sell more TVs,, I very much regret selling my 3 year old Samsung just to buy a later not as good Sony XD93,with its poor sound rubbish You View unstable Android. & no Freesat. note new Sony XD is brighter but current one is bright enough, good that the audio has been improved, so may not be necessary to buy a soundbar.
Its been a bust for tvs this time...taking things away FALD/3D to concentrate on a very small section of the market HDR/DV/4K. People will say 4k is the future but that's only because only 4k TVS are available.
The average joe will go into currys for a new tv to be told all tvs are 4k... You have a large 3 d collection...sorry cant watch them anymore . Its been replaced by UHD and you will need this expensive player and subscribe to SKY Q/BT to enjoy that though and theres not much to watch anyway.
I had planned to upgrade my 55cx802 to the new version of the 58x902 this year but that route has been blocked as cant watch 3D... Im sure many people are in the same situation.
This year IMO is a transition year and anybody upgrading this year is wasting their money and I will wait till see if 3d returns next jan .. if not the new 58 will be cheaper anyway.
I think the new W7 looks great but am massively disappointed by the lack of 3D, as the excellent passive 3D on LG's sets was one of my main reasons for going OLED.
Similarly, I just don't understand this obsession with peak brightness at the moment. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with people who want a super-bright set but, given that my current Panasonic plasma probably outputs no more that 120 nits, I think the 600-700 nits from the 2016 OLEDs will be more than enough in my sparsely-lit living room...
Higher peak brightness is key to the HDR experience. The human eye can happily deal with a huge range of brightness levels - think about the difference being outside on a sunny day versus indoors in a dark room. If you want to have a scene in a film of (say) a darkened room with sunlight streaming through a single gap in the curtains, a conventional TV can't get anywhere near the level of brightness needed to show the sunlight realistically, and even if it could there's no way to encode that kind of brightness within the video signal. HDR gets you a bit closer.
Yes we all know about HDR technically, but with things like 3D being discarded all to serve a feature that might crop up on the odd film or two?
We need a good image 24/7 so thats even backlighting without clouding or OLED, a responsive TV so no bloated OS, and low input lag.
I'm personally not bothered about 3d not being incorporated this year, more so OLED; but it appears as though the smallest will be 55" plus the rather high premium (costs) for going down that route.
I'm just looking at good 4K tv which has a good hdr and relatively low lag for when I use it when I'm playing on my PS4 Pro
I will make my mind up once prices are announced and Steve has done some reviews/comparisons before finally upgrading this year.
MC Withers mic drop at end. love it!
Nothing in the TV releases at CES 2017 is of the remotest interest to me. I was hoping for improvements in the motion management and subtleness of OLED black levels, but always subject to the continued provision of 3D, which my family love. No 3D = No purchase. It's that simple. I'll either continue to enjoy my Full HD LG 930, grab a C6 or E6, or if I am feeling flush grab the new Loewe. No way am I shelling out for nits. My 930 is too dazzling at times given that we watch in a darker room. This seems to be another one of those years when the manufacturers are desperate to persuade us we need something when we don't. I'm still of the view that the only benefit of 4k is to provide good near-to-full HD 3D in passive mode, given that most people's eyes, typical viewing distances and screen sizes are not remotely capable of discerning the benefits of 4k over 1080p.
I totally agree with this. No 3D = No purchase.
I have asked this question in another thread; but was hoping that Mr Withers could provide a definitive answer.
Are any of the 2017 TV's 3D capable?
I know that the OLED sets will not have 3D; but are there any 4K LED sets that will do 3D?
What about the Chinese manufacturers (Hi-Sense, Skyworth etc) - do we know their plans with regard to 3D?
None of the 2017 TVs support 3D, it has been completely dropped by the major television manufacturers. I can't comment on all the Chinese manufacturers but Hisense have definitely dropped 3D as well, they confirmed that when I met them on Thursday. I'm sorry guys but in the UK, US and Europe at least, 3D is finished as a TV format.
Anyone who wants a 3D TV is welcome to buy my Sony XD93 55" when the 2017 models become available.Reason for selling want to buy 65"
I remember when 3D first hit the shelves 3D was touted to be "just a fad" and "it will never last" and when it finally does come to fruition, everyone is up in arms about it.
Your post comes accross as a sneery example of schadenfreude.
What people are up in arms about is the decision to drop 3D televisions; when almost every 3D cinema blockbuster has been, and continues to be, released on 3D Blu-ray.
The studios wouldn't be releasing 3D Blu-ray's if there wasn't money in it for them. 3D has been dropped not because there is no demand for it; but because the TV companies want to.
The TV manufacturers have encouraged people to buy into 3D; to make investments in 3D films, 3D players and 3D TV's. And what do they show to those people who took them up on their call to go 3D - nothing but contempt.
That is why people are up in arms.
The TV manufacturers could have gone a different route. They could have made 3D a premium feature giving their top on sets a genuine USP. They could have still given their most loyal customers a means of playing back their software.
