QLED vs OLED

Psycho Sonny · 20 Nov 2018 at 13:39

Ayahuasca said:
What is your usage? There are likely people here who use theirs for longer hours or with more static imagery than you would and haven't suffered any issues.

in that room it's 100% ps4 only. it is a games room.

Ayahuasca · 20 Nov 2018 at 13:43

Psycho Sonny said:
in that room it's 100% ps4 only. it is a games room.

Yeah but I'm asking what your usage is on the PS4?

Warbie · 20 Nov 2018 at 15:59

I think he's ruled it out as much for peace of mind as anything, which is fair enough. I've gamed plenty of panny plasmas that were far worse for image retention and never had any burn in. With my OLED I've yet to see any retention at all. Not even a smidge. Despite some long gaming stints.

TheVoice · 20 Nov 2018 at 16:53

Yeah I have no qualms about gaming on my OLED either. I think as long as you don't leave it on a pause menu for an hour while you go for dinner or something, you're not going to have any problems. All the consoles and the TV itself have screen protection features to dim the display when left static for a while too.

Psycho Sonny · 20 Nov 2018 at 23:22

Ayahuasca said:
Yeah but I'm asking what your usage is on the PS4?

The way oled works it doesn't matter if you only play the game for 30 mins a day. The same image over time is the issue.

With zero TV or movie usage it's not a risk I want to take.

I own a panny plasma the gt50 and I had retention issues that I ended up buying a gaming monitor to stop them. The panny panel was the second last panel made by Panasonic so it had all the special gimmicks oled also uses to prevent retention.

Pixel orbiter, screen cleaning, etc. It was still an issue.

I would be stupid to make the same mistake again.

I will buy an oled to replace the panny plasma at some point. I'm not against oled just for that room it isn't suitable

Ayahuasca · 21 Nov 2018 at 10:01

Psycho Sonny said:
The way oled works it doesn't matter if you only play the game for 30 mins a day. The same image over time is the issue.

I'd like to see some evidence of this, RTings tests were for much longer periods than that I believe and were also every single day of the week? I play FIFA quite a bit which has static imagery and I haven't even witnessed temporary image retention. Plasma was far worse than OLED for image retention so I can sort of understand your concerns but I think a lot of it is overblown, AVforums has some special folk who overthink and overanalyse everything and I've seen very little evidence of it over there, it's mainly banding that people complain about with OLED.

snarloas1982 · 21 Nov 2018 at 11:49

Ayahuasca said:
Yeah but I'm asking what your usage is on the PS4?

I have been playing the ps4 pro using the LG E7 now for almost a year with no problems with image retention. I previously used the VT20 & Vt50 for many years and had no issues at all.
Hopefully Black Friday is good for me to buy another OLED for the bedroom.

my kids both have led 4k sets from lg for gaming and the HDR sucks on them.

Psycho Sonny · 21 Nov 2018 at 12:04

snarloas1982 said:
I have been playing the ps4 pro using the LG E7 now for almost a year with no problems with image retention. I previously used the VT20 & Vt50 for many years and had no issues at all.
Hopefully Black Friday is good for me to buy another OLED for the bedroom.

my kids both have led 4k sets from lg for gaming and the HDR sucks on them.

that's because they aren't LED but LCD. they are also IPS and 8 bit panels with dithering.

therefore it's fake HDR. so i'm not surprised that it sucks on them.

like i've already stated i own a GT50 and had issues so therefore makes sense not to make the same mistake again.

Bigpig · 21 Nov 2018 at 12:08

Samsung Q9? If it's just for gaming and money no object.

Saying that it's pretty good for other uses.

Psycho Sonny · 21 Nov 2018 at 12:13

Bigpig said:
Samsung Q9? If it's just for gaming and money no object.

Saying that it's pretty good for other uses.

XF90 is the better option IMO

Bigpig · 21 Nov 2018 at 12:22

Psycho Sonny said:
XF90 is the better option IMO

Not sure on the input lag on the Sony but I was close to buying the Q9 but went for OLED again as I love Movies as much as gaming.

