Review of LG C2 42 inch are here (HDTVTest)

[e22big]

So Vincent finally published a full review of LG 42 inch C2, I was wondering why it took him so long and I guess I found my answer. Despite recieving an overall positive priase, the 42 inch model seems like a significant downgrade from other C2 lineup from the following:

 

- Using WBC instead of WBE panel in the rest of the C2 line

- Signifincantly lower brightness, due directly to the above reason, it max out at 700 nit which is about as bad as the older CX (although burn-in longevity seems to be just as good as the rest of C2)

- Limited Black Frame Insertion, practically unusable in most case and a significant downgrade even from C1 line

- Poor white uniformity

 

*There's also mentioned of poor viewing angle but I am not sure if it's limited to this C2 model in particular or just the issue with newer LG OLED in general. I heard the same issue from some other channel (pink tint on white at off angle) but I personally only have seen and use LG CX and it doesn't seem to be an issue on that model.

 

Although he called it "the best HDR display at this size", it seems to be because it's the only OLED display at this size, other than that there doesn't seem to be anything to write home about this model in particular ( and even so that's kind of debatable since Q90A at 43 inch mini LED exist eventhough it's can only do 60hz)
 

*Actually there's kinda one thing that could be interesting compared to other model, its HDMI 2.1 can do DSC but the display is still max out at 120hz - the DSC display is for 12 bit colour at 4k 120hz. I do think it would be more useful if LG's actually offer 4k 144hz like Samsung's up coming QN90B which claim to be doing 4k 144hz with DSC on 43 inch model. 

 

[ewitte]

On 4/9/2022 at 9:18 AM, e22big said:

- Using WBC instead of WBE panel in the rest of the C2 line

 

LG stated this is not all displays and is temporary.

[Stahlmann]

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

- Using WBC instead of WBE panel in the rest of the C2 line

Debateable if it's actually a downgrade. I have yet to see a WBE in real life, but so far it seems picture quality is extremely similar, plus the WBE seems to suffer from a pink tint from the side. But i'll elaborate:

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

- Signifincantly lower brightness, due directly to the above reason, it max out at 700 nit which is about as bad as the older CX (although burn-in longevity seems to be just as good as the rest of C2)

While the ~800 nits of the bigger models are certainly a more impressive number, in the real world the difference is rather small. My C9 (~700 nits aswell) has the same ability to delivering dazzling highlights as my 1100 nits PG35VQ.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

- Limited Black Frame Insertion, practically unusable in most case and a significant downgrade even from C1 line

It sucks that they actually removed a feature present on the previous gen. But in any case, it's a feature the vast majority of people do not use. In SDR you're already limited in terms of brightness, so further reducing it will be a problem for most people. And in HDR reducing the peak brightness is also terrible for obvious reasons. In reality none of these will end up in the hands of competitive tryhards. (at least as a main monitor) So they could probably completely remove BFI and it wouldn't impact 99% of their customers.

 

But yes, i can say that 60Hz BFI is terrible in terms of flickering. My C9 has the same limitation. It's not that bad in dark scenes, but big white patches will flicker noticeably.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

- Poor white uniformity

Uniformity varies heavily across units. I wouldn't read too much into it as OLED in general is quite uniform compared to the average LCD. Probably a bad unit.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

*There's also mentioned of poor viewing angle but I am not sure if it's limited to this C2 model in particular or just the issue with newer LG OLED in general. I heard the same issue from some other channel (pink tint on white at off angle) but I personally only have seen and use LG CX and it doesn't seem to be an issue on that model.

That was specifically about the WBE panel TV, not the 42" WBC.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

Although he called it "the best HDR display at this size", it seems to be because it's the only OLED display at this size, other than that there doesn't seem to be anything to write home about this model in particular ( and even so that's kind of debatable since Q90A at 43 inch mini LED exist eventhough it's can only do 60hz)

There is another 42" 120Hz OLED coming from Sony, but they will likely not offer the same all around feature package and gaming features and invest more time into the TV aspect if the other Sony and LG lineups are anything to go by. (better processing, etc.) Vincent also mentioned the SOC choice of LG's competitors to be a possible reason why no one can match LG's input lag numbers and HDMI 2.1 connectivity.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

*Actually there's kinda one thing that could be interesting compared to other model, its HDMI 2.1 can do DSC but the display is still max out at 120hz - the DSC display is for 12 bit colour at 4k 120hz.

