Support NeoGAF

[ValiantInstance]

Posted this in the monitor thread but didn't realise there was another one.

Has anyone got an LG G6? Considering getting one on Black Friday upgrading from a G2 but wondering if it's a big enough leap yet.

 

[kevboard]

Posted this in the monitor thread but didn't realise there was another one.

Has anyone got an LG G6? Considering getting one on Black Friday upgrading from a G2 but wondering if it's a big enough leap yet.

I was looking at getting the G6 as well, until I saw the grey/low light uniformity issues (you see it most easily on grey but it's visible on all desaturated dark colors) of the current LG Tandem WOLED tech.
it's basically a complete lottery if you get a panel with ok-ish uniformity, or one with insane looking streaks across the screen from the unevenly adressed strips of pixels.

it's the old ricepaper effect early OLED panels had all over again, but if you're unlucky it's even worse than those.

so worst case scenario you gotta return it and try new ones until you get one with decently even uniformity

 

[kevboard]

does anyone know if there are any tangible differences between the EU Samsung S95H and S99H aside from the ugly metal frame on the S99H and the one connect box on the S95H?
like are there any good reviews comparing their panels? are they the same spec?

I read somewhere that the ugly ass metal frame is used as a heat sink to allow for higher peak brightness on the S99H, but I am not sure if that's actually verified with tests or pure speculation.

all the reviews I have found with tangible data (so not just "image looks good" type of reviews) are either for the S99H or the American S95H which is the same TV as the EU S99H, while the EU S95H seemingly doesn't exist in the US.

I know that the S95H 48" uses the LG Tandem WOLED panels, so the are instantly out of the conversation. I'm mainly looking for infos on the 55" version of the S95H, or if not available any of the other sizes with the QD OLED panel

 

[ValiantInstance]

I was looking at the G6 as well, until I saw the grey/low light uniformity issues (you see it most easily on grey but it's visible on all desaturated dark colors) of the current LG Tandem WOLED tech.
it's basically a complete lottery if you get a panel with ok-ish uniformity, or one with insane looking streaks across the screen from the unevenly adressed strips of pixels.

it's the old ricepaper effect early OLED panels had all over again, but if you're unlucky it's even worse than those.

so worst case scenario you gotta return it and try new ones until you get one with decently even uniformity

Thanks for the heads up, I've heard this can improve or even go away with usage though? The LG panels are the best all rounders so perhaps best to wait for the next generation.

 

[kevboard]

Thanks for the heads up, I've heard this can improve or even go away with usage though? The LG panels are the best all rounders so perhaps best to wait for the next generation.

apparently some of it gets better by running the pixel refresh a few times.
but now I'll probably just go with the Samsung S95H (EU Model) but I gotta find out if it has any panel downgrades compared to the US S95H/EU S99H... and somehow that info is nowhere to be found

 

[pepeno]

You know what also matters a lot when it comes to full field white? Lighting conditions. I don't game in a cave, I'm in a living room with windows that allow plenty of sunlight to come through. 450 nits full field white is lower than budget LCD televisions. Given the average person's viewing conditions, calling that a nuke is straight up comedy to me because 450 nits with all that sunlight coming in right now at 1 PM is perceptually a very bright grey.

Context matters. In a pitch black room with no lighting 400 nits is beyond enough, sure. 300 nits is plenty in that scenario. In a bright room? Not at all. The market agrees, which is why OLEDs are stacking layers to the customers' benefit. I'm now actively looking at future OLED TVs thanks to the reduced screen retention and jump in full field white from tandem OLED. I want to be able to have all the advantages OLED has over LED without groaning when a hockey game comes on in my sunlit living room.

You didn't read properly my post did you ? my point is that 400nits at 27' is not the same thing as 400nits at 86'. Those nits are measured by device that has small sensor and you put it directly to tv/monitor screen and whole aparature with sensor is like 1cm wide and tall walled off from rest of the screen otherwise it wouldn't show you 400nits as additional light from surrounding pixels would flood and increase actual brightness.

