Samsung aims to release 34" OLED ultrawide monitors in 2022

[IPD]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Your choice, but for me personally 40"+ 16:9 displays are out of the question. They're just too damn big for the distance i'm sitting at. Plus the PPI is not as good anymore, resulting in roughly the same sharpness as a 27" 1440p monitor.

You sit closer than 24"-36" away?  That's where my viewing ranges fall--depending what I'm doing.

 

I'll give you the PPI thing, but that's why I insist on 4k--and I'm not expecting any 4-5k+ resolutions in this size anytime soon.

[Stahlmann]

29 minutes ago, IPD said:

You sit closer than 24"-36" away?  That's where my viewing ranges fall--depending what I'm doing.

 

I'll give you the PPI thing, but that's why I insist on 4k--and I'm not expecting any 4-5k+ resolutions in this size anytime soon.

My viewing distance is about 27". A 40"+ screen would be too big for me.

[CTR640]

OLED burn-ins probably will never be solved. The only way to completely solve that is MicroLED. For now it's way too expensive for mass production.

 

And the first QD-OLED will likely gonna be very expensive in the beginning and the first gen probably will gonna have some issues. Only the early-adopters will pay the hefty prices.

[Quackers101]

11 minutes ago, comander said:

Everything is speculation at this point, but if Samsung gets 2-3x the lifespan of other OLEDs it pretty much means OLED burn in becomes a solved problem. 

doubt, and not really solved. solved the idea for some, but not solved the issue of oled.

[tikker]

37 minutes ago, comander said:

How many years of service at near full quality do you need?

Don't let manufacturers hear you. That thought is exactly why they started making shorter-lived products

 

Jokes aside, I agree. In 10 years time we'll likely have some new features or tech that'll warrant a new TV. If it can outlive that I'm happy. That's the only problem I have with AVRs. They live forever, but the stuff surrounding them keeps changing and evolving.

[tikker]

11 hours ago, comander said:

You must not have had an AVR that starts crackling after a few years... 90% of the unit is fine. It's always fine when not doing more sophisticated processing... anything more advanced... I'm flipping a coin. 

I don't want to drop $2K on a new AVR that'll do 7.2.4. processing. 

I haven't indeed. My current units are a 3-year old Denon and a 1-year old Yamaha which are still fine. Before that it was a Kenwood of a few decades old, but that was an integrated stereo receiver, so no fancy Atmos stuff or anything like that.

 

I've stuck with 5.1.2 for the same reason. They're affordably replaceable and fit my needs anyway.

[SolarNova]

There is a MASSIVE problem with this.

And we can all guess what it will be.

 

Price !

 

I'd bet these displays will be exceedingly expensive. Likely $1500+ ..probably $2000+

Meanwhile ull be able to get a 42" or 48" OLED TV for less.

 

And here's the kicker, unless Samsung makes these displays above 144hz, they will have no advantage over the TV.

 

Ideally they'd make the Display 144hz+ with Variable BFI and VRR (working together). not to mention at least HDR 600

IF they can achieve that ..then it will be worth it.

However very few manufacturers have ever tried to have BFI and VRR work together, understandably on LCD due to the backlight.

On OLED it has the potential to be VERY effective and should be far easier to implement when they dont have to worry about syncing the backlight (as there isnt one)

 

but i dont see this happening. What i expect to see is an OLED monitor that is 120hz ultrawide HDR 400 (they likely wont push higher to help avoid 'burn-in') , probably will have VRR and BFI but they wont work together and it will be priced above $2000.

[IPD]

I got an idea.  How about the industry only makes 16:9 panels, but with software that allows them to be letterboxed to 21:9 or 32:9.

 

Why?  Because a 40" 16:9 has the same width as a 36" 32:9 or a 38" 21:9.   So now they don't have to make new bezels or anything--they can just use one display panel.  And y'all addicted to ultrawides can have your prison windows, while people who want their 20" vertical can still have it--without having to turn a display on its side and use 3+ of them to get the width required.

