QD-OLED - what's taking them so long? Alternative sizes?

[Mortis Angelus]

It's now been 6 months since we begun seeing news coverage about the Alienware 34" curved QD-OLED panels.

 

Since the. MSI and Samsung seem to have jumped aboard to make their variants (I am surprised it has taken Samsung this long to make one; it's their panel after all).

 

But what I am curious about is why we still haven't seen any new announcements for other sizes or aspect ratios. Is it impossible to make panels smaller than whatever the width of a 34" ultrawide is? I really look forward to a 4K (or even 1440p) 27" model with 144+ hz refresh rate. 

 

I dont say there should be one out now, but I am surprised there is not even any announcements. No roadmap. No hype-building. At least Alienware seem to be planning on making a non-curved version, but it is still 34" ultrawide which I (and probably many other ppl) can't fit onto my desk. 

[Doobeedoo]

Because it's a new tech, lower yields even though improved but still, manufacturing capacity, current format being left over from giant motherglass displays are cut, general world price hikes. Also I'm sure one of reasons to get like 32" 4K 240Hz and such is to wait for new GPUs and DP 2.0 that are to come soon as well as prices to not be insane.

 

I too don't like those nonsense 42"/48"/49" super wide/45" UW/55" curved monitors, I can fit few of those on my table, but that's not the point. I don't want UW and curved displays, also no huge displays. On top they all have low resolution.

[Mortis Angelus]

10 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Because it's a new tech, lower yields even though improved but still, manufacturing capacity, current format being left over from giant motherglass displays are cut, general world price hikes. Also I'm sure one of reasons to get like 32" 4K 240Hz and such is to wait for new GPUs and DP 2.0 that are to come soon as well as prices to not be insane.

 

I too don't like those nonsense 42"/48"/49" super wide/45" UW/55" curved monitors, I can fit few of those on my table, but that's not the point. I don't want UW and curved displays, also no huge displays. On top they all have low resolution.

Yeah, I know it takes time to get the manufacturing process going. But since they cut them out from these big "cakes" or whatever they are called, wouldnt it be easier to cut out smaller pieces? Or is it because it is more difficult to produce "pixels" (i.e. OLEDs) small enough to produce a 27" panel?

 

But if that is the case, why can they then oroduce OLED smartphone screens with a ridiculous ppi? Even jOLED makes either smartphone screens or min 27" OLED (yet to be released I think?) 

 

I ask cus I just wanna learn to understand this.

 

But as mentioned; my main "concern" is the lack of seemingly any roadmap, not the lack of actual products. 

[Doobeedoo]

4 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Yeah, I know it takes time to get the manufacturing process going. But since they cut them out from these big "cakes" or whatever they are called, wouldnt it be easier to cut out smaller pieces? Or is it because it is more difficult to produce "pixels" (i.e. OLEDs) small enough to produce a 27" panel?

 

But if that is the case, why can they then oroduce OLED smartphone screens with a ridiculous ppi? Even jOLED makes either smartphone screens or min 27" OLED (yet to be released I think?) 

 

I ask cus I just wanna learn to understand this.

 

But as mentioned; my main "concern" is the lack of seemingly any roadmap, not the lack of actual products. 

Well as for Samsung since their QD-OLED is in that 34" UW monitor, the was the so called leftover size from huge motherglass that usually is for larger TVs so they fit few there. That's what I've hear and seen, not sure about different OLED tech on same motherglass. And yes QD-OLED is more difficult to produce than regular OLED is for now. So TVs are different market, much more are demanded and sold in that market, also pixels are larger too. 

 

Smartphones are also another market on their own too. They're different OLED in a way, can use different sub-pixel layout, higher PPI hides that otherwise it could cause text clarity issue vs regular RGB one. In another way is that phones are also tiny vs TVs so even if more would have yield issues they can still produce way more in a single go anyway.

 

In the end TVs and smartphones are way more consumer market than monitors, much more are demanded and sold there. Also monitors use way more static content which is rather bad for OLED with burn-in issues, to add to that people keep monitors for longer than the other two as well. Seems QD-OLED is improving that. So making more regular sized monitor is yet another category that needs to be make for mass manufacture, along with new QD-OLED tech along. All that higher expected starting price being a new thing on the market that is not as huge as TV and phone, while also yields still improving. Really for first QD-OLED monitor it was expected to cost much more yet it didn't which is great.

 

Now only to wait for the tech to catch on for a while and we'll be getting amazing monitors.