Full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 48Gbps can already do full 4K 120Hz RGB 12bit HDR (and Dolby Vision for that matter). I have no idea why they even bothered with DSC to begin with, as it's completely unneccesary on this TV. 

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

I do think it would be more useful if LG's actually offer 4k 144hz like Samsung's up coming QN90B which claim to be doing 4k 144hz with DSC on 43 inch model. 

The 144Hz refresh rate from new Samsung TV's is a gimmick at best. No one can see the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz, be it motion clarity or input lag. But the inherently better response times on OLED TV's will still make them the better gaming alternative, plus like you mentioned only 60Hz support on the smaller Samsung TV. The 144Hz move is just to capture some more uninformed consumers seeking for the "best of the best" without really putting in any research.

 

On 4/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, e22big said:

So Vincent finally published a full review of LG 42 inch C2, I was wondering why it took him so long and I guess I found my answer. Despite recieving an overall positive priase, the 42 inch model seems like a significant downgrade from other C2 lineup from the following:

I think it's far fetched to call it a significant downgrade.

 

- Image retention resistance is as good as bigger models using the WBE panel (at least temporary retention, long term burn-in is tbd)

- Brightness is lower, but still as high as the bigger last-gen models (not to mention the stuggle to get higher brightness with the smaller pixel aperture ratio)

- Doesn't suffer from WBE pink tint viewing angles (at least for early models shipping with WBC panels)

- Still benefits from the much better out-of-the-box color accuracity and better picture processing of the C2 series

- 42" is still a lot easier to cope as a desk monitor than the "better" 55"+ models, which will likely be a big piece of this display's market

 

So my conclusion so far is: At worst it's a slightly better and smaller version of the last-gen TV's while being slightly behind the brightness of current-gen big screens. I think for the market it's trying to hit it will be great.

 

If the arguments above aren't enough for you there is still the argument that it's the only option in this size and class, which will be a big selling point for sure. At least until Sony's model arrives.

[e22big]

12 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Debateable if it's actually a downgrade. I have yet to see a WBE in real life, but so far it seems picture quality is extremely similar, plus the WBE seems to suffer from a pink tint from the side. But i'll elaborate:

 

While the ~800 nits of the bigger models are certainly a more impressive number, in the real world the difference is rather small. My C9 (~700 nits aswell) has the same ability to delivering dazzling highlights as my 1100 nits PG35VQ.

 

It sucks that they actually removed a feature present on the previous gen. But in any case, it's a feature the vast majority of people do not use. In SDR you're already limited in terms of brightness, so further reducing it will be a problem for most people. And in HDR reducing the peak brightness is also terrible for obvious reasons. In reality none of these will end up in the hands of competitive tryhards. (at least as a main monitor) So they could probably completely remove BFI and it wouldn't impact 99% of their customers.

 

But yes, i can say that 60Hz BFI is terrible in terms of flickering. My C9 has the same limitation. It's not that bad in dark scenes, but big white patches will flicker noticeably.

 

Uniformity varies heavily across units. I wouldn't read too much into it as OLED in general is quite uniform compared to the average LCD. Probably a bad unit.

 

That was specifically about the WBE panel TV, not the 42" WBC.

 

There is another 42" 120Hz OLED coming from Sony, but they will likely not offer the same all around feature package and gaming features and invest more time into the TV aspect if the other Sony and LG lineups are anything to go by. (better processing, etc.) Vincent also mentioned the SOC choice of LG's competitors to be a possible reason why no one can match LG's input lag numbers and HDMI 2.1 connectivity.

