Could it be...the resurrection of OLED ?!

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Is this an advertisement? it sounds like an advertisement.

Nope, I don't work for Samsung, and I don't know anyone that does. I know a couple of people that have a Samsung phone (hardly surprising nowadays), but off the top of my head I don't think I even have any Samsung products of my own. I gain no benefit direct or indirect by sharing my gob-smacked-ness on this product. It's probably not such a good advert when it boils down to "great picture, insane unaffordable price".

I'm just pleased to see OLED TVs finally appearing, though they are still at a bonkers price. I've never been happy with LED/LCD - they've only recently got acceptable to me, and they still have too many compromises and issues to be perfect. Maybe one day the technology will be cheap enough for me to afford a more modest version of the same thing.

But as we're all enthusiasts here, I thought I'd share my first experience of the new generation of OLEDs, even if it's just seeing it on demo and chatting with the sales person. It's really something impressive and worth seeing if you happen to be in the area of one.

 

[Alexko]

Is this an advertisement? it sounds like an advertisement.

There's a preview on Les Numériques, which basically says the same thing: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-tel...-premiers-resultats-tests-a-chaud-n31265.html

It's in French, but to sum up: infinite contrast, very good angles, very homogeneous lighting, 1ms response time and no perceivable ghosting. Power consumption is good, not great.

 

[Grall]

How can it have infinite contrast ratio unless its power output also is infinite (It most certainly is not btw, or this planet would vaporise instantly when you turned the TV on... )

Btw, OLEDs should have response time in the nanosecond range like regular LEDs do, although the article perhaps measures the entire electronic chain from the video input socket to the screen...?

 

[Alexko]

How can it have infinite contrast ratio unless its power output also is infinite (It most certainly is not btw, or this planet would vaporise instantly when you turned the TV on... )

Btw, OLEDs should have response time in the nanosecond range like regular LEDs do, although the article perhaps measures the entire electronic chain from the video input socket to the screen...?

The contrast ratio is white/black, and here black is zero. I'm sure there were a few photons exiting the OLEDs, but none that their probe (or their eyes) could detect. OK, technically something/0 is undefined, not infinite, but lim(K/x) when K is a positive constant and x → 0 is +infinity.

They don't say what they measure exactly, but I imagine it is indeed the entire chain. I can't see how they could measure how fast the OLEDs themselves respond without taking the TV apart.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Cool Impressions BZB.

I find this far far FAR more interesting for a living room TV than 4K displays (completely the opposite for computer monitors though). I've been waiting for OLED technology to mature enough for use in large screen TVs for a long time now. Now, just need more competition in that area so we can hopefully see some price drops.

Regards,
SB

 

[dZeus]

There's a preview on Les Numériques, which basically says the same thing: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/tv-tel...-premiers-resultats-tests-a-chaud-n31265.html

It's in French, but to sum up: infinite contrast, very good angles, very homogeneous lighting, 1ms response time and no perceivable ghosting. Power consumption is good, not great.

Fromthe linked article:

La consommation monte ainsi à 124 W et descend à 50 W quand les diodes organiques s'éteignent.

Any reason for 50W consumption on a black screen? I thought the OLED panel was supposed to not use energy on showing black. Is this false? Or are the electronics driving the panel that power-hungry?

 

[Grall]

The contrast ratio is white/black, and here black is zero.

I'm SURE that is not correct reasoning. The panel itself will not have infinite absorbtion for example (will reflect background light), and its light output, as mentioned, is not infinite. Just because black is virtually black with OLED doesn't make contrast infinite. "White" isn't just one thing, there's degrees of whiteness. Like with regular LCD panels, their contrast ratio depends on the black level AND max brightness.

 

[Alexko]

Fromthe linked article:


Any reason for 50W consumption on a black screen? I thought the OLED panel was supposed to not use energy on showing black. Is this false? Or are the electronics driving the panel that power-hungry?

Presumably this power consumption comes from the electronics driving the panel, refreshing the signal, etc. But I agree that it seems high for what the TV actually does.

I'm SURE that is not correct reasoning. The panel itself will not have infinite absorbtion for example (will reflect background light), and its light output, as mentioned, is not infinite. Just because black is virtually black with OLED doesn't make contrast infinite. "White" isn't just one thing, there's degrees of whiteness. Like with regular LCD panels, their contrast ratio depends on the black level AND max brightness.

The article mentioned that when they displayed a black image and turned the lights off in the room (even after waiting a few minutes for their eyes to get accustomed to the darkness) they simply couldn't see the TV. But yes, if the room isn't completely dark and you factor in reflections of background light, black levels aren't exactly zero and contrast can't be considered infinite.

Otherwise, lim(K/x) when K is a positive constant and x → 0 is +infinity even if K is very small.

 

[MfA]

I'm SURE that is not correct reasoning. The panel itself will not have infinite absorbtion for example (will reflect background light), and its light output

It is not about reasoning, it's about assumptions ... their assumption obviously is that contrast is device contrast, measured in the dark with a fully white or black screen.

You can call their assumptions unrealistic ... but since this is the same assumption which is made by every manufacturer when quoting contrast it's fighting windmills. Lets just accept that contrast within the context of display specifications is as measured with those assumptions and move on.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think I can summarise that the new Samsung OLED really brings the best qualities of a CRT and the best qualities of a HD LED together - except the price. You look at a Sony W9 and it looks great, but you can see the picture processing here and there, you can see where it get things a little wrong (jaggies on high contrast areas, occasional motion blur, etc). Like all TVs, it starts with the issues of a LED and then tries to use clever tricks and post processing to cover them up.

