Closest thing to a no compromise monitor for cinematic gaming?

[Warwitch]

Hi I am hoping I can get some advice on picking out a new monitor. Ideally it would be a nice 32-35" 4k display with whatever HDR is available. Budget is not really a problem to a point. I rather not pay a massive $4-5k early adopter tax for mini-LED but id also like whatever is closest to a no compromise content consumption display. I have been looking at the LG CX oleds but 48" is a bit much and OLED burn in is spooking me since it will be my main desktop monitor. I have also been looking at the 35-38" ultrawides but im unsure about the form factor in general since I have been using 21:9 for years and years and almost all the things I enjoy playing and watching were made with that format in mind. Refresh rate is a total unknown to me, I don't play anything competitively so I am unsure how big of a difference that will make in the more slow paced/cinematic games I play. I just feel rather conflicted. Sorry for the ramble, there is just a lot of options out there and I have no idea what to pick or prioritize.

[SupaKomputa]

If you want to game at the highest  quality, you must first own a high end GPU.

Don't get OLED if youre gaming for a long time, burn in is a risk.

Mini LED is promising, but the cost is not worth it now.

So i say get Samsung G9 49inch with 32:9 aspect ratio.

[Mling]

How to buy a monitor: Find a Samsung as they seem to be consistent at affordability. Then compare the competition. Then look at second hand high end like Sony.

[Warwitch]

18 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

If you want to game at the highest  quality, you must first own a high end GPU.

Don't get OLED if youre gaming for a long time, burn in is a risk.

Mini LED is promising, but the cost is not worth it now.

So i say get Samsung G9 49inch with 32:9 aspect ratio.

Im not sure I am onboard with how incredibly wide it is or the 1440 vertical resolution. I have never seen one in person but its seems like a bit much.

[AzzaNezz]

23 minutes ago, Warwitch said:

Im not sure I am onboard with how incredibly wide it is or the 1440 vertical resolution. I have never seen one in person but its seems like a bit much.

i saw it in person in one shop and its just crazy wide,for me to much.But for instance i saw red dead redemption 2 on it and it looked amazing,but in my opinion not worth it.

[Warwitch]

8 minutes ago, AzzaNezz said:

i saw it in person in one shop and its just crazy wide,for me to much.But for instance i saw red dead redemption 2 on it and it looked amazing,but in my opinion not worth it.

Yeah my concern with it is the same as all other ultrawides, I don't think the UI's for many of my games will properly support it without a ton of distortion and most video content will just black bar half the screen space.

[xg32]

13 minutes ago, Warwitch said:

.

OLED burn in isn't really an issue for LG. I think RTing has one running for 3 years 24/7 already, HDR really isn't a big deal atm.

 

If you really do want a no compromise monitor, 60hz there's the proart

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1570527-REG/asus_pa27ucx_k_27_mini_led_4k.html

 

if you need high refresh then the x27/27uq is fine (fans) but i suggest waiting for the miniled version that has better rec2020 coverage with hdmi 2.1, fald, hdr1400, fingers crossed that they use better cooling solutions this time.

 

Rumored prices for the miniled fald monitors are 5k usd for the 27inch and 7k for the 35inch. 

 

Personally i recommend just going with oled til a more reasonable miniled monitor is available, but that could take years. I'm on a x27 atm so i'm not in a hurry but the fan already broke.

[AzzaNezz]

1 hour ago, Warwitch said:

Yeah my concern with it is the same as all other ultrawides, I don't think the UI's for many of my games will properly support it without a ton of distortion and most video content will just black bar half the screen space.

i used to have 35 inch 2560x1440 ultrawide and it took a day or two to get used to it.But i absolutly loved it cause it was on my own limit of size,but the extra space to work on was great.The games that i have played,it had all suported the ultrawide size

[jones177]

I have an OLED TV I used as a monitor and it did burn in. Games did not do it. Chrome did. It took 4900 hours to show up.

 

Now for non gaming I use a 49" LG NanoCell TV. It is 120hz and has HDMI 2.1. The image quality is about the same as my 32" LG 4k VA monitor.

 

For gaming on a monitor I like my LG 38" 3840 X 1600 ultra wide. I have an old 34" 3440 X 1440 ultra wide and it always felt like it was vertically challenged and it did not look good along side a 4k panel. LG 38" monitors are not vertically challenged and they do not look like a downgrade from a 4k monitor. 

I like the format so much that I emulate it on the OLEDs.

 

 

 

[Warwitch]

5 hours ago, jones177 said:

I have an OLED TV I used as a monitor and it did burn in. Games did not do it. Chrome did. It took 4900 hours to show up.

 

Now for non gaming I use a 49" LG NanoCell TV. It is 120hz and has HDMI 2.1. The image quality is about the same as my 32" LG 4k VA monitor.