 

And no, I don't want to do a little jig every time i can't figure out how to get games to run in some ultrawide resolution.  give me 16:9.

[Stahlmann]

27 minutes ago, IPD said:

I got an idea.  How about the industry only makes 16:9 panels, but with software that allows them to be letterboxed to 21:9 or 32:9.

 

Why?  Because a 40" 16:9 has the same width as a 36" 32:9 or a 38" 21:9.   So now they don't have to make new bezels or anything--they can just use one display panel.  And y'all addicted to ultrawides can have your prison windows, while people who want their 20" vertical can still have it--without having to turn a display on its side and use 3+ of them to get the width required.

 

And no, I don't want to do a little jig every time i can't figure out how to get games to run in some ultrawide resolution.  give me 16:9.

So everyone who wants an ultrawide should pay extra for a bigger screen they don't want or need? That's just not a good solution. Not to mention it's just not an aestetic solution.

[Stahlmann]

On 12/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, SolarNova said:

There is a MASSIVE problem with this.

And we can all guess what it will be.

 

Price !

 

I'd bet these displays will be exceedingly expensive. Likely $1500+ ..probably $2000+

Meanwhile ull be able to get a 42" or 48" OLED TV for less.

42" or 48" are still unpractical and too large for a desk setup. If it works for you, good. But for most people it doesn't.

 

On 12/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, SolarNova said:

And here's the kicker, unless Samsung makes these displays above 144hz, they will have no advantage over the TV.

Yes they will. For starters they will have better text clarity because they use a conventional RGB subpixel layout. Afaik there is no white pixel in there to boost brightness which results in worse text clarity.

 

Example from the LG C1:

 

And here a conventional RGB monitor: (Gigabyte M32U)

 

Both of these examples are AFTER windows cleartype optimization.

 

Another problem with current OLED is the aggressive ABL resulting in >150 nits fullscreen brightness. We have no information on how QD-OLED will handle this, but that's another possible advantage.

 

On 12/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, SolarNova said:

Ideally they'd make the Display 144hz+ with Variable BFI and VRR (working together).

If the monitor is around 240Hz or so, (which seems possible due to samsungs's latest high-end offerings also having very high refresh rates) then it won't need any BFI. Motion clarity is exceptionally good with OLED and even a 120Hz TV has motion clarity on-par with the best 240Hz monitors. So if you push an OLED to 240Hz or higher you will have better motion clarity either way. Plus i'd not like the BFI to be adaptive to the refresh rate. This would result in noticeable flicker when going to 120fps or lower in your games, which will be quite common.

 

On 12/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, SolarNova said:

not to mention at least HDR 600

HDR600 would be nice, but even "HDR400 true black" will realistically bring a better HDR experience than most current HDR600 monitors.

 

On 12/5/2021 at 4:59 PM, SolarNova said:

On OLED it has the potential to be VERY effective and should be far easier to implement when they dont have to worry about syncing the backlight (as there isnt one)

 

but i dont see this happening. What i expect to see is an OLED monitor that is 120hz ultrawide HDR 400 (they likely wont push higher to help avoid 'burn-in') , probably will have VRR and BFI but they wont work together and it will be priced above $2000.

Of course this is all speculation, but i personally expect something in the 3440x1440 240Hz range with around 400-500 nits peak brightness. And if these specs come out to be true then it will be easily over $2000. They can basically price it how they want because there is no competition yet. But that's nothing new. Bleeding edge tech is always very expensive. It will take years until it will come to more mid-range offerings in the $500 range - if at all.

[IPD]

21 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

So everyone who wants an ultrawide should pay extra for a bigger screen they don't want or need? That's just not a good solution. Not to mention it's just not an aestetic solution.

Nope.  100% pay extra.  YOU pay, so I can at least have the option.  Because as it stands right now, y'all prison-window-addicts have too much selection, and I have ZERO.

[Stahlmann]

33 minutes ago, IPD said:

Nope.  100% pay extra.  YOU pay, so I can at least have the option.  Because as it stands right now, y'all prison-window-addicts have too much selection, and I have ZERO.