 

Full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 48Gbps can already do full 4K 120Hz RGB 12bit HDR (and Dolby Vision for that matter). I have no idea why they even bothered with DSC to begin with, as it's completely unneccesary on this TV. 

 

The 144Hz refresh rate from new Samsung TV's is a gimmick at best. No one can see the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz, be it motion clarity or input lag. But the inherently better response times on OLED TV's will still make them the better gaming alternative, plus like you mentioned only 60Hz support on the smaller Samsung TV. The 144Hz move is just to capture some more uninformed consumers seeking for the "best of the best" without really putting in any research.

 

I think it's far fetched to call it a significant downgrade.

 

- Image retention resistance is as good as bigger models using the WBE panel (at least temporary retention, long term burn-in is tbd)

- Brightness is lower, but still as high as the bigger last-gen models (not to mention the stuggle to get higher brightness with the smaller pixel aperture ratio)

- Doesn't suffer from WBE pink tint viewing angles (at least for early models shipping with WBC panels)

- Still benefits from the much better out-of-the-box color accuracity and better picture processing of the C2 series

- 42" is still a lot easier to cope as a desk monitor than the "better" 55"+ models, which will likely be a big piece of this display's market

 

So my conclusion so far is: At worst it's a slightly better and smaller version of the last-gen TV's while being slightly behind the brightness of current-gen big screens. I think for the market it's trying to hit it will be great.

 

If the arguments above aren't enough for you there is still the argument that it's the only option in this size and class, which will be a big selling point for sure. At least until Sony's model arrives.

Perhaps, I do agree that 42 inch is actually a much better size than 48 inch. It's best size for a large format display bar none imo. 

 

Still, one of the LG main selling point for the Evo panel is brighter display and the 42 inch does not deliver. Max brightness may not be that big of an issue but a 30 increase in sustained brightness would still be a big help, especially as monitor when you don't always game or watching content. OLED always had a terrible sustained 100 percent brightness, which led to ABL trigger more often which led to worse desktop experience. 

 

144 hz might not be that notiecable compare to 120hz but it's still something, better to have that if you are going to implemented DSC anyway. Beside, if it's your main monitor and you want to play a competitive esport title where you need as high refresh rate as you can, it would still do something for you (especially when you lower resolution to get as high fps as you can.) Not a big deal but could improve versatility of this tv which aims to be used as a display.

[Stahlmann]

24 minutes ago, e22big said:

Still, one of the LG main selling point for the Evo panel is brighter display and the 42 inch does not deliver. Max brightness may not be that big of an issue but a 30 increase in sustained brightness would still be a big help, especially as monitor when you don't always game or watching content. OLED always had a terrible sustained 100 percent brightness, which led to ABL trigger more often which led to worse desktop experience. 

While i agree that it's a bad thing overall that the brightness isn't better than last-gen, that's not the main selling point with this display. Like i said, the main selling point of this particular display (not the C2 series overall) is simply the new size offering.

 

Even with "only" 700 nits peak, due to OLED's pixel level dimming there is virtually no HDR scene that looks bad, even if some highlights cut off earlier than 800 or 1000 nit displays.

 

A bit more about ABL: For me it's never been a problem. For SDR content i calibrate to 100 nits anyway, so no matter what content i view, ABL will never engage. And in real HDR content i have yet to notice ABL cutting in on my C9. I know it's there and doing something, but it's tweaked to perfection to not impact most content significantly. So for me ABL was never a problem, neither was OLED's comparatively low fullscreen brightness. YMMV

 

24 minutes ago, e22big said:

144 hz might not be that notiecable compare to 120hz but it's still something, better to have that if you are going to implemented DSC anyway. Beside, if it's your main monitor and you want to play a competitive esport title where you need as high refresh rate as you can, it would still do something for you (especially when you lower resolution to get as high fps as you can.) Not a big deal but could improve versatility of this tv which aims to be used as a display.

I agree a higher refresh rate is always welcome.