The Samsung OLED doesn't have any of those issues in the first place. Everything is pin sharp. Fine details are shown perfectly, and don't move around as the picture changes and the post-processing moves things about. There is absolutely no motion blurring. Blacks are black. Contrast is terrific. No backlight bleed, no halo glow. Warm, bright, vibrant colours with no over saturation.

The core functionality of the image quality is the best I've ever seen on any television by miles. Nothing touches it. The first time you see a 4K, it's impressive, but you look at the price and think "it's too expensive". The first time you see this Samsung OLED, it blows you away. You look at the price and start counting your savings to see if there's any way in the world you could ever possibly afford it. You know you're living in fantasy land, but it's now on the top of your list of "things to buy if you ever win the lottery". It really has that instant lust effect.

It is the perfect TV image, and I would get one if I had insane amounts of money going spare, and I had the space to park it. Putting the crazy price to one side, there is nothing out there that looks as good. It has a quality of "Oh, so this is what a TV image is supposed to look like". No compromises and IQ issues, just right in every way. It is a thing of beauty.

I don't have an kids to sell, so I'm just going to have a wait a few years for the price to come down to sensible levels.

 

[Arwin]

Nope, I don't work for Samsung, and I don't know anyone that does. I know a couple of people that have a Samsung phone (hardly surprising nowadays), but off the top of my head I don't think I even have any Samsung products of my own. I gain no benefit direct or indirect by sharing my gob-smacked-ness on this product. It's probably not such a good advert when it boils down to "great picture, insane unaffordable price".

I'm just pleased to see OLED TVs finally appearing, though they are still at a bonkers price. I've never been happy with LED/LCD - they've only recently got acceptable to me, and they still have too many compromises and issues to be perfect. Maybe one day the technology will be cheap enough for me to afford a more modest version of the same thing.

But as we're all enthusiasts here, I thought I'd share my first experience of the new generation of OLEDs, even if it's just seeing it on demo and chatting with the sales person. It's really something impressive and worth seeing if you happen to be in the area of one.

I just saw one too at mediamarkt, probably this LG 55" one (it was quite big) right across a 4K TV from Sony. I must say it looked really impressive. The 4K TV was definitely impressive too, but that one was so big, that it really was the size of 4 large Full HD TVs so that the resolution still seemed too low I would prefer to see 4K on a much smaller TV, perhaps a 42".

But I'm going to stick by my old philosophy, partly due to money issues. Back when I bought an HD Ready TV, I had the option to get a Full HD set at that point. But the HD Ready TV had better colors and was nearly half the price. Now, I can get a far, far superior Full HD TV of the same size for half the difference of that price. So yeah, like you BZB, I'm going to have to play the waiting game. And perhaps get that Full HD TV now instead (but a 107cm one instead of a 82cm one I have now)

 

[Gerry]

I know people that don't balk at spending several thousands on a pair of speakers.

There's a thread on avforums.co.uk where somebody has taken delivery of the new Samsung OLED and is singing it's praises. He put up a photo of his set-up, which included (IIRC) a set of $200K speakers.

 

[London Geezer]

OLED is definitely back. Panasonic announced their 4K, HDR, THX-approved OLED TV to be released in a month or so at extortionate prices but you know how these things work.

http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/viera-televisions/led/tx-65cz952b.html

All I want for Christmas is you.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's a good sign that LG are finally getting enough manufacturing supply combined with good enough yields to start supplying other TV manufacturers with OLED panels.

If they can keep ramping up, it won't be long before Sony is offering them as well, I'd imagine. Assuming Sony stays in the TV business.

Regards,
SB

 

[Grall]

I really wish Apple would do a TV... Someone needs to do something about these god damn remote controls we have to live with.

 

[Snyder]

I really wish Apple would do a TV... Someone needs to do something about these god damn remote controls we have to live with.

It seems they are starting to get somewhere. A friend of mine got a LG with WebOS 2 and - colour me surprised - the UX is actually rather good! It is somewhat reminiscent of controlling the Wii, and it works fast and intuitive:

Compared to the abomination that's the interface of my 2011 LG, it's a whole new world.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

OLED Gets Cheap: LG Slashes Its OLED TV Prices

LG’s new pricing takes between 30% and 45% off the prices of its new flat-screened EF9500 and curved EG9600 4K UHD TVs, as well as bringing full HD OLED down to below $2,000 for the first time.
(...)
It’s worth adding, too, that all of LG’s new OLED TVs meet the CEA guidelines for playback of high dynamic range (HDR) content.

Mark my words: in 2 years, I'll get my 65" 4K HDR OLED TV for €1500 or less.

 

[Gubbi]

My threshold is €2500 for a flat 60"

Cheers

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I agree. I think 2000 - 2500 euros for a flat 55+ tv would be a pretty good deal. 55+ are the top end of the market so lets keep realistic and remind ourselves LG and whoever else buys there panels is probably going to charge a premium for them. Current high end LCD tv's are priced similar.

Btw I was bored last week and went to Yodobashi Camera. Usually not my favorite spot to be on a Sunday afternoon given the ridiculous amount of people and the love Japanese have for making as much noise as they can. Contrary to what the salesmen here seem to believe shooting in my ear with a megaphone is NOT going to make me buy your crap.

Anyway I think Yodobashi wants to kill off whatever is left of the Japanese tv manufactures because they put some OLED tv's next to (more expensive!) LCD tv's. All I can say is; I'm pretty sure even the biggest nationalist isn't going to buy a non OLED tv after seeing it next to a LCD tv

 

[Grall]

I would be quite interested if a flat 40" 4K model cost no more than €1000. As the picture of my current LCD TV is quite good - it's a upper mid-range model a couple years old - I won't buy another LCD TV in the meanwhile waiting for prices to drop. I'll sit on this thing.