Psycho Sonny · 21 Nov 2018 at 12:28

Bigpig said:
Not sure on the input lag on the Sony but I was close to buying the Q9 but went for OLED again as I love Movies as much as gaming.

iirc it's 22ms and the only faster is the NU8000 which is 19ms however XF90 is a far superior tv FALD vs edge lit. top of the range vs mid end, etc.

snarloas1982 · 21 Nov 2018 at 13:08

Psycho Sonny said:
that's because they aren't LED but LCD. they are also IPS and 8 bit panels with dithering.

therefore it's fake HDR. so i'm not surprised that it sucks on them.

like i've already stated i own a GT50 and had issues so therefore makes sense not to make the same mistake again.

Sorry Sonny that response was aimed at the guy asking about using the ps4 on an oled set. I'm aware the other lg sets i have are lcd/ips/8 bit panels but within the specs it does state led (Marketing Scam in my eyes). I don't care that much about them to get the details 100% to be fair. If you had issues with the GT50 it would put me off also but i personally haven't with the VT sets i have/had (the VT50 will be going soon).

D3lirious · 21 Nov 2018 at 18:17

I've gone for the Q900 75" as a PC gaming/streaming TV. It might not happen, but if Samsung do let owners upgrade the one connect box to a HDMI 2.1 version, then there's the potential to run 8K with next or subsequent gen GPUs. Or, more realistically/usefully, 4K @ 120Hz

jpaul · 21 Nov 2018 at 23:19

D3lirious said:
It might not happen, but if Samsung do let owners upgrade the one connect box to a HDMI 2.1 version

I thought they had committed to that from the 8K thread discussion ? so if the don't provide it that would be money back down the line .... a bit more significant than the
home automation hub they had promised, people then used as a pretext for refunds. ks7000

... an interesting comment here about the credibility of the rtings oled burn in test ... they are not monitoring potentially increasing power consumption, which would be the set compensating for age https://www.techhive.com/article/3239350/smart-tv/will-hdr-kill-your-oled-tv.html

strawman - One interpretation of the 40% increased sub-pixel size on the b8 vs b7 panels is a straightforward, they found the lifespan was 70% of what they expected, so 7 years, say, as opposed to 10 ?

[
I don't understand the pedantic led/lcd distinction, saying led clarifies it is not a lcd with a ccfl backlight ... and we do not yet have uled displays, for there to be any confusion there.
]

Psycho Sonny · 22 Nov 2018 at 17:05

"I don't understand the pedantic led/lcd distinction, saying led clarifies it is not a lcd with a ccfl backlight ... and we do not yet have uled displays, for there to be any confusion there."

because again it's marketing BS

did we call tv's before LED. CCFL? no they were LCD's.

to now name them by the type of backlight being used is marketing trying to confuse consumers. it infers it's a new technology.

all that has changed is the type of lighting being used to light up the panel.

the correct name should be used or the full name.

so CCFL LCD, LED LCD or FALD LCD

do I say I am buying a FALD? do you see the word FALD being branded around? no because they cost more to manufacture and the margins are less.

they want people to be confused for profit. the biggest margins are in edge lit LCD's

Mal X · 23 Nov 2018 at 00:20

D3lirious said:
I've gone for the Q900 75" as a PC gaming/streaming TV. It might not happen, but if Samsung do let owners upgrade the one connect box to a HDMI 2.1 version, then there's the potential to run 8K with next or subsequent gen GPUs. Or, more realistically/usefully, 4K @ 120Hz

you are talking about a massively powerful pc to run 8k ? ...........not worth it m8, 1080p looks perfect to me

Poneros · 23 Nov 2018 at 01:07

Ayahuasca said:
I'd like to see some evidence of this, RTings tests were for much longer periods than that I believe and were also every single day of the week? I play FIFA quite a bit which has static imagery and I haven't even witnessed temporary image retention. Plasma was far worse than OLED for image retention so I can sort of understand your concerns but I think a lot of it is overblown, AVforums has some special folk who overthink and overanalyse everything and I've seen very little evidence of it over there, it's mainly banding that people complain about with OLED.

The evidence is already in, some people just refuse to accept it, but their loss (or not).

