We are lucky they are cheap... :kookoo:

Am I to guess this is 22 inch? Also, can you draw directly on it? And finally, is that price for real?

Fail.

OLED is expensive. How many Samsung S10 screens you can cut from that 22"?
Also... price is relative. I know people that spend $5K just on rims and tires for their ride.

lol this is sad. i saw Samsung QLED side by side with LG OLED last year in a Best Buy, honestly the QLED looked 97% as good as the OLED, was jaw dropping - and no risk for burn in... i dunno about you bros but when playstation 5 launches, im buying a 2019 or 2020 model of samsung QLED 49" it will be wall mounted above my high refresh monitor, so pc gaming will also be done. just have to roll back my chair some

imo OLED is overrated. QLED has made great improvements I recommend you all go to a costco or best buy and look at them side by side.

This OLED is pretty cheap in production, maybe 200$ or so. But it is produced on pilot line with tiny capacity, and this is reason why price is very high.

lynx29I recommend you all go to a costco or best buy and look at them side by side.

I reccomend not doing this.

At places like that, those monitors are all uncalibrated and sitting there just bright as hell in 'store mode'. If you really want to see a difference, go to a more professional outfit where they will calibrate and side by side those things. A store like those is really one of the worst places to go.

Considering the process for manufacturing OLED has been advertised as notably cheaper and faster vs generic LCD ,im still surprised the premium remains?

I guess it will continue whilst sheeple or NPC's with the money keep paying... BOM for lcd vs oled is supposed to quite considerably differ.

lynx29lol this is sad. i saw Samsung QLED side by side with LG OLED last year in a Best Buy, honestly the QLED looked 97% as good as the OLED, was jaw dropping - and no risk for burn in... i dunno about you bros but when playstation 5 launches, im buying a 2019 or 2020 model of samsung QLED 49" it will be wall mounted above my high refresh monitor, so pc gaming will also be done. just have to roll back my chair some

imo OLED is overrated. QLED has made great improvements I recommend you all go to a costco or best buy and look at them side by side.

This screen uses neither Samsung nor LG, it's a JOLED printed OLED panel, so quite different tech. It obviously has a lot to live up to, but let's see, as it's too early to make any judgement here.

lynx29lol this is sad. i saw Samsung QLED side by side with LG OLED last year in a Best Buy, honestly the QLED looked 97% as good as the OLED,

This LCD is intended for graphic designers, photo/video editors etc.
It doesn't matter how the image looks. It only matters how accurate it is.

OLED screens can give you proper black, better accuracy and wider colour space. That's about it.

The price is high, but it's not unheard-of in graphics professional space. $3000 buys you a high quality 24-27" 4K IPS screen.
EIZO makes a monitor with similar specs: CG3145 although it's 31" instead of 22". It doesn't have the comfort of OLED, but uses a very sophisticated back-lighting solution.
Price: $30,995

SoNic67OLED is expensive. How many Samsung S10 screens you can cut from that 22"?

About 12 of them (or in a ballpark of $2000 worth of parts), which is more of an "apples to potatoes" comparison (different pixel density etc).
OLED on that scale is expensive, because there are no manufacturing facilities for large-screen matrices, and there is a higher chance of having defective panel comparing to smartphones.
No one's gonna buy a $5000 professional display with a couple of dead pixels, hence most of the manufacturing budget is probably going to QA and covering losses on defective parts.

22" panel that merely costs more than 65" "signature OLED" from LG.


WTF

SoNic67OLED is expensive. How many Samsung S10 screens you can cut from that 22"?

You could cut out 9 (nine) 22" panels out of 66" panel.

SoNic67OLED is expensive. How many Samsung S10 screens you can cut from that 22"?
Also... price is relative. I know people that spend $5K just on rims and tires for their ride.

5K for a 22 inch monitor isn't relative, its ridiculous. Even when Sony had its prototype mini OLED out a decade ago it wasn't 5K.

