LG's 48-inch OLED Gaming TV with G-SYNC Goes on Sale This Month

[bug]

hdmi 2.1 is a big deal and i wish it is a 4k 120hz native, c9 is natively 1440p 120 Hz external sources.

"The C9 can display most common resolutions. To display chroma 4:4:4 properly, the input label must be set to 'PC', and for high bandwidth resolutions like 4k @60Hz + HDR, the HDMI ULTRA HD Deep Color setting must be enabled for the port in use.

LG advertises that the C9 supports a 4k @ 120Hz input from external devices, but unlike the Samsung Q90R, it appears that this only works with HDMI 2.1 sources, as we were unable to get it to work. We will retest this once we have an HDMI 2.1 source."

"Update 06/01/2020: We've retested the input lag with G-SYNC enabled using the latest firmware (04.70.05) and the score has been adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, we were still unable to get a 4k @ 120Hz signal, we'll retest it once an HDMI 2.1 source is available. The tests were performed on a PC equipped with an NVIDIA RTX 2070 graphics card. "

LG C9 OLED Review (OLED55C9PUA, OLED65C9PUA, OLED77C9PUA)

The LG C9 OLED is an excellent TV. Like all OLED TVs, it delivers outstanding dark room performance, thanks to the perfect inky blacks and perfect black uniformi...

www.rtings.com

Of course you need a HDMI 2.1 source for 4k@120Hz, HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the bandwidth to push that. Unless you use 4:2:0 compression which kinda defeats the purpose of 4k (or at least gives you a reason to compare it with 1440 uncompressed and see which you like better).

Not meant for your desk. Bedroom, living room where you can connect PC to it.

You can wall mount it or use a floor stand. Still, I'd be more worried about burn-in than its size

 

[Betty (Kung Pow)]

Really want one of those, but with curvature, to replace my current curved samsung 48" 4K

 

[bug]

Really want one of those, but with curvature, to replace my current curved samsung 48" 4K

Why? Do you hate image that's not distorted?

 

[Betty (Kung Pow)]

Why? Do you hate image that's not distorted?

Not really possible to sit close (like normal screen distance) to a flat screen that big
Feels like the middle is hitting you and the edges dissapear away.
Been using my curved 48" for about 4 years now, so cant really say it gets distorted when you sit in the sweetspot
But then again, i dont adobe, so might not be that affected

 

[Chrispy_]

You had me standing corrected at least... but ULMB still doesn't sound like a logical solution, unless you also find some way to counteract the brightness loss. There are some panels doing it apparently according to blurbusters, but are there truly suitable gaming OLED panels out there with some sort of BFI? Article was a year old but I don't see them out in the wild. Not that I'm actively looking.

I don't see that brightness is an issue. On a 300nit LCD panel, ULMB will reduce brightness to 100-150 nits because the light pulse will be 1/3rd to 1/2 the refresh duration and the length of the pulse has a linear relationship with brightness. 100 nits means you need to be indoors and away from bright reflections or rooms with lots of windows on a clear day, but I would naturally choose a lower brightness than ULMB forces on my monitor.

For OLED screens with HDR certification, they need to be able to reach 540nits so at 120Hz you could run a 3ms pulse and still have 200nits brightness with ULMB.

Honestly, the "ULMB is too dark" thing is a hangup from the very early days of Lightboost for 3DVision and perhaps some poor/afterthought implementations today. Yes it's darker, but on TV's with >1000nits it's especially irrelevant.

 

[Nater]

No Displayport? I can't get HDMI to look worth the shit on my LG 34GK950-F. (Radeon 5700XT/Quadro M4000) Makes me hesitate. Maybe 2.1 makes it a moot point.

 

[Chomiq]

To be fair, they are Gsync compatible, they don't feature full gsync modules.

 

[Metroid]

To be fair, they are Gsync compatible, they don't feature full gsync modules.

variable refresh rate is just a different name of freesync.

 

[Valantar]

The CX series has 120Hz black frame insertion as a part of its Motion Pro settings, there are video reviews on YouTube of the 55" model going into this in good detail. Tl;dw: the highest setting (50% duty cycle+BFI) is a bit flickery, the next one down (50% duty cycle only) is not. Low at 70% duty cycle was obviously not flickery either. Brightness dropped from 200 nits to 150 for medium and 176 for low. Blur reduction for non-PC content wasn't great on the non-BFI modes though, sadly they didn't cover those modes in game mode. High/BFI increased motion resolution significantly.

These also will be getting FreeSync support in an upcoming update, by the way. Which means that one of these (or more likely the near identical BX series - all the same gaming features, just a slightly weaker SoC) is going on our wall once we get around to buying a new TV for the new apartment.

Also, monitor manufacturers need to get their collective feet out of their collective butts before the upcoming console launch. Is the Eve monitor going to be the only HDMI 2.1 UHD120 HDR monitor out there?

Edit: added a video link and some clarification about BFI.