 

Still, this TV with "only" 120Hz has competitive input lag numbers with the best LCD monitors out there. Processing lag is as good as most gaming monitors, refresh rate lag is higher due to the "low" Hz, but the response times make up for that. Overall the input lag on LG's OLED TV's is better or as good as high-end LCD gaming monitors.

 

Plus, other than competitive games that run on a potato, you will not be able to drive games to 120 or 144 fps. Even with the best PC hardware you'll probably hover more around 90-100 fps on average in most games. So for the target audience of this display - be it as a TV or as a monitor - it really doesn't matter.

[e22big]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

While i agree that it's a bad thing overall that the brightness isn't better than last-gen, that's not the main selling point with this display. Like i said, the main selling point of this particular display (not the C2 series overall) is simply the new size offering.

 

Even with "only" 700 nits peak, due to OLED's pixel level dimming there is virtually no HDR scene that looks bad, even if some highlights cut off earlier than 800 or 1000 nit displays.

 

A bit more about ABL: For me it's never been a problem. For SDR content i calibrate to 100 nits anyway, so no matter what content i view, ABL will never engage. And in real HDR content i have yet to notice ABL cutting in on my C9. I know it's there and doing something, but it's tweaked to perfection to not impact most content significantly. So for me ABL was never a problem, neither was OLED's comparatively low fullscreen brightness. YMMV

 

I agree a higher refresh rate is always welcome.

 

Still, this TV with "only" 120Hz has competitive input lag numbers with the best LCD monitors out there. Processing lag is as good as most gaming monitors, refresh rate lag is higher due to the "low" Hz, but the response times make up for that. Overall the input lag on LG's OLED TV's is better or as good as high-end LCD gaming monitors.

 

Plus, other than competitive games that run on a potato, you will not be able to drive games to 120 or 144 fps. Even with the best PC hardware you'll probably hover more around 90-100 fps on average in most games. So for the target audience of this display - be it as a TV or as a monitor - it really doesn't matter.

I guess but I think that's a major compromise for most people, I would rather dill with ABL than having to dial down brightnes to 100 nit, even 150 would be a lot better. 

 

And while you won't be able to run most game at 144hz 4k, it's more than possible with 1440p (and if you are playing that sort of game that can take advantage of that, you will probably dial down to 1080p even to have as many frame as possible.) It's not a deal breaker, I couldn't careless about input lag myself but a miss opportunity, especially when they use DSC anyway. It's for sure more better than giving people more bit dept.

[Stahlmann]

33 minutes ago, e22big said:

I guess but I think that's a major compromise for most people, I would rather dill with ABL than having to dial down brightnes to 100 nit, even 150 would be a lot better. 

To clarify: ABL is not the reason why i use my displays at 100 nits. It's just the brightness that is comfortable to me in my viewing environment. Not too dim at day, not too bright at night. Perfect for SDR. Also coincidentally happens to be the mastering brightness of SDR content. But because i'm already used to this brightness level, ABL is a non-issue for me. I'm aware that most people use their monitor at higher brightness and that ABL is a problem in these cases.

 

This TV has compromises, just like every other monitor/TV out there. You as a customer just have to decide which product has the least impactful compromises to your usecase.

 

So far this is shaping up to be the best display for my personal use case and evironment. Even more so than the Dell QD-OLED ultrawide. 42" is still big, but a lot more useable than previous 48" offerings. I'm gonna think some more about it but i'll probably cancel my order of the AW3423DW and get one of these instead.

 

Man, i've been waiting for years to finally get away from LCD and all of it's issues. This is gonna be the year.

[e22big]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

To clarify: ABL is not the reason why i use my displays at 100 nits. It's just the brightness that is comfortable to me in my viewing environment. Not too dim at day, not too bright at night. Perfect for SDR. Also coincidentally happens to be the mastering brightness of SDR content. But because i'm already used to this brightness level, ABL is a non-issue for me. I'm aware that most people use their monitor at higher brightness and that ABL is a problem in these cases.