[Stahlmann]

On 9/3/2022 at 1:10 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

(I am surprised it has taken Samsung this long to make one; it's their panel after all).

Samsung Display (manufacturer of the QD-OLED panels) and Samsung Electronics (manufacturer of monitors, TVs and other electronics) are two different companies. The initial problem why it's taking Samsung Electronics so long is because they couldn't agree on a price with the panel supplier Samsung Display. Who knows what problem they've run into now.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 12:02 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

Yeah, I know it takes time to get the manufacturing process going. But since they cut them out from these big "cakes" or whatever they are called

The term is you're looking for is "motherglass".

 

On 9/4/2022 at 12:02 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

wouldnt it be easier to cut out smaller pieces? Or is it because it is more difficult to produce "pixels" (i.e. OLEDs) small enough to produce a 27" panel?

Pixel density shouldn't be a problem for a 27" 1440p monitor, seeing as a 34" ultrawide is essentially a 27" 1440p monitor with more width. It could be a problem for 27" or 32" 4K though.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 12:02 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

But if that is the case, why can they then oroduce OLED smartphone screens with a ridiculous ppi? Even jOLED makes either smartphone screens or min 27" OLED (yet to be released I think?) 

Because they're a completely different OLED technology. Phone screens are AMOLED (or super-AMOLED), which is an entirely different display technology from Samsung Display. AMOLED has different advantages and drawbacks compared to WOLED (LG) or QD-OLED. For example they're a lot slower in terms of pixel response times and susceptible to black smearing like current VA displays. But they're a lot more efficient allowing them to be used on battery-driven devices such as phones. Plus they allow for a much higher pixel density like you already mentioned.

 

JOLED has another completely different manufacturing process for their OLED panels, allowing them to work around limitations that more mass manufacturers like LG and Samsung have. The main problem is that JOLED's panels are ridiculously expensive and rarely make it into consumer monitors. They're mostly professional-grade multi-thousand dollar options like the LG 32EP950.

 

On 9/4/2022 at 12:02 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

But as mentioned; my main "concern" is the lack of seemingly any roadmap, not the lack of actual products. 

Don't put too much weight into roadmaps. Most products have an announcement and then they just pop up on retail sites a few months (or years) later. Noctua for example has a roadmap, but it's changed every few months to push everything back. So it doesn't really give you any release information other than "they're working on it".

 

I've been saying for years that the first brand to release a 27" 240+Hz OLED monitor with BFI will basically release a money printer. Not just enthusiasts, but most professional gamers would buy this thing no questions asked. I wonder what exactly takes them so long. LG already has 42" TV's with good enough pixel denisty and Corsair already announced a 240Hz OLED monitor using LG's panels. The technical capabilities are there.

[e22big]

On 9/3/2022 at 6:10 AM, Mortis Angelus said:

It's now been 6 months since we begun seeing news coverage about the Alienware 34" curved QD-OLED panels.

 

Since the. MSI and Samsung seem to have jumped aboard to make their variants (I am surprised it has taken Samsung this long to make one; it's their panel after all).

 

But what I am curious about is why we still haven't seen any new announcements for other sizes or aspect ratios. Is it impossible to make panels smaller than whatever the width of a 34" ultrawide is? I really look forward to a 4K (or even 1440p) 27" model with 144+ hz refresh rate. 

 

I dont say there should be one out now, but I am surprised there is not even any announcements. No roadmap. No hype-building. At least Alienware seem to be planning on making a non-curved version, but it is still 34" ultrawide which I (and probably many other ppl) can't fit onto my desk. 

 

Honestly... I think it's mainly because they basically don't want you to use it as a monitor. OLED has a lot of limitation for pure PC usage (low brightness, poor efficiency, extremely high burn-in risk especially on the smaller size and in typical Windows environment etc.) 

 

There are pretty good chance that as it is, people will find OLED as a pure Windows PC monitor, a disappointment - which is probably why they don't even want to try it until the technology is mature enough. 

 

That is for the traditional WRGB OLED. QD-OLED is probably already ready as a PC monitor but it's still expensive to make and the yields are low. Selling it as a 34 ultraway to make mitigate some of those issue because it allows you to cut more panel out of a single motherglass without waste, which give you both more units to sell and make it easier to deal with the defective panel. This in turn, allows them to sell it at a competitive price that the actual consumers can buy. 