Let's take the Rtings test for example. In the first one where you have the logo elements of varying opacity shown on screen, you can begin to see burn-in starting for the solid logo (100% opacity) as soon as 700 hours in (of that logo being displayed). For 50% opacity, 800 hours in. At this point the 100% opacity logo is clearly visibly burnt in for normal usage. But okay, maybe this is a bit too extreme.

Let's look at Rtings test #2. In this case, burn-in is not much of a concern for most usage patterns except CNN (predictably), where at max brightness burn-in starts being exhibited after 2800 hours. Unfortunately another weakness of OLED becomes apparent. Even though it's not outright burn-in there are clear signs of colour degradation even in usage which is of a slightly more varied nature (FIFA 18, NBC, CNN, American Football) around this 2800 hour mark, with only the one being used to play CoD on being spared.

So what does this mean? It means that for people who are more single-minded about what they use their TV for, and who spend a lot of time on it, and like it bright, OLEDs are going to be with them for a short while before exhibiting various forms of degradation. So if you plan to drop a lot of £££ on a TV hoping to last you a long time, it's probably not wise for it to be an OLED. Here's Rting's take on it:

After more than 5000 hours, there has been no appreciable change to the brightness or color gamut of these TVs. Long periods of static content have resulted in some permanent burn-in (see the CNN TVs), however the other TVs with more varied content don't yet have noticeable uniformity issues on normal content. As a result, we don't expect most people who watch varied content without static areas to experience burn-in issues with an OLED TV. Those who display the same static content over long periods of time should consider the risk of burn-in though (such as those who watch lots of news, use the TV as a PC monitor, or play the same game with a bright static HUD). Those who are concerned about the risk of burn-in should go with an LCD TV for the peace of mind.

Note that we expect burn-in to depend on a few factors:

The total duration of static content. LG has told us that they expect it to be cumulative, so static content which is present for 30 minutes twice a day is equivalent to one hour of static content once per day.

The brightness of the static content. Our maximum brightness CNN TV has more severe burn-in than our 200 nits brightness CNN TV.

The colors of the static areas. We found that in our 20/7 Burn-in Test the red sub-pixel is the fastest to degrade, followed by blue and then green.

Domo · 23 Nov 2018 at 09:09

crinkleshoes said:
^^ this...

I went from 55" KS8000 QLED -> 65" LG B7 OLED and couldn't be happier.

The reports of brightness not reaching high levels are from older sets. The 2017 models are more than bright enough (brighter than my 50" Panasonic GT30 plasma).

Just reading back through this thread. FYI KS8000 is edgelit LCD, not QLED. I know because I still have one and two things majorly suck - the viewing angle, I mean you have to move just a few degrees off centre and the picture looks washed out (think QLED is meant to partly remedy this). And watching at night when light tends to bleed from the edges.

Projector or OLED next (for our new snug/man cave).

Psycho Sonny · 23 Nov 2018 at 10:41

Poneros said:
The evidence is already in, some people just refuse to accept it, but their loss (or not).

Let's take the Rtings test for example. In the first one where you have the logo elements of varying opacity shown on screen, you can begin to see burn-in starting for the solid logo (100% opacity) as soon as 700 hours in (of that logo being displayed). For 50% opacity, 800 hours in. At this point the 100% opacity logo is clearly visibly burnt in for normal usage. But okay, maybe this is a bit too extreme.

Let's look at Rtings test #2. In this case, burn-in is not much of a concern for most usage patterns except CNN (predictably), where at max brightness burn-in starts being exhibited after 2800 hours. Unfortunately another weakness of OLED becomes apparent. Even though it's not outright burn-in there are clear signs of colour degradation even in usage which is of a slightly more varied nature (FIFA 18, NBC, CNN, American Football) around this 2800 hour mark, with only the one being used to play CoD on being spared.

So what does this mean? It means that for people who are more single-minded about what they use their TV for, and who spend a lot of time on it, and like it bright, OLEDs are going to be with them for a short while before exhibiting various forms of degradation. So if you plan to drop a lot of £££ on a TV hoping to last you a long time, it's probably not wise for it to be an OLED. Here's Rting's take on it:

so that backs up my point

i use the TV in the games room for static content only (gaming) therefore would be stupid for me to get an OLED.

thanks for confirming this I just bought the sony XF90 10 mins ago