 

[bug]

Not really possible to sit close (like normal screen distance) to a flat screen that big
Feels like the middle is hitting you and the edges dissapear away.
Been using my curved 48" for about 4 years now, so cant really say it gets distorted when you sit in the sweetspot
But then again, i dont adobe, so might not be that affected

Sounds more like you're sitting (way) too close. But hey, if that's what you need, I won't tell you otherwise.
Personally, I find curved passable, at best, if you sit dead center. Sit a little to the side and it's "why bother" all of a sudden.

 

[Metroid]

4k 120hz native hdmi 2.1 will become a reality once playstation 5 and xbox series X are released until then I'm happy with 4k 60hz.

 

[Valantar]

4k 120hz native hdmi 2.1 will become a reality once playstation 5 and xbox series X are released until then I'm happy with 4k 60hz.

The problem is that monitors ought to be available before the consoles launch so they can actually be used together. Right now, it doesn't look like it. Which absolutely sucks for those of us in the market for a new minutor who also plan to get one of these consoles. I'd want something below $1000 with UHD120, HDMI 2.1, HDR600 or above, good image quality and response times, and preferably ~32". Nothing even close to that exists in the market today. So I'll be sticking with my ancient 1440p monitor until I can actually buy something that I won't immediately regret buying.

 

[Metroid]

The problem is that monitors ought to be available before the consoles launch so they can actually be used together. Right now, it doesn't look like it. Which absolutely sucks for those of us in the market for a new minutor who also plan to get one of these consoles. I'd want something below $1000 with UHD120, HDMI 2.1, HDR600 or above, good image quality and response times, and preferably ~32". Nothing even close to that exists in the market today. So I'll be sticking with my ancient 1440p monitor until I can actually buy something that I won't immediately regret buying.

Two things that I just can't go back, monitor smaller than 27 inch, preferred 32 ~ 35 inch and the other thing that I just can't go back to is anything lower than 4k resolution and soon I guess will be anything lower than 120hz. I'm happy with 60hz because 4k is more important than refresh rate and my eyes tend to get red if I use the computer a lot at 60hz, 120hz would make my eyes much healthier.

 

[bug]

The problem is that monitors ought to be available before the consoles launch so they can actually be used together. Right now, it doesn't look like it. Which absolutely sucks for those of us in the market for a new minutor who also plan to get one of these consoles. I'd want something below $1000 with UHD120, HDMI 2.1, HDR600 or above, good image quality and response times, and preferably ~32". Nothing even close to that exists in the market today. So I'll be sticking with my ancient 1440p monitor until I can actually buy something that I won't immediately regret buying.

It's interesting the handful of monitors that meet those criteria are going for $2,000+, supposedly because FALD is expensive. Yet here we are, looking at something much larger, OLED based and priced at $1,500.
It why I've decided to go with a Dell U3219Q this year, foregoing HDR for the time being.

 

[R-T-B]

Read the primer on OLED sample-and-hold blur here, and then examples here.

The TL;DR is that 0ms OLED at 120Hz looks and feels very similar to a slower VA panel that has 8.3ms average response because sample-and-hold blur is the only real blur with modern, fast, gaming panels and pixel response is generally fast enough that it isn't the culprit when talking about blur.

I'm on my 3rd (6th if you count 90Hz+ ) high-refresh monitor and trust me that whilst more Hz definitely helps reduce the blur, even 240Hz is inferior to an old-school 85Hz CRT without ULMB.

More importantly, GPUs can't handle 120Hz at 4K in most games. Even Doom Eternal, which is phenomenally-optimsed is hovering at around 80fps on a 2080Ti.

I really don't feel the same blur I felt on 120hz VA panel on my present 55" B9 OLED. I think that's a pretty far stretch to claim.

Keep in mind, until you get a hdmi 2.1 source, you aren't going to be able to do 4K @ 120hz on this. I presently operate at 1080p for some games for that reason.

 

[londiste]

VA and OLED are very different. VA is often enough on the bad end of LCD spectrum with (dark) ghosting. A lot of problems with perceived motion on OLED comes from frames switching too abruptly. It could be enhancing the negatives of sample-and-hold.

ULMB has obvious benefits on LCDs due to reaction time but OLED is quite noticeably faster at that.
Still trying to find the time to properly read Blurbusters' references but is there something in how eye and vision works and perceives motion that benefits from blanking?

 

[R-T-B]

Of course you need a HDMI 2.1 source for 4k@120Hz, HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the bandwidth to push that

Also the new CX line is not fully HDMI 2.1 compliant like the C/B9's were. They are only 40gbps, and don't meet the spec, oddly. Still can do 4K at 10bit fine though.

 

[bug]

I really don't feel the same blur I felt on 120hz VA panel on my present 55" B9 OLED. I think that's a pretty far stretch to claim.

Keep in mind, until you get a hdmi 2.1 source, you aren't going to be able to do 4K @ 120hz on this. I presently operate at 1080p for some games for that reason.