And that's not even going into FOV aspect which is separate as people love big screens mainly because they get higher FOV.

 

[Meicyn]

You didn't read properly my post did you ? my point is that 400nits at 27' is not the same thing as 400nits at 86'. Those nits are measured by device that has small sensor and you put it directly to tv/monitor screen and whole aparature with sensor is like 1cm wide and tall walled off from rest of the screen otherwise it wouldn't show you 400nits as additional light from surrounding pixels would flood and increase actual brightness.

And that's not even going into FOV aspect which is separate as people love big screens mainly because they get higher FOV.

My issue wasn't the information you presented, but rather the characterization. So my response focused on the characterization. My lack of acknowledgment isn't a lack of understanding, it just wasn't relevant to my point: not everyone's viewing conditions are the same, so blanket declarations are questionable. Your post was a follow-up to my post about 700 nits being achieved on tandem OLED which is a substantial achievement. You called 400 nits a "nuke" which only makes sense in a room with controlled lighting conditions. Doesn't matter if it's a 15.5" screen or a 115" screen, 400 nits looks like a very bright grey in a sunlit room at ANY screen size. Sure, the 115" will be perceptually brighter than the 15.5" monitor, but it's still substandard for a bright environment. That's MY point.

Hell, even my 75" Bravia 9 which hits 850ish nits full field can look a touch subdued when it's early spring and a ton of sunlight gets in. Where nits ceases to matter is something that must be handled in a case-by-case basis because most people don't have A/V reference conditions. OLED tech is beginning to erode its two biggest weaknesses and transmissive LED tech cannot ever close the gap on its own inherent weaknesses. I'm excited about this gap closure, and it's bizarre that anyone is still pushing the "X amount of nits is good enough" when the market clearly disagrees.

 

[pepeno]

Sure, the 115" will be perceptually brighter than the 15.5" monitor, but it's still substandard for a bright environment. That's MY point.

That's the thing. Your point doesn't land. You take measure of brightness in very specific test scenario and you try to apply it for different scenario.

Image scenario. You have a candle which outputs say 10W as photons because imo that should be the real measure not nits. Now imagine scenario where you have 1000 arranged in plane as TV candles that output 5W each. You are in bright normal day room.

Question of those two scenes we pictured which do you think will be blinding and which will be barely seen ?

Nits comparison makes sense when you compare them to same size of monitor or TV. Like this monitor is 27' and it is 1000nits max and this monitor is 27' and it is 1500nits. The 1500 one WILL be brighter. But if you compare 1000nits 27' monitor and 500 nits 113tv the tv one will appear much brighter despite the fact that on spec shit it should be only half as bright, because share volume of photons created increases apparent brightness because that was brightness is, more photons hitting your eye.

That's the same reason why my phone Razr60 ultra can hit 4000nits on screen in hdr content never beets my g5 which can do max 2500nits because sure it is super bright but there is simply not enough volume of photons to hit retina like with big tv. The single pixel on TV is like several times larger producing much more photons than single pixel on phone. Which is why whole room is bathed in light at night with tv and not with a small phone screen.

It is literally the same principle why at night things become brighter. Not just because eye accomodation but also because there are no other source of photos to mix with photons that hit your eye and dilute original brightness.

This works with eye accommodation to protect your eyes which is one of key ingredients in perceiving if something is bright or not. If you are sitting before 1000 5w candles you are literally blinded by light unlike 10w scenario.

Nits are great measure to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. 1000nits 20 inch monitor =/= 1000 nits 65inch tv.

Where nits matter is in highlights, those 1-10% window you often see in reviews. That's where it matters because it is angle of object that matters there not total volume. Aka the difference between shadowed area and very bright area on screen. In those kind of conditions nits matter.

 

[b0uncyfr0]

Main TV - OLED.

PC monitor - MiniLED (it has to be a good one though).

I like HDR so OLED's are kinda crap in that area. There are pro's/cons but the brightness on OLED's can be an issue if you're in bright areas of the world.