LG Display Unveils Next-Generation OLED TV Display, the OLED EX

[dir_d]

Ive had mine since a month after the c1 came out, Just have a black background or an active background, hide the taskbar and keep SDR to around 100nits and you wont have any problems.

 

[phanbuey]

Ive had mine since a month after the c1 came out, Just have a black background or an active background, hide the taskbar and keep SDR to around 100nits and you wont have any problems.

I've had mine close to 1.5 years now, and have done none of those things, turned off the static brightness reduction using the factory remote -- use it for 12-16 hours a day desktop usage.

No burn in yet... Unfortunately since i've got about 6 months left on that best buy burn in warranty :/

 

[Guwapo77]

Why? When the current ones are blindingly bright. I don't think ppl realize how bright current gen oleds are.

Because these crazy mofos want HDR9000 and to be blind by 30 years old.

 

[natr0n]

I miss the windows eXperience.

I always turn down the brightness a bit so idk how hdr is gonna work well if at all.

 

[Mistral]

We were supposed to have starships and flying cars, instead you are using Deuterium in TVs...

 

[Prima.Vera]

I want an 88" for 1000$ please.

 

[R-T-B]

Interesting. How long have you had yours and what changes to your UI have you made to prevent static images?
I'm bumping up against the limit of what VA high-refresh + strobing backlight can achieve and I'm dissatisfied but have accepted OLED isn't ready for proper 8+ hours a day desktop use yet.

I've had my B9 since the very earliest days of the pandemic. No habit changes other than dark mode and a screensaver. No burn in.

 

[konga]

People saying OLED is bright enough are missing the point. When LG's W-OLED panels get bright, they lean on their special white subpixels to do so. This results in very bright colors appearing washed out instead of properly saturated. Yes, it's still bright, but it's a desaturated brightness. If this enhances the brightness of all of their subpixels, then they have to rely on the white subpixel less, and colors can pop more and appear more saturated at high brightness levels. That's a good thing even if you aren't going to turn up the brightness level to a retina-searing level. This is the area that Samsung's QD-Display OLED technology will have a strong advantage in, so LG is trying to narrow that advantage with this tech.

 

[bug]

Oled tvs are good for at most 5 years usage, with this new thing, it might expand to 7 years. I'm still waiting for that microled monitor just because burn-in on oleds are bad for static things. For tv, oled is all right as content is always changing, for a monitor oled is bad, desktop is most of the time static. Well, you can always change background picture every minute, maybe 30 seconds would be best, no icons on the desktop, and taskbar only when you move the mouse cursor to it as known as "automatically hides taskbar". That will help a lot to contain burn-in from happening.

If you frequently use one app or another (web browser or something work related), it's gonna have a static interface. But, and this is a big but, burn in happens more at high brightness. The higher the brightness the panel will sustain, the harder it will be burn it at the normal 120nits.
TVs also have this thing that detects static stuff (logos) and dims them. I hope monitors will do the same, but this will interfere with color critical work - you'll have to turn it off then.

People saying OLED is bright enough are missing the point. When LG's W-OLED panels get bright, they lean on their special white subpixels to do so. This results in very bright colors appearing washed out instead of properly saturated. Yes, it's still bright, but it's a desaturated brightness. If this enhances the brightness of all of their subpixels, then they have to rely on the white subpixel less, and colors can pop more and appear more saturated at high brightness levels. That's a good thing even if you aren't going to turn up the brightness level to a retina-searing level. This is the area that Samsung's QD-Display OLED technology will have a strong advantage in, so LG is trying to narrow that advantage with this tech.

Sounds like you're assuming "bright" is always about whites...

 

[konga]

Sounds like you're assuming "bright" is always about whites...

No? On a good LCD, bright colors can be fully saturated and pop well with no white creeping in at all. W-OLED works differently though. They have a fourth white subpixel, and LG uses this to enhance brightness. It's a neat trick, but it does lead to desaturation in bright colors. This is why many reviews point out that bright colors are one of the drawbacks to LG's displays, and why HDR color volume measurements are weaker for LG's displays than competing high-end LCD/QLED displays. The more they have to use their white subpixel, the more desaturated colors will appear when bright. That's just how a W-OLED panel works. By enhancing the panel's overall brightness, they can alleviate that issue. It's a good thing for LG.

 

[bug]

No? On a good LCD, bright colors can be fully saturated and pop well with no white creeping in at all. W-OLED works differently though. They have a fourth white subpixel, and LG uses this to enhance brightness. It's a neat trick, but it does lead to desaturation in bright colors. This is why many reviews point out that bright colors are one of the drawbacks to LG's displays, and why HDR color volume measurements are weaker for LG's displays than competing high-end LCD/QLED displays. The more they have to use their white subpixel, the more desaturated colors will appear when bright. That's just how a W-OLED panel works. By enhancing the panel's overall brightness, they can alleviate that issue. It's a good thing for LG.

