55 INCH TV 80K TO 1 LAKH(POLL)

[BLASTO]

It’s not just in paper it is a superior technology. Only when you get it in your HT set up and calibrate it you will know how better it is compared to any led or the best FALD sets. In real case scenario it’s night and day difference. Not being a fanboy but just stating facts. Don’t be listening to the the Oled bashing community and be mislead. If you have the budget go for oled. Camera can never capture the real picture quality and with so many biased reviewers on you tube they can even make a cheap tv look better then Oled. For example check my thread 1080vs4kvsHDR. In the poll the 1080p image in my 5 year old Sony led tv won as the best looking picture and looked best indeed vs the 4kHDR image in the c9.But in person image can’t even be compared and it’s day and night difference. Also check out my c9 vs A8 thread where I kept a saying based on showroom demos that c9 is not good as my old Sony tv while upscaling. After getting Used to my c9 I went to show room and checked all the tv’s again and I couldn’t even bare to watch any tv’s other then Oled. The picture quality is that good in an Oled. Deep blacks, infinite contrast, self lit pixels now that’s what I am talking about. My wife who doesn’t watch movies or show any interest after getting the c9 demands every weekend two movies. Such is the performance of Oled.

Adding to this, almost everyone who has an OLED has had LED Tvs in the past. It is not like people move from CRT to Oled directly.
Few like me have both an OLED and LED tv parallel at home and watch them on daily basis.

You can not find anyone saying that any of their LEDs perform as good as a OLED irrespective of brands. But you always get to hear it the other way almost always. It says something.

Also it is not fan boy-ism. Why would I or anyone bash one of their TVs as opposed to another of their own TVs which is an OLED?

 

[Love4sound]

Adding to this, almost everyone who has an OLED has had LED Tvs in the past. It is not like people move from CRT to Oled directly.
Few like me have both an OLED and LED tv parallel at home and watch them on daily basis.

You can not find anyone saying that any of their LEDs perform as good as a OLED irrespective of brands. But you always get to hear it the other way almost always. It says something.

Also it is not fan boy-ism. Why would I or anyone bash one of their TVs as opposed to another of their own TVs which is an OLED?

My comment was just in general and specially a reply to his statement highlighted and not against any of the comments made by you or any one else in the thread. Also I said that I am not being a fan boy. Lot of confusions by members when deciding what tv to get and so many wrong assumptions so just pointing out few important factors. One fm commented that c9 was mediocre at best compared to a midrange TCL tv based on showroom demo side by side. One bad comment in this forum can mislead many pple in taking the wrong decision.

 

[BLASTO]

My comment was just in general and specially a reply to his statement highlighted and not against any of the comments made by you or any one else in the thread. Also I said that I am not being a fan boy. Lot of confusions by members when deciding what tv to get and so many wrong assumptions so just pointing out few important factors. One fm commented that c9 was mediocre at best compared to a midrange TCL tv based on showroom demo side by side. One bad comment in this forum can mislead many pple in taking the wrong decision.

Sorry I just added to the contents of your post. Agree with all the contents though.

 

[Akshit2111]

It’s not just in paper it is a superior technology. Only when you get it in your HT set up and calibrate it you will know how better it is compared to any led or the best FALD sets. In real case scenario it’s night and day difference. Not being a fanboy but just stating facts. Don’t be listening to the the Oled bashing community and be mislead. If you have the budget go for oled. Camera can never capture the real picture quality and with so many biased reviewers on you tube they can even make a cheap tv look better then Oled. For example check my thread 1080vs4kvsHDR. In the poll the 1080p image in my 5 year old Sony led tv won as the best looking picture and looked best indeed vs the 4kHDR image in the c9.But in person image can’t even be compared and it’s day and night difference. Also check out my c9 vs A8 thread where I kept a saying based on showroom demos that c9 is not good as my old Sony tv while upscaling. After getting Used to my c9 I went to show room and checked all the tv’s again and I couldn’t even bare to watch any tv’s other then Oled. The picture quality is that good in an Oled. Deep blacks, infinite contrast, self lit pixels now that’s what I am talking about. My wife who doesn’t watch movies or show any interest after getting the c9 demands every weekend two movies. Such is the performance of Oled.

Ok appreciate your help navin
Basically needed this kind of assurance from actual users.
Coz all we have online some written material and some youtube channels.

 

[sandeeprawat]

So basically it means that though they are close but the difference in terms of price does not justify getting an led.
But basically if lets say it was for 80k in india (sony x90h) then if we compare them on cost to performance ratio then i guess it would have been a better deal compared to OLED?
basically when i went to the showroom and saw all these TVs together to my eyes all of them looked great.. i compared FALD and oled side by side.. to me both looked great so i though i am paying a premium just coz on paper OLED is better coz not being a videophile i really cudnt u know tell them apart in most of the scenarios.
U know it gets really enticing hearing or reading something about oleds one feels oh man this technology is way superior just like the way one feels about any new technology but how better it actually in a real case scenario is a different story all together..
Hope you understand my dilemma.