How would you feel if you spent a not inconsiderable sum of money investing in Dolby Atmos; buying a Dolby Atmos equipped AVR, speakers and discs. And then found out when you came to replace your hardware that the manufacturers had decided to abandon Atmos completely and that you could no longer play your discs in Atmos? You would feel justifiably aggrieved.
Everyone should be up in arms about this, whether they own 3D discs or not, because this action is simply wrong.
Allowing manufacturers to remove the ability for us to replay the software they encouraged us to buy sets a dangerous precedent. It means no feature of our software is safe and could be removed by manufacturers at a whim.
And we should all be worried about that.
Totally the opposite - I do feel for those who have invested in the ecosystem - hell I've got a ton of 3-D disks that have never seen any use but have been purchased as they were part of the steelbooks I've bought.
I'm just merely saying that from the get go, 3D as part of a home cinema setup was always on borrowed time from the moment it was announced so the fact that no manufacturer has 3D in their 2017 TV's shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given they were being phased out last year as well.
I predicted 3D would not last and can see same for some of the crazy formats like ATMOS
In that case I'll apologise and retract my schadenfreude comment.
That's an easy thing to say with hindsight; but it was not certain that 3D was on borrowed time when the format launched. Of course; some said it wouldn't last; but the word 'fad' has been used about many things, when they were launched, that are still with us.
As I said earlier there is still a demand for 3D Blu-ray. If there wasn't a demand for 3D Blu-ray; the studios would have stopped releasing 3D long ago. 3D would have long been dead and buried by now.
Blu-ray 3D has not withered on the vine. Judging by the number of 3D Blu-ray's being released; the format is in good health. But the TV manufacturers have decided to kill the format prematurely.
That is why I and others are upset.
True, true and I do appreciate that the brightness of a sunny day is way more than 1000 or so nits. Part of my issue with HDR - and it is very particular to me - is that I have particularly light-sensitive eyes, so it's not uncommon for me to have to squint when something bright comes on my current TV. As such, when faced with very high peak brightness on a TV (such as the Samsung LCD sets - which I have seen at a friends house) my pupils rapidly constrict so that the HDR effect - such as it is - is not as impressive for me. I think that's why I favour the less bright but still high-contrast image from OLED.
I do agree that for most people, very high peak brightness is important to get a more realistic image and I should have perhaps added the comment about my own personal circumstances before posting...still prefer OLED to LCD though!
What is the public consensus on HDR or is it no prolific enough yet?
The reason I ask is sure it shoots for greater realism but so did 48Hz in The Hobbit and people hated how that made films look more realistic so I wonder if HDR would have a similar reaction or if people will love it as lots of them use vivid modes on TVs.
I think I'm going to get an E6 later in the year as I want better 3D than my ZT60 which has crosstalk and have no intention of switching from bluray when most UHDs aren't even native 4K so HDR is off the table anyway so that looks like my best bet.
I think this peak brightness is over egged. The DEMO using a DV & 4000nit tv where reported as blinding. Blinking in the sense they stressed the eyes! I think around 1500nits is really all you need. So someway to go for current crop OLEDs.
QLED title further hides the old tec behind how LCD Tv work but hey we can forgive it they keep pulling the results out of the bag.
IMHO, the thing that is causing a polarised opinion about HDR is the material that is being used to 'showcase' it. In order to show off the tech, content is being created that has an average scene brightness that is way over that of SDR content. Something akin to just ramping-up the brightness to max on your set and viewing SDR content at 500nits in a dark room. The impact and immersiveness of HDR will come from well mastered content that uses the peak brightness with a little more restraint - mostly for specular highlights and occasional high-impact dark to light transitions.
If LG read this forum hear this - You will not be getting my money for any of your 2017 models, disgusting behaviour regarding 3D.
I have written a strongly worded message to LG, everyone else should do the same, they need to know what we think
What is annoying that so called reviewers/journalists at CES never ask questions that actually mean anything to the people who buy the kit. A simple:
1. How are the people who have large 3 D collections supposed to view them in the future
2. Why are new players still supporting 3D
3. Many major films are being released in 3D so why are you stopping people from viewing them at home and also not bothered about the loss of revenue from sales.
All we get is how many nits is this or that and who the hell can blind us all first !
why is oled difficult to watch?...just wondered thats all...pretty much everyone seems to be of the opinion a good OLED has the best PQ....?...genuine interest
Spot on. IMAX 3D is seen as the pinnacle of cinema projection and yet we are now going to lose part of that experience at home (not counting missing the 70ft screen of course). Civil War was a good example this year of a 3D blu-ray done really well (as was Force Awakens, Jungle Book and pretty much any Disney 3D release) where it mirrored the specially-shot IMAX sequences and had extra impact in 3D - even on my trusty old plasma
Really sad LG can't find the money to keep 3D on their very expensive sets, which for the moment means that no other OLEDs can be 3D either (at least I assume that's the case)
James Cameron is going to be pi**ed when he finds out Avatar 2/3/4/5/6 etc. won't be viewable at home in 3D...or maybe 3D at home will have made a comeback by then!
I prefer LED/LCD to Oled which I find difficult to watch, furthermore I have always preferred LED/LCD to now defunct Plasma
Separate names with a comma.