I'm not exactly sure how would you use a white led to produce bright reds, for example, I'll have to read more into W-OLED. I know about it, but not much.
In the meantime, my CX looks anything but desaturated.

 

[konga]

I'm not exactly sure how would you use a white led to produce bright reds, for example, I'll have to read more into W-OLED. I know about it, but not much.
In the meantime, my CX looks anything but desaturated.

Well, the issue is that a white LED doesn't produce bright reds. So when a highlight gets really bright on a W-OLED display, it loses some color definition because of that.

The way it works is that most ordinary displays have RGB (or BGR) subpixels. W-OLED is unique in that it has a fourth subpixel for white, making it WBGR. The fourth white subpixel serves no purpose in adding to color definition, since it's white. Instead, its sole purpose is to enhance brightness. The colored subpixels are actually heavily filtered white LEDs. The color filtering process is lossy and much brightness is lost to it. The white subpixel is unfiltered white, and it shines more brightly than the others because of this. So as a trick to the human eye, when they want to enhance brightness they make the white subpixels bright, and this makes the scene appear more bright overall. But since it's just the white LED getting brighter, it's not providing a lot of color definition. In most normal scenes of regular brightness, W-OLED displays are perfectly saturated. It's the bright highlights where color definition is lost due to this effect. This is also why color volume graphs, such as in this review, fail to show top-tier results for what is otherwise a great display.

 

[mama]

Seems to me the only people who have a problem with OLEDs are those who don't own one.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

heh, and now deuterated TVs... I wonder how this is going to work out. More brightness is fine if in an environment with a lot of light, but without even more deeper blacks to go with it, this could be a problem when it comes to level of detail. Well, at least if this product flops, we'll already have a name for it: "doodoo-rated" instead of deuterated.

 

[dogwitch]

Yeah... too bad LotR wasn't shot in HDR

Edit: A good showcase for HDR needs contrast, not just light. Perhaps a better scene would be some spell casting (fire) in The Witcher?

end oh the day. proper hdr is very costly from start to finish.
from software to hard ware side. also proper calibrating to.

games... ahahaah
dev really dont like standards to follow.
hdr is one of those that super ridge . for a reason.
so instead they will bs it and use auto hdr(which is fake hdr)

 

[Chrispy_]

Seems to me the only people who have a problem with OLEDs are those who don't own one.

I've installed four in conference rooms and despite my protests they were destroyed by burn-in. We now use QLED TVs and they're obviously inferior but still going strong.

In defence of OLED, this was almost 7 years ago now - OLED may have improved dramatically WRT burn-in and that's why I'm interested in feedback on current gen.

I'm not exactly sure how would you use a white led to produce bright reds, for example, I'll have to read more into W-OLED. I know about it, but not much.
In the meantime, my CX looks anything but desaturated.

9 out of 10 times you want peak brightness, it's white or almost white so W-OLED is fine.

Occasionally you want OMFG colour pop and that's where white OLED falls short since it can display a 700nit white but only a 350nit colour image. If you have the brightness cranked in a bright room or direct sunlight W-OLED is going to look wrong.

On the other hand, if you bought an OLED TV for a bright room then you're doing it wrong; OLED's biggest strength by far is black levels and contrast, both of which are ruined in a bright room. Response time is amazing too but with the primary content for TVs being 60fps or slower, the response time really isn't that much of a game changer.

 

[bug]

end oh the day. proper hdr is very costly from start to finish.
from software to hard ware side. also proper calibrating to.

It's actually not costly at all. It requires 10bits per channel, which is a 25% increase in bandwidth, but that's about it.

The hard part about HDR is the actual dynamic range. LCD can't meet that without resorting to local dimming - and nobody has figured out how to do that without breaking the bank. OLED is the only one suitable for HDR (ok, it won't work if you want a TV in the bar on the beach), but OLED isn't cheap either.

 

[konga]

I've installed four in conference rooms and despite my protests they were destroyed by burn-in. We now use QLED TVs and they're obviously inferior but still going strong.

In defence of OLED, this was almost 7 years ago now - OLED may have improved dramatically WRT burn-in and that's why I'm interested in feedback on current gen.