OLED vs rest, IMO there is no comparison in terms of picture quality. OLED blows everything else out of the water (imo ofcourse). I'm very likely to buy a FALD (either a cheaper toshiba/hisense or x95h whenever it releases) but whenever I compared them side by side in the showroom with any OLED (yesterday included) I was simply awestruck by these oleds.

 

[Akshit2111]

OLED vs rest, IMO there is no comparison in terms of picture quality. OLED blows everything else out of the water (imo ofcourse). I'm very likely to buy a FALD (either a cheaper toshiba/hisense or x95h whenever it releases) but whenever I compared them side by side in the showroom with any OLED (yesterday included) I was simply awestruck by these oleds.

Ya maybe just like in case of audio...it can be as relative as it can be! What may please you may not please me.. so i cudnt tell them apart. Also i am not a videophile and neither are my eyes so well trained yet.. i am.going by what experts here would suggest.. its good that u cud actually make.out the difference..i was little worried whether i am actually making a right decision or whether i am getting swayed by just listening about the technology like a 10 year old!
Most of the ppl here swear by OLED and if so experienced ppl are appreciating something then obviously there maybe something i must have been missing hence the confusion !

 

[BLASTO]

OLED vs rest, IMO there is no comparison in terms of picture quality. OLED blows everything else out of the water (imo ofcourse). I'm very likely to buy a FALD (either a cheaper toshiba/hisense or x95h whenever it releases) but whenever I compared them side by side in the showroom with any OLED (yesterday included) I was simply awestruck by these oleds.

Wonder why?
If it is because of burn in issues, then it might never be sorted out sufficiently.

Since burn-in is the uneven ageing of the self emitting pixels, it is tied to the half life of the pixels itself (time required for the pixels to become half bright) which is currently around 1.5L hours. For this half life, the burn susceptibility is around 4 years with 8 hours of uptime daily. (currently)

When it crosses 3L hours, burn-in susceptibility will be around 8 years mark, which will make it past the technology boundary for most people. (meaning 8 years later, much more tech rich TV will be available for 1/4th cost etc which makes anymore improvement irrelevant).

But this half life mark may well never be reached because of the competing goal of making the OLED TVs brighter by the year to accommodate proposed HDR standards. Between these competing goals, the brightness increase will always win till the TVs become closer and closer to the proposed 4k nits standard (which in-turn may never happen too in the coming decade). A case might be made in worst case where the brightness increase may make the OLEDs more susceptible to burn-in.

Just some points to ponder.

 

[sandeeprawat]

Wonder why?
If it is because of burn in issues, then it might never be sorted out sufficiently.

Since burn-in is the uneven ageing of the self emitting pixels, it is tied to the half life of the pixels itself (time required for the pixels to become half bright) which is currently around 1.5L hours. For this half life, the burn susceptibility is around 4 years with 8 hours of uptime daily. (currently)

When it crosses 3L hours, burn-in susceptibility will be around 8 years mark, which will make it past the technology boundary for most people. (meaning 8 years later, much more tech rich TV will be available for 1/4th cost etc which makes anymore improvement irrelevant).

But this half life mark may well never be reached because of the competing goal of making the OLED TVs brighter by the year to accommodate proposed HDR standards. Between these competing goals, the brightness increase will always win till the TVs become closer and closer to the proposed 4k nits standard (which in-turn may never happen too in the coming decade). A case might be made in worst case where the brightness increase may make the OLEDs more susceptible to burn-in.

Just some points to ponder.

Yeah. as of today its mostly because of relative reliability issues (for the price). Probably by next year or so I'm hoping either I will build some more confidence with better user feedback or maybe I get a good jump in salary so I am ok changing this TV in 4-5 year

1.6L for 65CX may just change my mind today itself though

 

[BLASTO]

Wonder why?
If it is because of burn in issues, then it might never be sorted out sufficiently.

Since burn-in is the uneven ageing of the self emitting pixels, it is tied to the half life of the pixels itself (time required for the pixels to become half bright) which is currently around 1.5L hours. For this half life, the burn susceptibility is around 4 years with 8 hours of uptime daily. (currently)

When it crosses 3L hours, burn-in susceptibility will be around 8 years mark, which will make it past the technology boundary for most people. (meaning 8 years later, much more tech rich TV will be available for 1/4th cost etc which makes anymore improvement irrelevant).

But this half life mark may well never be reached because of the competing goal of making the OLED TVs brighter by the year to accommodate proposed HDR standards. Between these competing goals, the brightness increase will always win till the TVs become closer and closer to the proposed 4k nits standard (which in-turn may never happen too in the coming decade). A case might be made in worst case where the brightness increase may make the OLEDs more susceptible to burn-in.

Just some points to ponder.

Article from 2012 to demonstrate technology obsolesce lol..

Samsung's 2012 LED and plasma TV lineup priced, arriving this spring

Samsung may be spinning off its LCD business, but that doesn't mean that the company won't be releasing plenty of new TVs for 2012. We got to take a look at the new LED and plasma TVs at CES, but we now have the full pricing and availability info for each set, and, unfortunately, they cost more...

www.theverge.com

65ES8000 which is equivalent of 65TU8000 was $5100 back then.. Now it like $1000. No QLEDs or OLEDs back then.