Do you know what they call people who spend 5K on rims... 50 Cent or a dumb fool :p

lynx29lol this is sad. i saw Samsung QLED side by side with LG OLED last year in a Best Buy, honestly the QLED looked 97% as good as the OLED, was jaw dropping - and no risk for burn in... i dunno about you bros but when playstation 5 launches, im buying a 2019 or 2020 model of samsung QLED 49" it will be wall mounted above my high refresh monitor, so pc gaming will also be done. just have to roll back my chair some

imo OLED is overrated. QLED has made great improvements I recommend you all go to a costco or best buy and look at them side by side.

QLED is just LCD and still fails at blacks and response times. That doesn't make it bad per se, but its not comparable to OLED, but rather to VA.

The best thing about this monitor is it can't actually output HDR. Its luminosity is too low (probably to counter burn-in).

notbThis LCD is intended for graphic designers, photo/video editors etc.
It doesn't matter how the image looks. It only matters how accurate it is.

OLED screens can give you proper black, better accuracy and wider colour space. That's about it.

The price is high, but it's not unheard-of in graphics professional space. $3000 buys you a high quality 24-27" 4K IPS screen.
EIZO makes a monitor with similar specs: CG3145 although it's 31" instead of 22". It doesn't have the comfort of OLED, but uses a very sophisticated back-lighting solution.
Price: $30,995

Don't graphic designers have static images for long periods of time as well though? Burn in is inevitable... so image accuracy does go downhill after that ya? haha

bugThe best thing about this monitor is it can't actually output HDR. Its luminosity is too low (probably to counter burn-in).

burn in is still inevitable. this is a 3 year long purchase max, maybe 5 if you are lucky and are using static images and UI's.

and don't graphic designers need a bit of brightness for accuracy? which counters notb's point...

lynx29and don't graphic designers need a bit of brightness for accuracy? which counters notb's point...

It depends. Monitors are best calibrated at 120cd/sqm. But if you want to do HDR work, you'd need blacks below what current technology can do (and a pitch black room to be able to see those blacks). So the solution is to work with brighter blacks and up the brightness to achieve the required dynamic range.

notb has a point in that you can't really judge a display based on showroom experience. In a showroom you see vibrancy and contrast shot all the way up to make you think whatever you have at home is bland by comparison. But that doesn't relate in any way to the ability to reproduce the colors faithfully.

bugIt depends. Monitors are best calibrated at 120cd/sqm. But if you want to do HDR work, you'd need blacks below what current technology can do (and a pitch black room to be able to see those blacks). So the solution is to work with brighter blacks and up the brightness to achieve the required dynamic range.

notb has a point in that you can't really judge a display based on showroom experience. In a showroom you see vibrancy and contrast shot all the way up to make you think whatever you have at home is bland by comparison. But that doesn't relate in any way to the ability to reproduce the colors faithfully.

I still don't see artists plopping down that kind of money. not in the world of OLED smartphones with super advanced cameras etc, hell even photoshopping on the new ipad pro with Apple Pencil is a pretty high quality experience, and 1/6 the price of this.

lynx29Don't graphic designers have static images for long periods of time as well though? Burn in is inevitable... so image accuracy does go downhill after that ya? haha

It may. You'll have to replace the screen every few years, so what? It's a business. It costs.
Employer has to provide the hardware needed to get the job done.
If a company decides OLED screens need replacing too often, it can keep using IPS. It's not like they're cheap. For example a hugely popular Eizo CG248 (24", 4K) costs $3000.

Keep in mind that screens used by graphic designers, photo/cine editors and DTP guys are tested and calibrated on regular basis (usually around once a month).
The ones that don't meet requirements are replaced - just like every important tool in every business. It's a standard procedure.

It makes no sense to save money on screens and end up with worthless products. :-)
You can save on CPUs, on disks, on chairs, on toilet paper. Not on monitors.

this is a 3 year long purchase max, maybe 5 if you are lucky and are using static images and UI's.

3-5 years is the standard depreciation period for computers. Not a problem.

lynx29I still don't see artists plopping down that kind of money. not in the world of OLED smartphones with super advanced cameras etc, hell even photoshopping on the new ipad pro with Apple Pencil is a pretty high quality experience, and 1/6 the price of this.

You expect people to throw away 20-30" screens and work on 10" tablets? Really?

Do you work on a computer? What would you think if your company replaced them with tablets and smartphones? :-)