 

This TV has compromises, just like every other monitor/TV out there. You as a customer just have to decide which product has the least impactful compromises to your usecase.

 

So far this is shaping up to be the best display for my personal use case and evironment. Even more so than the Dell QD-OLED ultrawide. 42" is still big, but a lot more useable than previous 48" offerings. I'm gonna think some more about it but i'll probably cancel my order of the AW3423DW and get one of these instead.

 

Man, i've been waiting for years to finally get away from LCD and all of it's issues. This is gonna be the year.

Yeah, Alienware QD-OLED is good but UW just isn't as good as 42 inch 16:9 (which is basically UW that's also tall and have none of the aspect ratio issue of the UW), and while it is a significantly panel, we don't know if it will any issue down the line (as often with Samsung panel) and if you don't mind the low brightness, you will probabaly notice the weird vertical black bar when watching content a lot more than colour volumn and increased brightness. 

 

[gypsygib]

I think max visible refresh rate depends on the person. I can definitely notice a significant difference between 120 and 144Hz, but I'd fail a double blind on anything after 144Hz. Some people actually can't notice a different after 60Hz and other eagle eyes can see differences as high at 240hz, albeit minor. 

 

Personally, because of my Hz perception limit and what I'm accustomed to, I'd love if the C2 was 144Hz. Definitely plan on buying it regardless and can look past the Hz limitations because realistically, no GPU will really get much higher than 120Hz at 4k consistently on AAAs for a very long time. Still wish I had to the option for 144Hz for resolution scaling. 1440p tends to look 95% as sharp as 4k (to me) on upper end TVs so I'd always opt for resolution scaling to increase frames.

[e22big]

18 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

To clarify: ABL is not the reason why i use my displays at 100 nits. It's just the brightness that is comfortable to me in my viewing environment. Not too dim at day, not too bright at night. Perfect for SDR. Also coincidentally happens to be the mastering brightness of SDR content. But because i'm already used to this brightness level, ABL is a non-issue for me. I'm aware that most people use their monitor at higher brightness and that ABL is a problem in these cases.

 

This TV has compromises, just like every other monitor/TV out there. You as a customer just have to decide which product has the least impactful compromises to your usecase.

 

So far this is shaping up to be the best display for my personal use case and evironment. Even more so than the Dell QD-OLED ultrawide. 42" is still big, but a lot more useable than previous 48" offerings. I'm gonna think some more about it but i'll probably cancel my order of the AW3423DW and get one of these instead.

 

Man, i've been waiting for years to finally get away from LCD and all of it's issues. This is gonna be the year.

Hey, just found something you may want to check out. Some people who go ahead and buy this TV as a monitor claimed that it indeed has a viewing angle issue (just blue tint instead of pink) but also that it has "grainy texture" in grey scene. 

 

He said it's seems to be from coating, most people in the sub think that it's a possible bandwitch issue but it's probably something that you should keep in mind. Could be grey uniformity as well from the sound of it

 

 

[Stahlmann]

13 minutes ago, e22big said:

Hey, just found something you may want to check out. Some people who go ahead and buy this TV as a monitor claimed that it indeed has a viewing angle issue (just blue tint instead of pink) but also that it has "grainy texture" in grey scene. 

 

He said it's seems to be from coating, most people in the sub think that it's a possible bandwitch issue but it's probably something that you should keep in mind. Could be grey uniformity as well from the sound of it

 

 

For the grainy texture I second it likely being a bandwidth or even software issue. Vincent already mentioned this TV has among the best near-black uniformity of any OLED out there. It has the same glossy coating as other LG OLED TV's. But thanks for the heads-up.

 

The viewing angle stuff a few people are reporting seem strange, but I'll keep a lookout for a few more reviews. But it's probably just people counting peas again, like with every new display that arrives. In the end no matter how "bad" the viewing angles on an OLED display are, they will still be better than any IPS/VA out there.

 

Uniformity is a thing to keep in mind though. Vincent reported it wasn't a problem in normal content, only while doing desktop stuff.