I don't know, when we moved from CRT to LCD, actually having a permanent image to look at was a big gain as it massively cut back on eye strain. Now it's a major drawback all of a sudden?
And someone unrelated, classic cinema also had "sample-and-hold", because it was showing you the same image for a while. Though I guess because of the shutter, it also had built-in BFI?

 

[Betty (Kung Pow)]

Why? Do you hate image that's not distorted?

Not really possible to sit close (like normal screen distance) to a flat screen that big
Feels like the middle is hitting you and the edges dissapear away.
Been using my curved 48" for about 4 years now, so cant really say it gets distorted when you sit in the sweetspot
But then again, i dont adobe, so might not be that affected

 

[bug]

VA and OLED are very different. VA is often enough on the bad end of LCD spectrum with (dark) ghosting. A lot of problems with perceived motion on OLED comes from frames switching too abruptly. It could be enhancing the negatives of sample-and-hold.

ULMB has obvious benefits on LCDs due to reaction time but OLED is quite noticeably faster at that.
Still trying to find the time to properly read Blurbusters' references but is there something in how eye and vision works and perceives motion that benefits from blanking?

Nope. It's just that light to dark transitions* tend to be slower on LCD. Inserting black frames just makes it so that when the next frame is ready, the whole screen being black, all trasitions will be towards light, thus faster.

*We're talking going from a hue to a slightly darker hue. Going all the way to black is still fast.

Edit: I actually got the bit about transitions wrong, here's how they actually look: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/coolermaster_gm27-cf.htm#detailed_response
But the principle is the same, the slowest transitions happen between smaller hue shifts.

 

[Chrispy_]

I really don't feel the same blur I felt on 120hz VA panel on my present 55" B9 OLED. I think that's a pretty far stretch to claim.

I very much doubt an old 120Hz VA is remotely close to 8.3ms response. Only newer panels can manage this and even then a good number of them struggle to get the overdrive right on black transitions.

VA panels that could manage 120Hz without smearing didn't even exist until 2018.

 

[Valantar]

It's interesting the handful of monitors that meet those criteria are going for $2,000+, supposedly because FALD is expensive. Yet here we are, looking at something much larger, OLED based and priced at $1,500.
It why I've decided to go with a Dell U3219Q this year, foregoing HDR for the time being.

None of them meet my criteria, as none of them have HDMI 2.1. Which makes them utterly useless in combination with the upcoming consoles, as VRR won't be supported.

But other than that, I agree. Though to be fair, the TV market is much bigger than the monitor market, so there are more economies of scale in play. And at least for OLED making smaller panels is more difficult. But it really shouldn't be that difficult to make a <$1000 UHD120 HDR HDMI 2.1 monitor still.

Two things that I just can't go back, monitor smaller than 27 inch, preferred 32 ~ 35 inch and the other thing that I just can't go back to is anything lower than 4k resolution and soon I guess will be anything lower than 120hz. I'm happy with 60hz because 4k is more important than refresh rate and my eyes tend to get red if I use the computer a lot at 60hz, 120hz would make my eyes much healthier.

I'm perfectly happy with my 27" 1440p to be honest, and I frankly still think 4k gaming is stupid (not much perceived difference in visual quality, but much harder to render), but with the upcoming consoles I want a monitor fully suited for them nonetheless, especially as consoles don't generally allow for a lot of configuration in terms of output resolution etc. Most games will likely run at either 4k60 or some lower resolution upscaled if aiming for 120fps, so the difference won't be huge any way, but unless Sony starts supporting 1440p all of a sudden, at least the PS5 would revert to 1080p, which... yeah, that's pointless. The XSX should support 1440p though given that the XOX and XOS do. I want a faster refresh rate for the few fast paced games I play, though to be fair any modern display panel even at 60Hz should look much smoother and sharper than my current one. And I want FreeSync so that all games on my PC feel smooth no matter the frame rate. I wouldn't want 4k 27" for desktop use, which is how I've landed on ~32" 4k120. And given that I don't want to drag the consoles over to the TV every time I play a game with HDR, I would want good HDR too.

Though if the monitor makers don't start moving I might just save up and get one of these and wall mount it. It won't work for productivity, but it would be a hell of a secondary gaming monitor.

 

[skizzo]

That is too big to be placed on a desk to use isn't it?

Just take a look at my setup. 49" screen. Using an adjustable stand so it's just a little bit further away because yes unless you have a very "deep" desk it would be a bit close for comfort in my opinion

 

[Valantar]

Just take a look at my setup. 49" screen. Using an adjustable stand so it's just a little bit further away because yes unless you have a very "deep" desk it would be a bit close for comfort in my opinion

Got a picture?

 

[londiste]

Got a picture?

In the thread linked in his signature, I suppose:

Spoiler

I'd say vertical is the problem - height. I have 2x27" monitors on my desk and horizontally, it's fine. 48" is ~70% higher.
I would really love something in 43" range (similar PPI with 2160p as 27" 1440p) and I have used a 43" 2160p TV as a monitor for a while - anything bigger than that feels suspect