Man you really like that prison windows analogy. Fact is, 21:9 is niche, 32:9 is even more nice, and 40"+ 4K is even more so niche. You want the entire market to carry the needs of a very small portion of users like you. It doesn't work like that. It never has and never will.

[IPD]

40" 2160p isn't niche...in fact, it's just a small TV.  All I want is 3000r with it.

[Mihle]

On 12/2/2021 at 7:54 PM, Stahlmann said:

21:9 Ultrawide is not really "prison window" imo. It adds a lot of immersion without being ridiculous like the 32:9 super-ultrawides.

 

I had an ultrawide several years ago, then went back to 16:9 and ultimately ended up at 21:9 again because it's just better for a computer monitor imo. The wider screen helps me with multitasking and like i said it adds some more immersion to your games. But you have to be willing to tinker a bit though to make some games work perfectly.

Just having a bigger 16:9 ads to immertion too. I have tried an ultra wide and to me it feels like a 16:9 with top and bottom shopped off. Aka I don't like it.

I am currently running a 32" 4K monitor. 

[Stahlmann]

10 hours ago, IPD said:

40" 2160p isn't niche...in fact, it's just a small TV.  All I want is 3000r with it.

It's niche for monitor market. That's what i meant.

 

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

Just having a bigger 16:9 ads to immertion too.

I agree. I'll gladly take a 32" 16:9 4K monitor. But so far there just hasn't been one that offers what i'd want. The PG32UQX has come closest to my dream monitor in a 16:9 format but it has it's own compromises, not to mention a $3.5K price tag, which is over double what i paid for my PG35VQ. And my current monitor is the next best thing when it comes to HDR monitors. I know there are 48" OLED's but this is just too damn big as a monitor. Even next year's 42" C2 is still too big. 32" is the maximum i'd want for a 16:9 monitor right in front of me.

[HenrySalayne]

On 12/3/2021 at 9:38 AM, Stahlmann said:

Samsung's QD OLED is very different from LG's current WRGB OLED panels. So anything we currently know about LG's OLED longevity or picture quality (color gamut, accuracity, text sharpness etc.) does not apply. And right now there is no QD OLED panel on the market, so we have absolutely no context to make any claims about that kind of stuff.

I don't know the processes involved in the "ageing" of OLEDs, but I suspect the quantum dot layer has negligible effect. After all, it's basically identical to a colour filter or phosphor layer and is not directly connected to the light source itself (the led).

[Stahlmann]

22 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I don't know the processes involved in the "ageing" of OLEDs, but I suspect the quantum dot layer has negligible effect. After all, it's basically identical to a colour filter or phosphor layer and is not directly connected to the light source itself (the led).

Still, the degradation of OLED pixels depends heavily on little details like subpixel size etc. Just like Samsung's current AMOLED displays are much less prone to burn in than LG's current WRGB OLED displays this QD-OLED technology could also potentially better. But all we can do atm is speculate.

[Steve1978]

On 12/2/2021 at 2:39 PM, Stahlmann said:

I just hope it's not a 1000R curve again...

I have the Odysey G7 32 inch and i love the curve! 

 

Bring on the 1000R, hell lets go 2000R!

[Stahlmann]

12 minutes ago, Steve1978 said:

I have the Odysey G7 32 inch and i love the curve! 

 

Bring on the 1000R, hell lets go 2000R!

The higher the number, the less curved it is...

 

The curve was one of the reasons why i returned my 32" G7. It's just ridiculous imo. Even more so in real life.

[Steve1978]

4 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

The higher the number, the less curved it is...

 

The curve was one of the reasons why i returned my 32" G7. It's just ridiculous imo. Even more so in real life.

Damn, in that case maybe a 600R....

 

Its each to their own really i suppose, just good that there are plenty of options for people, I used to love the ultra wides, had one for many years but my 1080 started to struggle with modern titles. I would have got the G9 if i had enough money and space! although playing first person shooters on a screen that big would be a bit tough!