Every time there's a brightness and/or power-efficiency boost (they usually go hand-in-hand with OLED), that also means there's a burn-in reduction boost, though LG never markets this since they like to pretend that burn-in isn't an issue at all. The less power you have to send to a pixel to reach a specific desired brightness level, the less it will deteriorate over time. So if LG's super special deuterium tech allows for 30% more brightness at the same amount of power input, and if you have a specific brightness target in mind, you may need 23% less power to reach it. And the organic pixels will deteriorate less as a result. How much less is something I can't confidently say because this may not be a linear relationship, and other factors such as heat levels affect the stability of the organic compounds as well. Anyway, I would expect some small amount of extra burn-in resistance from this advancement, which compounds with the many other small advancements made over the years. In 2022, OLED panels will likely be considerably more burn-in-resistant than they were 7 years ago.

I do think it's worth being cautious about burn-in with OLED panels, even if there are many people who happily use OLED TVs as monitors without any noticeable burn-in. The posters in this thread are right—taking extra steps such as lowering the brightness to 120 or 100 nits, setting a dark background and using dark mode for your apps, and setting your task bar to auto-hide, will all help your display last longer. These aren't options for everyone, though, and OLED displays aren't appropriate for every use case. I work at home, and my work PC is also my leisure PC. It's also in a well-lit room. I'm used to 200 - 250 nits, not 100 - 120. I also have static interface elements on screen for 8 - 12 hours a day, every single day. There's no getting rid of them. And going full dark theme for everything is just not how I want to live my life, lol. I'll choose to hold out on OLED as my main PC display until there's a panel that can last 5+ years for less while being on with static interface elements for 3500+ hours each year. It's a pretty demanding requirement, and I'm guessing we're still quite a few years away from that being possible. In the meantime, I'll happily buy an OLED TV for the living room.

 

[Rob94hawk]

Took the plunge and bought the LG CX 55 a few months ago and love this thing! Don't even mind if it's already obsolete. Cause if my new tv is awesome, this new tech has got to be incredible!

 

[londiste]

People saying OLED is bright enough are missing the point. When LG's W-OLED panels get bright, they lean on their special white subpixels to do so. This results in very bright colors appearing washed out instead of properly saturated. Yes, it's still bright, but it's a desaturated brightness. If this enhances the brightness of all of their subpixels, then they have to rely on the white subpixel less, and colors can pop more and appear more saturated at high brightness levels. That's a good thing even if you aren't going to turn up the brightness level to a retina-searing level. This is the area that Samsung's QD-Display OLED technology will have a strong advantage in, so LG is trying to narrow that advantage with this tech.

LG has been hush-hush about what W-OLED actually technically is. There have been educated guesses - that I subscribe to - that W-OLED actually does not have subpixels in the traditional RGB-OLED meaning. It has white OLED - patent bought from Kodak - functioning as backlight and color filters on top of it - or no color filters in case of white subpixel. A number of things hint at this. The ~30% brightness hit compared to RGB-OLED for one, differential OLED subpixel aging problem somehow getting resolved in W-OLED and some others.

Similarly, Samsung is quite hush-hush about what exactly QD-OLED is. They have clearly tried a number of different approaches with varying levels of success. What we know is that QD-OLED uses blue OLED functioning as backlight. What is going on on top of it is where things get muddy.
- The most official-ish description for now seems to be that there is a QD layer with QDs to form red and green subpixels and backlight is directly used for blue. This does sound exciting and viable enough in theory but there are a couple nagging problems that I do not really see them having resolved just yet.
- A slightly different method was described a little while ago that I would suspect is what Samsung actually does - take the light from blue OLED and run it through QD filter to get a light with spectrum that has nice clean RGB peaks and run that through color filters. Essentially the same idea of W-OLED but white OLED being replaced with blue OLED plus QD filter.

 

[konga]

LG has been hush-hush about what W-OLED actually technically is. There have been educated guesses - that I subscribe to - that W-OLED actually does not have subpixels in the traditional RGB-OLED meaning. It has white OLED - patent bought from Kodak - functioning as backlight and color filters on top of it - or no color filters in case of white subpixel. A number of things hint at this. The ~30% brightness hit compared to RGB-OLED for one, differential OLED subpixel aging problem somehow getting resolved in W-OLED and some others.

Similarly, Samsung is quite hush-hush about what exactly QD-OLED is. They have clearly tried a number of different approaches with varying levels of success. What we know is that QD-OLED uses blue OLED functioning as backlight. What is going on on top of it is where things get muddy.
- The most official-ish description for now seems to be that there is a QD layer with QDs to form red and green subpixels and backlight is directly used for blue. This does sound exciting and viable enough in theory but there are a couple nagging problems that I do not really see them having resolved just yet.
- A slightly different method was described a little while ago that I would suspect is what Samsung actually does - take the light from blue OLED and run it through QD filter to get a light with spectrum that has nice clean RGB peaks and run that through color filters. Essentially the same idea of W-OLED but white OLED being replaced with blue OLED plus QD filter.