[Stahlmann]

26 minutes ago, e22big said:

 

Honestly... I think it's mainly because they basically don't want you to use it as a monitor. OLED has a lot of limitation for pure PC usage (low brightness, poor efficiency, extremely high burn-in risk especially on the smaller size and in typical Windows environment etc.) 

 

There are pretty good chance that as it is, people will find OLED as a pure Windows PC monitor, a disappointment - which is probably why they don't even want to try it until the technology is mature enough. 

My 42" C2 and me would disagree with you. It's easily the best "monitor" i've had so far. The 180 nits fullscreen brightness combined with the amazing screen coating is more than enough even for useage in bright rooms. In fact i run mine at just 100 nits and i have a window directly opposed of the display. Compared to the C2 my IPS 2nd monitor gets unreadable during daytime when running at the same brightness of 100 nits.

 

Burn-in risk being "extremely high" is an exaggeration imo. For power users who have the same work apps open 8+ hours a day sure, it's a concern. But for general useage including a healthy mix of browsing, content consumption and gaming it's not a huge problem.

[Mortis Angelus]

1 hour ago, e22big said:

 

Honestly... I think it's mainly because they basically don't want you to use it as a monitor. OLED has a lot of limitation for pure PC usage (low brightness, poor efficiency, extremely high burn-in risk especially on the smaller size and in typical Windows environment etc.) 

 

There are pretty good chance that as it is, people will find OLED as a pure Windows PC monitor, a disappointment - which is probably why they don't even want to try it until the technology is mature enough. 

 

That is for the traditional WRGB OLED. QD-OLED is probably already ready as a PC monitor but it's still expensive to make and the yields are low. Selling it as a 34 ultraway to make mitigate some of those issue because it allows you to cut more panel out of a single motherglass without waste, which give you both more units to sell and make it easier to deal with the defective panel. This in turn, allows them to sell it at a competitive price that the actual consumers can buy. 

I don't know what you base the potentiall disappointment part on? Apart from HDR-performance and the high price (for regular OLED) there is usually nothing but praise from normal PC-users. Which is why LG's C1 and C2 42" models are so sought after to be used as monitors. LG also announced an jOLED for professional color critical work. 

 

As you said, the whole point of QD-OLED is also to mitigate the whole burn-in aspect and providing higher general brightness (not only increased peak brightness). For SDR in a normal room, I don't see why you'd ever would need to go above 400 nits anyways. My screens are set to 130 nits (ca 51 - 53 % brightness on my IPS screen, 74 % on my C9 OLED). And even HDR would benefit of QD-OLED, as that is the only part I really don't like with my LG C9.

 

 

[e22big]

4 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

My 42" C2 and me would disagree with you. It's easily the best "monitor" i've had so far. The 180 nits fullscreen brightness combined with the amazing screen coating is more than enough even for useage in bright rooms. In fact i run mine at just 100 nits and i have a window directly opposed of the display. Compared to the C2 my IPS 2nd monitor gets unreadable during daytime when running at the same brightness of 100 nits.

 

Burn-in risk being "extremely high" is an exaggeration imo. For power users who have the same work apps open 8+ hours a day sure, it's a concern. But for general useage including a healthy mix of browsing, content consumption and gaming it's not a huge problem.

 

Which is why I've said ' for pure Windows PC', it's not that common for people to want to at least using a taskbar or spending a day working on their monitor and game at night. In that kind of application, WRGB OLED, espcially smaller WRGB OLED are especially vulnerable. A monitor that can't at least fulfill a desktop monitor function is a failed monitor in my book. And that's probably what they think of as a brand. OLED is great as a TV and an OLED monitor will basically work like a small TV without the benefit of TV feature and functionality, and I've bet LG realised that doesn't sound too great as a mass product (it's also likely to be just about as expensive as your 42 C2)

 

And I am pretty sure we had this dicussion before, definitely not everyone will be comfortable using a monitor at 100 nits. And I consider that as another fail point for OLED. A monitor that required you to adapt to its weakness is not a great monitor, just like how you adapt to VA motion blur or IPS low contrast. 

 

If it works like a TV, probably not going to be any significantly cheaper, and people who bought it will also probably use it mostly like a TV, why not just sell it as a TV or TV size panel. At leat that's what I think how they viewed about making smaller OLED off the existing TV panel.