 

[sandeeprawat]

Wonder why?
If it is because of burn in issues, then it might never be sorted out sufficiently.

Since burn-in is the uneven ageing of the self emitting pixels, it is tied to the half life of the pixels itself (time required for the pixels to become half bright) which is currently around 1.5L hours. For this half life, the burn susceptibility is around 4 years with 8 hours of uptime daily. (currently)

When it crosses 3L hours, burn-in susceptibility will be around 8 years mark, which will make it past the technology boundary for most people. (meaning 8 years later, much more tech rich TV will be available for 1/4th cost etc which makes anymore improvement irrelevant).

But this half life mark may well never be reached because of the competing goal of making the OLED TVs brighter by the year to accommodate proposed HDR standards. Between these competing goals, the brightness increase will always win till the TVs become closer and closer to the proposed 4k nits standard (which in-turn may never happen too in the coming decade). A case might be made in worst case where the brightness increase may make the OLEDs more susceptible to burn-in.

Just some points to ponder.

Thanks for sharing. Good points. I need to read more about this. Wondering if 1.5L hours is at real brightness levels where most people watch or at say 10% or 25%. Pixel life may reduce accordingly.

 

[Rane-2020]

Thanks for sharing. Good points. I need to read more about this. Wondering if 1.5L hours is at real brightness levels where most people watch or at say 10% or 25%. Pixel life may reduce accordingly.

I dont understand the number 1.5L.there only 365 days in a year.even if someone watches 10 hrs everyday that is still 3650.for 1.5L hours you need to watch tv for 50 years?

 

[BLASTO]

I dont understand the number 1.5L.there only 365 days in a year.even if someone watches 10 hrs everyday that is still 3650.for 1.5L hours you need to watch tv for 50 years?

1.5L is hours is the claimed time taken for the pixel to become half bright (ie 50% bright).
Yes, it takes 40 years for the panel to become half bright if run 10 hours a day if you were to believe the claimed number (150000/3650 = ~41).

From burn-in perspective, the group of pixels need not be 50% as bright to be perceivable. Even a group of pixels which are 5% less bright than the surrounding pixels are perceivable to the eyes. Hence the rough calculation of 4 years.

Lot of assumptions here. So need to take things with lots of salt. Obviously LG cannot test all their panels for 40 years before releasing or anyone can sue LG for not doing that for that matter. Numbers are all extrapolated from limited testing.

 

[Rane-2020]

From burn-in perspective, the group of pixels need not be 50% as bright to be perceivable. Even a group of pixels which are 5% less bright than the surrounding pixels are perceivable to the eyes. Hence the rough calculation of 4 years.

Oh now i got you are saying that if we watch tv for 10 hrs daily the after 5 years some pixel will 5% less bright and since our eyes can perceive that change we can see the burn-in right.

But with this assumption, Lg doesn't need to test the panel for 40 years. they just need to see year on year result.a drop of 1.25% year on year will prove that theory

 

[BLASTO]

Oh now i got you are saying that if we watch tv for 10 hrs daily the after 5 years some pixel will 5% less bright and since our eyes can perceive that change we can see the burn-in right.

But with this assumption, Lg doesn't need to test the panel for 40 years. they just need to see year on year result.a drop of 1.25% year on year will prove that theory

Well that is the case from numbers. But my tv has black bars 90% of the time and should show up in white screens. But never did even after 3 years.
Rtings did the test by keeping a same static image on for a year on a LG oled and got the burn-in though. So it is possible if u try.

Real-Life OLED Burn-In Test On 6 TVs

There are concerns about OLED long-term performance due to the possibility of burn-in. We bought 6 LG OLED C7s to play real, non-altered content. It should give you a better idea of what to expect depending on what you watch on your TV.

www.rtings.com

The other problem is what are we comparing this against even if it is a 100% repro? LED tvs lose more than 5% brightness and colour volume if u move to the sides slightly from day 1. Just that it is not in accordance with the tv contents and distributed everywhere but it is clearly noticible.

Even in FALDs the most used LEDs age more. It appears like bands or squares as the tvs age. It is not in accordance with the image though. Only in non local dimming tvs which are worst of the lot is the aging uniform.

 

[shield99]

Rtings did the test by keeping a same static image on for a year on a LG oled and got the burn-in though. So it is possible if u try.

Real-Life OLED Burn-In Test On 6 TVs

There are concerns about OLED long-term performance due to the possibility of burn-in. We bought 6 LG OLED C7s to play real, non-altered content. It should give you a better idea of what to expect depending on what you watch on your TV.

www.rtings.com

These tests were however done on a C7. The burn-in issue is less concerning in C9-CX. Not saying its not there but people tend to refer the older gen OLED's when they relate it with burn-in.
Letting the automatic pixel refresher run after over 4 hrs of extended usage should definitely mitigate this issue.