LG OLED 65" Price

[kmpowell]

hyphen said:

+1 LG have themselves said screen panels/soc chip are identical on all their 2017 OLED's. It is just extras like external design and any built in soundbars.

kmpowell- are you still with your return period? if so give it back and get the oled

As stated, I bought before the 2017 models came out, so I was basing my assumption versus 2016 models (B6) without realising LG had changed things for 2017 models.

Perhaps the B7 has come on leaps and bounds, but not from what I've seen in the shops. I'll wait for OLED to catch-up on the 3 things (brightness, upscaling, motion handling) that matter to me before investing.

[RobDickinson]

motion handling?

oled changes state far quicker than led, all you have to do is switch the stupid processing off.

[jmorgan]

Upscaling is damned impressive as well. Should be if you think about it. Apart from SD obviously.

[RobDickinson]

Yep blown away with the IQ of mine.

Only thing that looks crap is the SD local stuff because well SD low bandwidth junk....

[legzr1]

I'll say it (I know others are thinking it...) - sounds like sour grapes from someone who has bought the wrong TV

[jmorgan]

To be honest, I wasn't. It will be a personal choice.

[robinessex]

Considering only about 20% of the channels on my TV are HD, 4K & 8K seems pointless. Incidentally, why is the Beebs ( and others) HD service picture quality crap compared to a film?

[jmorgan]

BIt rates.

Edit. When you say film, watched on what?

To get a signal to your TV it will be compressed. At the cinema less so.

I find the TV HD services are very good for the main channels, all things considered. Not a bluray 1080 p but when you think that it is compressed, muxed and squirted through the atmosphere to a twig of an aerial on your roof with some shonky wiring to the set, it is not that bad.

Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 12th September 07:20

[Fast and Spurious]

RobDickinson said:

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.

14.35m in proper units.... That's one big telly. Do you live in a barn?

[kmpowell]

legzr1 said:

I'll say it (I know others are thinking it...) - sounds like sour grapes from someone who has bought the wrong TV

Genuinely not. I'm more than happy with my XD93. At the time of purchase it was the Sony or the OLED B6, and the XD93 walked all over the B6 (apart from the blacks) in most aspects that matter to me. All the reviews supported the all round ability of the XD93: https://www.whathifi.com/sony/kd-55xd9305/review

If the B7 has improved that much over the B6, then fair enough, but as the B7 wasn't out I didn't have the option, and from what I've seen in passing in the shops, the picture doesn't look that different to the B6.

Each to their own, but I liked what I liked at the time of purchase and without wishing to sound vulgar I bought on features rather than price.

[varsas]

robinessex said:

Considering only about 20% of the channels on my TV are HD, 4K & 8K seems pointless. Incidentally, why is the Beebs ( and others) HD service picture quality crap compared to a film?

Broadcast DVB-S2 HD isn't full 1080p, it's 1080i so that's a change, and then it's all down to compression. BBC HD is around 10-12 mbit/s, a BluRay will be more like 20 mbit/s, rising to maybe 25...but with a theoretical maximum of 40mbit/s. 4k UHD BluRay can double those figures again (actually 128mbit/s theoretical), as well as using the more advanced H.265 compression algorithm.

Edited by varsas on Tuesday 12th September 13:36

[legzr1]

kmpowell said:

Genuinely not. I'm more than happy with my XD93. At the time of purchase it was the Sony or the OLED B6, and the XD93 walked all over the B6 (apart from the blacks) in most aspects that matter to me. All the reviews supported the all round ability of the XD93: https://www.whathifi.com/sony/kd-55xd9305/review

If the B7 has improved that much over the B6, then fair enough, but as the B7 wasn't out I didn't have the option, and from what I've seen in passing in the shops, the picture doesn't look that different to the B6.

Each to their own, but I liked what I liked at the time of purchase and without wishing to sound vulgar I bought on features rather than price.

As an early adopter with a second gen 65EF950 my eyes see exactly the opposite.

At that time, LED lit LCD screens came across as huge, inexpensive retina burning devices with relatively narrow viewing angles. Things have moved on with LCD but not by much and nothing since has made me question my choice.

Agreed, each to their own but to dismiss glowing recommendations of OLED as a 'wkfest' does you no favours.
The ability to actually display black correctly makes for fantastic viewing experiences with decent feeds is something else you seem to skirt over - it's fundamental in doing what OLED does and to rank that ability alongside the (questionable) ability of LCD to better upscale or process motion says more than I ever could.

Not sure what was vulgar about your features over price comment.
If that was truly your MO during purchasing you should have been looking at the E or G six-series.

[legzr1]

jmorgan said:

BIt rates.

Edit. When you say film, watched on what?

To get a signal to your TV it will be compressed. At the cinema less so.

I find the TV HD services are very good for the main channels, all things considered. Not a bluray 1080 p but when you think that it is compressed, muxed and squirted through the atmosphere to a twig of an aerial on your roof with some shonky wiring to the set, it is not that bad.

