Friday, June 5th 2020
LG's 48-inch OLED Gaming TV with G-SYNC Goes on Sale This Month
LG is preparing to launch its latest addition to the gaming lineup of panels and this time it goes big. Preparing to launch this month is LG's 48-inch OLED Gaming TV with 120 HZ refreshing and G-SYNC support. To round up the impressive feature set, LG has priced this panel at $1499, which is a pricey but a tempting buy. Featuring 1 ms response time and low input lag, the 48CX TV is designed for gaming and fits into NVIDIA's Big Format Gaming Display (BFGD) philosophy. Interestingly, the TV uses LG's a9 Gen3 AI processor which does content upscaling so everything can look nice and crisp. Ai is used to "authentically upscale lower resolution content, translating the source to 4K's 8.3+ million pixels. The technology is so good, you might mistake non-4K for true 4K".
131 Comments on LG's 48-inch OLED Gaming TV with G-SYNC Goes on Sale This Month
This is a genuine question. What I do see, is FreeSync support was added post launch and GSync support is stuck at 'compatible' on the LG site. That usually doesn't spell ULMB.
Is it Motion Pro?
def not from using my PC though. but hey, each their own right! everyone has a preference and being entitled to it.
I'm not just going off their word for it though, I see it myself - it's a night and day difference on my own ULMB display and on OLED TV's I see in stores, exhibitions, showrooms.
Read the references but it does sound like you've never had the pleasure of seeing a responsive modern ULMB display capably of full pixel transitions between strobes. It's gloriousI haven't ever gamed seriously on one - a friend has an LG of some description (presumably a 2018 CX model) and TruMotion (Black Frame Insertion) was really nice for a PS4 Pro playing Horizon Zero Dawn for an afternoon. Input lag on a console at 60fps with a wireless analogue controller isn't really the best scenario to test input lag but it seemed fine.
BFI doesn't add any lag whatsoever. There's no additional processing or buffering that needs to be done - The only drawback to BFI is that it's tricky to avoid flickering at the same time as VRR, because the pulse length needs to be proportional to the interval between frames (which is variable during VRR) but if you run it at a fixed refresh then that doesn't matter. Maybe BFI and VRR is a solved problem by now - I'm not really sure.
Actually, it looks like LG solved HDR + BFI back in early 2018. Since HDR messes around with brightness one would assume that in solving that with BFI they've also managed to solve VRR?
There are technologies at work that reduce the impact of burn in and actively combat it; but they usually also incur some sort of pixel degradation, and that mostly shows in brightness loss over time, or some hues becoming less prominent. An LCD is still much more likely to remain 'as it was' over longer periods of time.
I had a look at the top end QLEDs and they sure do look good, contrast wise as well. I've got a simpler 43 inch one (no local dimming) downstairs. Its a decent VA, really. Not fantastic, decent. For gaming though... meh.Nice, well even a fixed refresh BFI is a nice to have, and if they can do that while preserving brightness (I suppose they use peak brightness more actively?), sweet.
Stilll though, when the pixel response is as stable as it is on an OLED, the benefit of BFI to me seems limited. And with it being a self emissive display... I do also think it incurs some sort of degradation, after all, pixels must go brighter and switch much more often.
You can probably tell I'm still a little bit anxious about OLED longevity :p I really want it to be perfect... but there's always a catch - usually.
OLEDs have a long life now - in that they'll probably go several years of regular TV and movies without burning out or fading. The blue OLEDs still have a short lifespan but most TVs now have a RGBB or WRGBB subpixel. The white saves the RGB from being used as much, and the BB stands for a double-sized blue subpixel which can be used at a lower brightness to extend its life.
Still, Sites like RTINGS have done the research for us and burn-in is still very much possible on a modern OLED if you leave it on a static image, so I'm making do with IPS and VA still!
Edited my previous post after looking back into this btw.Well, while there are individual variations in what constitutes good ergonomics, they all fall within a common spectrum which your setup looks like it's way outside of. Though from the looks of it that is set up to be used while leaning very far back, which would alleviate that to a certain degree - though it would then still dramatically increase neck strain even with a good head rest on your chair. You might not be susceptible to RSI from it, but that doesn't mean your sitting position isn't strained. Remember, what feels comfortable and what is good for your body are not the same thing - if that was the case, we wouldn't have an epidemic of RSI due to poor ergonomics in the first place. If it works for you then good for you, but it's important to take care of your body - those types of pains and injuries are really hard to get rid of once they take root.
I have been using a 42" TV (60Hz) on my desk as a monitor for several years now and cannot see myself ever going back to a smaller screen. The real estate is convenient for work. The large screen is immersive for gaming.
It's like in 1995 we all (or at least the old timers) had 15" monitors and were content. Probably back then many people would have thought that 27" is an overkill for a desk.
48" might be a bit too much, hard to tell. 42" is fine - minor head movement given the distance above.
cheap QLED is a joke though yes.
OLED can light one pixel at 500 nits and a neighbouring pixel at 0 nits true black without any problem.
QLED can light a pixel to 1000 nits but the 'black' pixel next to it will be 50 nits grey because each backlight zone is roughly a 160x160 pixel grid.
Also, the retina-searing brightness of QLED HDR isn't actually better, it just needs to be that bright to offer the contrast ratio, given the poor black levels. HDR isn't really about peak brightness, it's about a wider range of brightness and "range of brightness" is effectively a different way of saying contrast ratio. The thing that makes an OLED "pop" is the edge contrast, which will always be infinity:1 for anything moving against a black background. With QLED, the maximum static contrast is going to be the 3000:1 of the underlying VA tech. Your eye doesn't care that a completely different part of the scene in a different backlight dimming zone is perfect black, it's only seeing the contrast at the edge interface between the light and dark.
As for burn-in, I still wouldn't choose an OLED for my main PC screen or for anything showing a static UI for any significant stretch of time. Pixel shift and similar tech can't really do much about static logos, desktop/taskbar icons, etc. WOLED like LG uses (only white OLEDs with an LCD-like color filter in front) is much less susceptible to burn-in simply because you don't have the added factor of different wear rates for different OLED colors, but you still risk fading due to differences in intensity/luminosity over time. So if it's for varied use I wouldn't mind as long as some care is taken (set it to dim or shut off when idle etc.), but not for anything static. I couldn't use an OLED as my primary monitor as the Word and Firefox UI + taskbar icons would be bound to burn in, but it would make an excellent secondary monitor for gaming and the like. I would just really want it smaller than 48".That's a similar distance to my 27" monitor, which is exactly why I don't think anything much above 32" 16:9 will work for me. Mainly too tall, extra width doesn't matter much and can definitely be beneficial, but that would leave the top ⅓ of the monitor essentially unused. I wouldn't want to have to tilt my head back in order to see my tabs or office UI.