[e22big]

4 hours ago, Mortis Angelus said:

I don't know what you base the potentiall disappointment part on? Apart from HDR-performance and the high price (for regular OLED) there is usually nothing but praise from normal PC-users. Which is why LG's C1 and C2 42" models are so sought after to be used as monitors. LG also announced an jOLED for professional color critical work. 

 

As you said, the whole point of QD-OLED is also to mitigate the whole burn-in aspect and providing higher general brightness (not only increased peak brightness). For SDR in a normal room, I don't see why you'd ever would need to go above 400 nits anyways. My screens are set to 130 nits (ca 51 - 53 % brightness on my IPS screen, 74 % on my C9 OLED). And even HDR would benefit of QD-OLED, as that is the only part I really don't like with my LG C9.

 

 

Distracting ABL, low brightness, risk of burn-in which limit some of your Windows functionality (like the use of taskbar or picture-in mode, or leave windows open for a long time), viewing angle issue in some model etc. 

 

For a pure media consumption and gaming display, it's great - but that is pretty much the same job as your TV. From LG perspective, it's probably makes more sense to just sell you a TV. Better streamlied production, lower risk, and allowing them to highlight the benefit while minimising the limitations. Why take a risk with 27-32 inch when they can sell you the 42 inches, straight from the same TV production line? If people buy their smaller OLED and use as a full time monitor then RMA burn-in defect all the time, that's probably too much for them to handle. 

 

I personally think that OLED as a small (and fully functional monitor) will not come until Samsung managed to make a cheaper QD-OLED or LG managed mass produced their microLens array (which allows for the TV to get a lot brighter without actually increasing the LED brightness.) Until then it's probably too niche and too risky for them to bother

 

 

[Quackers101]

from the size, and as seen with products, TVs might be easier to produce and sub-pixel differences. same for TV vs monitor usage.

While some issues around sub-pixel differences?

 

from, HDTVTest - 5 Reasons Why You SHOULDN'T Buy The Alienware QD-OLED Monitor
https://youtu.be/XVgUosc-64U?t=6

 

[Mortis Angelus]

3 minutes ago, e22big said:

I personally think that OLED as a small (and fully functional monitor) will not come until Samsung managed to make a cheaper QD-OLED or LG managed mass produced their microLens array (which allows for the TV to get a lot brighter without actually increasing the LED brightness.) Until then it's probably too niche and too risky for them to bother

 

 

You do realize the entire topic was about QD-OLED? Not regular OLED. And I woulndt call 1300 dollars particularily expensive for a 34" UW. There are more expensive IPS gaming monitors out there. Remember when the ASUS 35" UW released a few years back? That was a 2000 dollar VA panel. So of all the arguments you have presented that one is the least relevant really. I, including a lot of people, expected the alienware to be at least 1000 dollars more expensive.

 

You argument to Stahlman about OLED would  somehow not work specifically for windows users I also dont buy. It's the same target demographic for bot windows and mac. People who care about color accuracy. Gaming is secondary really. If gamers start buying OLED without really caring for picture quality that's their loss (and win).

 

As for taskbar; mac also displays a constant taskbar in the upper part of the screen that only goes away in full screen mode. For windows, making the taskbar auto-hide is not difficult. And for leaving stuff on for hours at a time while not at the computer. 1) you should never do that just feom a economical and environmental pov, and 2) just shut off the screen or have a screen saver. Again, nothing of this is anything difficult. Or even inconvenient.

 

The risk of burn in in other applications is a risk yes (from menus and huds), but as has been shown by rtings even with now 3 generations old OLED, that is difficult to achieve.

 

ABL is annoying. But that is something they are constantly working on. And something (again) QD-OLED seem to suffer less from due to its higher brightness tolerances. whenever I use my TV for desktop use, I have never really experienced ABL unless I open up google or word document in fullscreen. And that is both so specific, occasional and really easy to avoid when learning about it. But I have never noticed ot when gaming or watching movies.

 

Ice hockey is a problem for ABL though... 

 

But all in all, while are your arguments are good and legit, I also think you make it more troublesome than it really is. 

 

Normal OLED is not bright enough, agreed, but the whole topic is about QD-OLED.

[Mortis Angelus]

21 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

from the size, and as seen with products, TVs might be easier to produce and sub-pixel differences. same for TV vs monitor usage.

While some issues around sub-pixel differences?

 

from, HDTVTest - 5 Reasons Why You SHOULDN'T Buy The Alienware QD-OLED Monitor
https://youtu.be/XVgUosc-64U?t=6

 

Ouch, that was (relatively) bad news for the Alienware owners. But other than the sub-pixel layout, all the issues mentioned is really down to Alienware/monitor manufacturer. Not the panel itself.