Edited by jmorgan on Tuesday 12th September 07:20

As an aside, it's a little annoying when the PQ from broadcast freeviewHD easily betters 99% of the stuff Sky put out in 'HD'.. Even when both at 1080i. Free view at 1080P widens the gap.

Thank god for 4K steaming and UHD BR.

Maybe time to move to SkyQ?

[jmorgan]

I noticed a few BBC 1080p coming through. On BT here so in that system at the moment however Netflix for non sport and player for the rest. Just got Blade Runner 4K.....

Apple are probably announcing a 4k Apple TV this afternoon (worst kept secret), be interesting to see what that brings, and Disney is going in house, app maybe? Guardians off the Galaxy II was their first 4k HDR. If they do Star Wars then my wallet gets hammered (apart from the daft ones).

I hope Apple do something sensible with the 4K box, but knowing them it will be like Ikea, almost there but a bit odd and useless at times.

[kmpowell]

legzr1 said:

If that was truly your MO during purchasing you should have been looking at the E or G six-series.

I did, but the E6 didn't have the same motion handling or upscaling ability of the XD93.

I hear what you're saying about blacks (and I wouldn't argue about that), but for live sports and 90% of TV (away from the demos in the shops), decent upscaling and motion is more important IMO.

[Chris Stott]

If cost isn't a problem, I'm not sure why anyone would choose any LCD over the basic LG OLED.

The only reason I have a JS9000 Samsung is LG don't make a 48" OLED (can't get a bigger screen in my room). I've had the JS nearly 2 years and the picture is generally stunning (once set up correctly). But every time I go to my in laws, and watch stuff on their OLED's I'm blown away (they have a 55" in the living room and a 65" in the play room). It does everything a top end HDR LCD does, and then sticks perfect, inky blacks on top.

Upscaling? I've never noticed any shortfalls watching Sky Q, PS, XB, BR or 4K HDR BR. Motion handling? Brother-in-law and I watch loads of footy, and motion handling is perfect.

The only criticism I could throw at it is it doesn't do black to just off black graduations/transitions that well... so the picture can (very occasionally) look overly dark... but it's nit picking really. Picture is phenomenal.

legzr1 said:

As an aside, it's a little annoying when the PQ from broadcast freeviewHD easily betters 99% of the stuff Sky put out in 'HD'.. Even when both at 1080i. Free view at 1080P widens the gap.

Thank god for 4K steaming and UHD BR.

Maybe time to move to SkyQ?

Sky Q is only 1080i, though there are a few programs and films broadcast in UHD. UHD on Q is about the same quality as a 1080p BR. UHD/HDR BR is on another level all together.

Not sure why people criticise SKY PQ. I only really watch sports/films/Atlantic, and never watch SD channels, and the PQ on my TV looks really good. Perhaps my TV just works well with the source... though BIL's OLED also looks really solid too.

[jmorgan]

Apple TV 4k looking interesting. Need more details though.

[legzr1]

Chris Stott said:

Sky Q is only 1080i, though there are a few programs and films broadcast in UHD. UHD on Q is about the same quality as a 1080p BR. UHD/HDR BR is on another level all together.

Not sure why people criticise SKY PQ. I only really watch sports/films/Atlantic, and never watch SD channels, and the PQ on my TV looks really good. Perhaps my TV just works well with the source... though BIL's OLED also looks really solid too.

That's a shame - thought I'd read that their HD was being upped to 1080P although that was some time ago.

Maybe it's time I revisited the settings on mine - dark scenes on most Sky HD channels vary from acceptable to atrocious and unwatchable - never an issue with broadcast 1080P, streamed 1080 and 4K or BR and UHD.

I genuinely don't get this nonsense about Sony LCD bettering the upscaling and motion handling of LG OLED.

And it's a shame that OLED start at 55" - maybe that's where they think the market is.

[varsas]

legzr1 said:

Chris Stott said:

Sky Q is only 1080i, though there are a few programs and films broadcast in UHD. UHD on Q is about the same quality as a 1080p BR. UHD/HDR BR is on another level all together.

Not sure why people criticise SKY PQ. I only really watch sports/films/Atlantic, and never watch SD channels, and the PQ on my TV looks really good. Perhaps my TV just works well with the source... though BIL's OLED also looks really solid too.

That's a shame - thought I'd read that their HD was being upped to 1080P although that was some time ago.

Maybe it's time I revisited the settings on mine - dark scenes on most Sky HD channels vary from acceptable to atrocious and unwatchable - never an issue with broadcast 1080P, streamed 1080 and 4K or BR and UHD.

I genuinely don't get this nonsense about Sony LCD bettering the upscaling and motion handling of LG OLED.

And it's a shame that OLED start at 55" - maybe that's where they think the market is.

Maybe smaller one's are no cheaper to make...same number of pixels and all that? OLED 'phone screens would seem to show the tech can be scaled down easily...

[jmorgan]

I understand that that a few panels end up on the tip as poor grows or whatever? Maybe the cost of production means they need to keep to a few select sizes to make it viable on large panels?