 

Just good to see new screens coming to the market, I personally am a huge fan of the OLEDs so I will be keeping a close eye on this.

[IPD]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:31 PM, comander said:

This. 

 

I'd argue 21:9 is about right. At least if you only have one monitor. 

The issue with 21:9 though is that you often end up paying MORE to have part of a screen lobbed off. 50" 4K OLED/QD-LCD TV will cost about as much as a 35" ultra-wide monitor. They'll have similar horizontal resolution and the TV can be set to have a virtual ultra-wide mode for when you feel like it. The TV will have ARC out so it integrates better with a sound system, though TV time out after turning off the system isn't as quick as I'd like. The TV will also lack DP 1.4 so if you want 4K 120Hz you'll need HDMI 2.1 on your video card (which I don't presently have) or an adapter (ARGHH). At the moment I mostly play games that are entirely insensitive to frame rates so it's not the end of the world. 

 

I suspect that in ~5 years we'll be nearing end-game territory for TVs/monitors. Think 50-65" OLED (with 10 year life expectancy WITHOUT babying it) for under $1000 (or if it's not discontinued QD-LCD with 2000+ dimming zones). 5K 120Hz (awesome for work - think virtual grid of 2x2 grid of 32" @ 1440p OR 5120x1440 virtual ultrawide @240Hz with half the screen barred out) or 4K 240Hz. 

I would be happy with 21:9.  But you'll need to get it up to 50" diagonal to entice me.  That's where I'm getting the same vertical size and increased horizontal width--compared to my 40" 16:9.

 

But at that size, a 3000r curve is quite self-evident as "not a gimmick".

[IPD]

12 hours ago, Steve1978 said:

Damn, in that case maybe a 600R....

 

Its each to their own really i suppose, just good that there are plenty of options for people, I used to love the ultra wides, had one for many years but my 1080 started to struggle with modern titles. I would have got the G9 if i had enough money and space! although playing first person shooters on a screen that big would be a bit tough!

 

Just good to see new screens coming to the market, I personally am a huge fan of the OLEDs so I will be keeping a close eye on this.

KHIK you're not really a connoisseur of curved montiors? 

 

600r is stupidly extreme of a curvature, and unless a display is made with user-adjustable curvature...that will NEVER be a marketable option.

 

1500r is still gamer territory.  2500r-4000r is where you are finally "serviceable" for productivity uses.  I'm a firm believer in 3000r at 40".

[Stahlmann]

So LTT's new video about the "Quantum Dot" factory tour cleared it up a bit more. With QD-OLED we won't have 4 different subpixels that can wear out individually like with current LG OLEDs. We will have 1 blue diode for each pixel and the quantum dots will filter the colors so we see red and green light. This will no doubt help significantly with burn-in risk. Blue OLED subpixels are the ones that are least susceptible to degradation. If they can get burn-in under control and even increase brightness in the same step, this will be very interesting. These changes could make QD-OLED the perfect display technology. Pricing still is TBA of course...

[IPD]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

So LTT's new video about the "Quantum Dot" factory tour cleared it up a bit more. With QD-OLED we won't have 4 different subpixels that can wear out individually like with current LG OLEDs. We will have 1 blue diode for each pixel and the quantum dots will filter the colors so we see red and green light. This will no doubt help significantly with burn-in risk. Blue OLED subpixels are the ones that are least susceptible to degradation. If they can get burn-in under control and even increase brightness in the same step, this will be very interesting. These changes could make QD-OLED the perfect display technology. Pricing still is TBA of course...

Interesting.  So the "blue for everything" isn't just with Laser projectors.  I'm officially interested.  Pending price, size and curve.

[Fasterthannothing]

5 minutes ago, IPD said:

Interesting.  So the "blue for everything" isn't just with Laser projectors.  I'm officially interested.  Pending price, size and curve.

QD-OLED will be the TV upgrade period. I'm willing to shell out some serious money if the claims of no burn in and even better picture quality are true.