LG OLED 65" Price

[AshBurrows]

Alucidnation said:

I'm avoiding OLED for now as the picture isn't quite as good as LED at the moment.

In what world?

I have a Panny ZT plasma and the only thing that's giving me pause for thought is the latest wave of OLEDs.

[XMT]

AshBurrows said:

Alucidnation said:

I'm avoiding OLED for now as the picture isn't quite as good as LED at the moment.

In what world?

I have a Panny ZT plasma and the only thing that's giving me pause for thought is the latest wave of OLEDs.

I have to say its the first I have heard that an OLED screen doesnt give as good a PQ as an LED; politely disagree.
I currently have a fairly decent LCD screen (bought 6 years ago) but I never saw anything that would make me change to an LED.

The OLED I feel warrants a change and it feels like a decent upgrade.
Being over on the AV Forum I know its mainly plasma owners who have been very reluctant to change to any new tech of TV, that is until now due to OLED TVs.

They feel its a worthy replacement in the majority of cases.

[jmorgan]

If that is what Alucidnation likes then that is what it is. I think all aspects of this are subjective, the person doing the watching has to make their own mind up.

Me personally OLED all the way, me in a parallel dimension, maybe LED all the way.

[varsas]

craigjm said:

People with anything much bigger than that in an average sized lounge are sitting too close to it.

Edited by craigjm on Wednesday 30th August 07:02

I had an 84 inch screen from a projector in my lounge...it looked great!

[Armitage.Shanks]

Since I bought an LG OLED tv having reviewed all the different types in store accessing the same input source ie Sky HD and given that most sources I watch are in HD format anyway (and will be for some time) I will never consider another type of screen.

OLED is in a different league IMHO. I'm not a expert but I went in to buy an LED format and came out with an OLED

[craigjm]

varsas said:

craigjm said:

People with anything much bigger than that in an average sized lounge are sitting too close to it.

Edited by craigjm on Wednesday 30th August 07:02

I had an 84 inch screen from a projector in my lounge...it looked great!

Your eyes are designed to focus in a certain way and at a certain distance and if you were less than 15ft away from that minimum then you were not doing your eyes any favours

[anonymous-user]

craigjm said:

Your eyes are designed to focus in a certain way and at a certain distance and if you were less than 15ft away from that minimum then you were not doing your eyes any favours

There is a scale used as a reference, covered here https://www.crutchfield.com/S-XThJiPmekX3/learn/le...

I chose my TV size based on this.

[craigjm]

jsf said:

craigjm said:

Your eyes are designed to focus in a certain way and at a certain distance and if you were less than 15ft away from that minimum then you were not doing your eyes any favours

There is a scale used as a reference, covered here https://www.crutchfield.com/S-XThJiPmekX3/learn/le...

I chose my TV size based on this.

There is actually a formula that has been around for decades used by all the big manufacturers and it's viewing distance in inches divided by 3 simple as that. So if you're 10ft away that's 120
Inches and therefore a 40 inch tv. This is where you get into the realms of needing to be 20ft away from the 80 inch screen mentioned above.
If you sit too close to your TV then you just end up with eye strain and all this crap about sitting closer to a 4K TV etc because of the detail is just marketing crap to get you to buy a bigger TV.

[varsas]

craigjm said:

varsas said:

craigjm said:

People with anything much bigger than that in an average sized lounge are sitting too close to it.

Edited by craigjm on Wednesday 30th August 07:02

I had an 84 inch screen from a projector in my lounge...it looked great!

Your eyes are designed to focus in a certain way and at a certain distance and if you were less than 15ft away from that minimum then you were not doing your eyes any favours

I don't believe sitting too close to a screen damages your eyes. You may get eye strain, but that's less likely on a projected image as it is generally dimmer and with lower contrast. Mine was LCD based so no flicker either. People should be aware of what eye strain is, and lok for symptoms in whatever environment they have and adjust as required. I was about 10 feet from my screen and had no problems.

This article:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Eyehealth/Pages/Looking...

does not mention anything about TV viewing distances.

Edited by varsas on Thursday 31st August 14:30

[jmorgan]

Are my eyes buggered if I get less than 15' from the world around me?


4k flipped stuff on its head I thought, the resolution we are now concerned with, the MKI can see it quite well. 7' from my TV.

[craigjm]

varsas said:

craigjm said:

varsas said:

craigjm said:

People with anything much bigger than that in an average sized lounge are sitting too close to it.

Edited by craigjm on Wednesday 30th August 07:02

I had an 84 inch screen from a projector in my lounge...it looked great!

Your eyes are designed to focus in a certain way and at a certain distance and if you were less than 15ft away from that minimum then you were not doing your eyes any favours

I don't believe sitting too close to a screen damages your eyes. You may get eye strain, but that's less likely on a projected image as it is generally dimmer and with lower contrast. Mine was LCD based so no flicker either. People should be aware of what eye strain is, and lok for symptoms in whatever environment they have and adjust as required. I was about 10 feet from my screen and had no problems.

This article:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Eyehealth/Pages/Looking...

does not mention anything about TV viewing distances.

Edited by varsas on Thursday 31st August 14:30

I didn't say it would damage your eyes I said it would do them no favours. As I said in a subsequent reply, and you elude to here, eye strain is the issue. Children can focus at shorter distances than adults so it doesn't effect them so much but for adults it's the source that is the issue. As you say a projected image is softer and that's not an issue it's the bright, glaring 4K TV that the sellers try and convince you that you need to sit closer to "to see the detail" (read that as sell you a bigger TV than you need and will look stupid in your living room) that are a problem for eye strain.