Yeah, I mentioned the white LED + color filters approach in another post in this thread. With QD-OLED(/QD-Display), I was under the impression that the quantum dots will perform a high-efficiency color conversion of blue light into red or green light for the RG subpixels and pure blue for B. The idea is that the quantum dots can take frequencies of blue light and convert them to frequencies of other colors. Much less light is lost in this process while potentially allowing for wider color gamuts to be expressed. (light filtering is a subtractive process, while quantum dot color conversion is theoretically not)

It's an exciting tech for sure. It'll just be very expensive to start with. There's also talk of displays in the future that will be fully quantum dot driven in some manner. I'm not sure what the theory there is (it was brought up in the Linus Tech Tips video where they toured a quantum dot production facility)

 

[londiste]

There's also talk of displays in the future that will be fully quantum dot driven in some manner. I'm not sure what the theory there is

Quantum dots can be excited by light - turning blue or UV light into pure green or pure red light. This is what quantum dot filters and QD-OLED are based on.

Alternatively, types of quantum dots can be excited by electricity, emitting light. These are used and driven similarly to OLED with the exception that light emitting part of the LED are quantum dots instead of organic stuff. Only experimental panels for this have been created and there seems to be a whole host of problems with getting that technology ready for mass production. Exciting tech but seems to be further away than microLED or by some accounts too difficult to make viable at all.

 

[Chrispy_]

Took the plunge and bought the LG CX 55 a few months ago and love this thing! Don't even mind if it's already obsolete. Cause if my new tv is awesome, this new tech has got to be incredible!

Every TV I ever buy is obsolete very quickly. The trick is to ignore the new shiny stuff and just be happy that what you now have is nicer than your old TV

Sat here on my 4K 120Hz 65" Samsung that has really flaky first-gen VRR support, I want a better TV but it's genuinely great and would do everything I needed to even if it was only 60Hz 1080p, all I really care about is black levels in a dark room and VA's good black levels and high contrast will suffice to quell my "urge to splurge" on OLED for a couple more years I hope.

 

[efikkan]

Why? When the current ones are blindingly bright. I don't think ppl realize how bright current gen oleds are.

Perhaps some are viewing their TVs in bright daylight.
But for those using blinds or watching in a darker setting, OLED is plenty bright.

Used as a monitor rather than as an occasional TV, OLEDs are still a disaster, right? Every test I've encountered about current-gen OLEDs is that they still burn in very quickly and you have to make some serious compromises if used for any kind of static content like OSD, HUD, OS constants.

OLED doesn't have burn-in.
OLED can suffer from uneven wear, but it has nothing to do with pictures being static. It's caused by areas being significantly brighter over time wearing those pixels more than the others. This will happen regardless if the picture is static or changing.
E.g. if you watch a news channel all day, you will probably see uniformity issues where the news anchors and news tickers are positioned on the screen, even though they are moving.

Still, unless you are taking it to extremes, panel uniformity after several years of use will still beat any LCD.

Oled tvs are good for at most 5 years usage, with this new thing, it might expand to 7 years.

Why? Have you experienced panels wearing out with normal usage?

The good old CRTs typically lasted 30-40 years of daily use (let's say 3-4 hours/day). Plasma panels generally last >15 years, LCD probably 10-15 years (depending on quality), but with OLED I don't know yet.

My primary concern with TVs today is the software breaking, an intentional hardware failure(usually bad caps or solder), or they somehow become obsolete before they break down. This is one of the reasons why I wouldn't pay a lot for a TV, because I expect it to fail after ~5 years.

-----

A pro-tip for TV buyers;
Generally speaking, there are at this point few improvements year-to-year for OLED TVs, and all OLED TVs have great panels (the same panels). So unless you strictly need a new feature, grab the previous generation on discount. Nearly every year I've seen them 40-60% off in Q1 the following year, that's the time to buy!

 

[Chrispy_]

OLED doesn't have burn-in.

And now we have a near-perfect description of burn-in that also applied to plasma TVs and CRTs. It may even apply to quantum-dot screens in time, they're too new and wear too slowly to know for sure at this point.

OLED can suffer from uneven wear, but it has nothing to do with pictures being static. It's caused by areas being significantly brighter over time wearing those pixels more than the others. This will happen regardless if the picture is static or changing.
E.g. if you watch a news channel all day, you will probably see uniformity issues where the news anchors and news tickers are positioned on the screen, even though they are moving.

Technically yes, it's burnout not burn-in but burn-in is what it's been called for almost a century now, deal with it.