 

For gaming on a monitor I like my LG 38" 3840 X 1600 ultra wide. I have an old 34" 3440 X 1440 ultra wide and it always felt like it was vertically challenged and it did not look good along side a 4k panel. LG 38" monitors are not vertically challenged and they do not look like a downgrade from a 4k monitor. 

I like the format so much that I emulate it on the OLEDs.

 

 

 

I think I would pull the trigger on OLED if they just came smaller, 38-43". I have been eyeballing the LG 38GN950-B it looks like the closest thing to what I want  with the 1600 verticle res and not being a gigantic 49" thing, the reviews seem really good but it sounds like it has contrast issues. Im not sure I would even notice them since I have been using IPS monitors for forever for color work. Is there that much of a gap between the contrast performance of nano-ips compared to normal IPS or is it just compared to other high end VA and FALD supported displays?

[SolarNova]

The 'closest' thing is indeed the 48" OLED. The main reason its the closest thing is that its only 'compromises' are not directly related to image quality, unlike many other options. The 2 primary compromises u make are size, and habitual use changes to limit chances of permanent image retention.

 

As soon as u look at a more mainstream LCD, be it Mini LED or not, compromises come thick and fast and include those which directly affect image quality. Namely u compromise Black level, contrast, Viewing angles (if VA), Uniformity, Pixel response, and strobe crosstalk (if BFI is included).

 

However, at some point this year we expect to see announcements of 42" OLED Displays and 'maybe' 31" ones.

We dont know if they will be TV's or Monitors, but the 42" LG OLED panels are officially announced and being produced. At 42" and using their MultiModel Glass production facility, they will be around 33% cheaper to produce than the 55" panels used in 55" OLED displays. Resulting in an expected market cost for any display made being around $900-$1000.

The 31" OLED panel is an odd one, as its 1080p, its also not 'officially' announced as even in production. If it does go into production the resulting display will likely be in the region of $600.

 

And for any1 interested in the C1 48" LG OLED already announced, expect its price to be lower than the CX 48", it 'should' drop to sub $1300 (though release price will likely be higher) based on the lower production cost of the panel thanks to the new facility increasing the units produced from ~220,000 to ~1,000,000. cutting 8 panels per 8.5g plate vs previously only 2 48" panels with every 2 77" panels (hence the price).

[xg32]

2 hours ago, Warwitch said:

I think I would pull the trigger on OLED if they just came smaller, 38-43". I have been eyeballing the LG 38GN950-B it looks like the closest thing to what I want  with the 1600 verticle res and not being a gigantic 49" thing, the reviews seem really good but it sounds like it has contrast issues. Im not sure I would even notice them since I have been using IPS monitors for forever for color work. Is there that much of a gap between the contrast performance of nano-ips compared to normal IPS or is it just compared to other high end VA and FALD supported displays?

the nano is notorious for crappy contrast (almost like its only weakness), with the amount of money you pay for that i'd just go with a C9 or CX. If you never seen them side by side before it's probably fine, but side by side it's definitely noticeable.

 

I've worked with a 27GL850 and 34gn850 (cheaper and less pixels so gpus can handle them) and at 450usd and 900usd they make sense for a smaller form factor, but at the same price of an oled, the 38 is a tough ask.

 

Alot of times when comparing non-hdr displays the only negative of a LG oled really is just the size. If LG can confirm a 35-42inch oled, that's gonna sell.

[Warwitch]

3 minutes ago, xg32 said:

the nano is notorious for crappy contrast (almost like its only weakness), with the amount of money you pay for that i'd just go with a C9 or CX. If you never seen them side by side before it's probably fine, but side by side it's definitely noticeable.

 

Alot of times when comparing non-hdr displays the only negative of a LG oled really is just the size.

The size is a pretty big downside, with my current desk setup it would be difficult to get more than 100cm away from it and I have experienced long term issues with using a large tv as a monitor before simply by being extremely overbearing. I am also still concerned about burn in especially since I work a lot with static images for prolonged periods of time.

[jones177]

4 hours ago, Warwitch said:

I think I would pull the trigger on OLED if they just came smaller, 38-43". I have been eyeballing the LG 38GN950-B it looks like the closest thing to what I want  with the 1600 verticle res and not being a gigantic 49" thing, the reviews seem really good but it sounds like it has contrast issues. Im not sure I would even notice them since I have been using IPS monitors for forever for color work. Is there that much of a gap between the contrast performance of nano-ips compared to normal IPS or is it just compared to other high end VA and FALD supported displays?

I have the 75hz version of the 38" LG and it has an IPS panel so I do not know about the Nano IPS versions. 

Mine is just about perfect and the only thing I have seen that beats it is an OLED.