Also with all this rush to 4K as being the new panacea of TV, one has to remember that the effect is limited by the quality of ones own eyes. If you are wearing any kind of corrective device, particularly glasses then the impact of the definition is lessened anyway.

[anonymous-user]

craigjm said:

I didn't say it would damage your eyes I said it would do them no favours. As I said in a subsequent reply, and you elude to here, eye strain is the issue. Children can focus at shorter distances than adults so it doesn't effect them so much but for adults it's the source that is the issue. As you say a projected image is softer and that's not an issue it's the bright, glaring 4K TV that the sellers try and convince you that you need to sit closer to "to see the detail" (read that as sell you a bigger TV than you need and will look stupid in your living room) that are a problem for eye strain.

Also with all this rush to 4K as being the new panacea of TV, one has to remember that the effect is limited by the quality of ones own eyes. If you are wearing any kind of corrective device, particularly glasses then the impact of the definition is lessened anyway.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion if you wear corrective lenses you wont see the benefit of HD as well as someone without that need? All glasses do is position the focal point of the light correctly as your own lenses are not functioning correctly.

The issue with too close to the screen is down to the point where you can see the structure making the image, the nearer you get the more you see how that image was constructed by its component parts of RGB.

[craigjm]

jsf said:

Not sure how you come to the conclusion if you wear corrective lenses you wont see the benefit of HD as well as someone without that need? All glasses do is position the focal point of the light correctly as your own lenses are not functioning correctly.

The issue with too close to the screen is down to the point where you can see the structure making the image, the nearer you get the more you see how that image was constructed by its component parts of RGB.

fking hell what is it with this thread and posters putting words in my mouth. I never said you won't see the benefit I said the impact is lessened that is entirely two different things.

[RobDickinson]

jsf said:

How are these OLED TV's comparing to Plasma?

I replaced my 42" pany plasma with a 565" LG OLED a year ago and its stunning.

HDR/Dolby vision in 4k on netflix is wow.

built in apps for everything are great

And picture quality is a good step on from the plasma.

[anonymous-user]

craigjm said:

fking hell what is it with this thread and posters putting words in my mouth. I never said you won't see the benefit I said the impact is lessened that is entirely two different things.

How is it lessoned if the corrected vision is the same as someone who doesn't need lenses once you have that issue sorted?

No need for the aggression chap.

[craigjm]

jsf said:

craigjm said:

fking hell what is it with this thread and posters putting words in my mouth. I never said you won't see the benefit I said the impact is lessened that is entirely two different things.

How is it lessoned if the corrected vision is the same as someone who doesn't need lenses once you have that issue sorted?

No need for the aggression chap.

It is never exactly the same because unless you laser correct you cannot actually ever achieve perfect vision from any kind of lenses. Apologies I thought you were the same poster that was challenging what I said earlier about distance from a TV.

[Durzel]

Alucidnation said:

I'm avoiding OLED for now as the picture isn't quite as good as LED at the moment.

I got my LG OLED65C7V the weekend just gone, it replaced a 2014 Samsung backlit LED LCD TV of the same size. The difference is night and day to put it mildly.

For what it's worth, I got mine for ~£2700 after using a 10% off code on Currys that ought not to have worked but did.

[kmpowell]

I find it funny how everybody buys into the "It's an OLED so it must be good" wkathon.

There are many factors that go into a panel, not just it's technology. At the moment a very high-end LCD can still outperform a low end OLED in many areas that are important e.g upscaling, motion and brightness.

Take LG OLED for example, put the low-end B7 and the high-end E7 next to each other and the difference is night & day, the picture on the E7 is significantly brighter and better.

As has been alluded to by one of the morons earlier in this thread, I recently chose a high-end 55" Sony LCD over a 55" LEG low-end OLED, purely based on its all round capabilities. The Sony trumps the LG for brightness, natural colours, motion, and most importantly upscaling. Sure blacks are better on the OLED, but for 99% of viewing it's hardly noticeable.

The only OLED I would personally consider is the Sony A1 or LG E7.

Edited by kmpowell on Friday 1st September 18:07

[w00tman]

kmpowell said:

I find it funny how everybody buys into the "It's an OLED so it must be good" wkathon.

There are many factors that go into a panel, not just it's technology. At the moment a very high-end LCD can still outperform a low end OLED in many areas that are important e.g upscaling, motion and brightness.

Take LG OLED for example, put the low-end B7 and the high-end E7 next to each other and the difference is night & day, the picture on the E7 is significantly brighter and better.

As has been alluded to by one of the morons earlier in this thread, I recently chose a high-end 55" Sony LCD over a 55" LEG low-end OLED, purely based on its all round capabilities. The Sony trumps the LG for brightness, natural colours, motion, and most importantly upscaling. Sure blacks are better on the OLED, but for 99% of viewing it's hardly noticeable.

The only OLED I would personally consider is the Sony A1 or LG E7.

Edited by kmpowell on Friday 1st September 18:07

All of the 2017 LG OLED models use the same picture SOC and are thus entirely identical, outside of any minimal manufacturing differences. This fact somewhat calls into question the rest of your post..

For my money, and that is literal as I was an early-adopted (LGEC930v) there is no comparison. Some very high-end LEDs are brighter, and it's arguable that their HDR implementation is perhaps better for that, but that's about it. Motion is handled very well, gaming response time is sub-30ms on HDR 4K modes, etc.

[kmpowell]

w00tman said:

All of the 2017 LG OLED models use the same picture SOC and are thus entirely identical, outside of any minimal manufacturing differences.

Fair enough, if that's the case (and they have give the B E picture quality levels). I bought in the 2016 model year, so the rest of my post is relevant to that year.

Edited by kmpowell on Friday 1st September 19:02