 

But that info about the sub-pixel layout was troubling to learn about. But that said, I doubt it will take long for other technologies to catch up in order to accomodate for that issue. Otherwise Samsung Display is fudged. 

[Quackers101]

2 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

But that info about the sub-pixel layout was troubling to learn about. But that said, I doubt it will take long for other technologies to catch up in order to accomodate for that issue. Otherwise Samsung Display is fudged. 

that is a while ago, you have to see into updates around it and if some are patched/updated.

[xg32]

26 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

.

the video by vincent is valid to alot of people, so if you are gonna buy the monitor just be aware of the problem, on top of the automatic pixel refresh that needs to be turned off and done manually. I also adjusted the sharpness to get rid of the text issue (as long as i dont notice it), my console is connected to another monitor (not the AW).

 

For purely pc gaming, the monitor is perfect, but ideally a smaller 4k qd-oled (for streaming, blu-rays and consoles)comes to market, though waiting on panels could mean a year or two.

[Mortis Angelus]

35 minutes ago, xg32 said:

the video by vincent is valid to alot of people, so if you are gonna buy the monitor just be aware of the problem, on top of the automatic pixel refresh that needs to be turned off and done manually. I also adjusted the sharpness to get rid of the text issue (as long as i dont notice it), my console is connected to another monitor (not the AW).

 

For purely pc gaming, the monitor is perfect, but ideally a smaller 4k qd-oled (for streaming, blu-rays and consoles)comes to market, though waiting on panels could mean a year or two.

I never said it wasn't valid. But this thread is about the  availability of QD-OLED and future iterations. Issues with specifically the Alienware is not the topic here. And that was why I specifically said that 4/5 issues mentioned in that video is specific to that model, not due to QD-OLED panels itself. 

 

In my very first (or was it second) post I also mention that my interest is to know if I can even expect a 27" 1440p/4K monitor with this technology, as I dont have space or interest in curved or UW monitors. 

 

That all (hopefully) cleared up, has thete become any more support for that sub-pixel issue or is text still jittery without the adjustments you mentioned you have made? 

[e22big]

20 hours ago, Mortis Angelus said:

You do realize the entire topic was about QD-OLED? Not regular OLED. And I woulndt call 1300 dollars particularily expensive for a 34" UW. There are more expensive IPS gaming monitors out there. Remember when the ASUS 35" UW released a few years back? That was a 2000 dollar VA panel. So of all the arguments you have presented that one is the least relevant really. I, including a lot of people, expected the alienware to be at least 1000 dollars more expensive.

 

You argument to Stahlman about OLED would  somehow not work specifically for windows users I also dont buy. It's the same target demographic for bot windows and mac. People who care about color accuracy. Gaming is secondary really. If gamers start buying OLED without really caring for picture quality that's their loss (and win).

 

As for taskbar; mac also displays a constant taskbar in the upper part of the screen that only goes away in full screen mode. For windows, making the taskbar auto-hide is not difficult. And for leaving stuff on for hours at a time while not at the computer. 1) you should never do that just feom a economical and environmental pov, and 2) just shut off the screen or have a screen saver. Again, nothing of this is anything difficult. Or even inconvenient.

 

The risk of burn in in other applications is a risk yes (from menus and huds), but as has been shown by rtings even with now 3 generations old OLED, that is difficult to achieve.

 

ABL is annoying. But that is something they are constantly working on. And something (again) QD-OLED seem to suffer less from due to its higher brightness tolerances. whenever I use my TV for desktop use, I have never really experienced ABL unless I open up google or word document in fullscreen. And that is both so specific, occasional and really easy to avoid when learning about it. But I have never noticed ot when gaming or watching movies.

 

Ice hockey is a problem for ABL though... 

 

But all in all, while are your arguments are good and legit, I also think you make it more troublesome than it really is. 

 

Normal OLED is not bright enough, agreed, but the whole topic is about QD-OLED.

It wasn't clear from your post which is why I mentioned both WRGB OLED and QD-OLED altogether

 

And yes, you can change your habit to accomodate the panel weaknesses and it will probably work out for you but that doesn't change the fact that it's a weakness of the display type. You can colour grade photo on a VA monitor despite the poor viewing angle, that doesn't make it great for photo editing. rting OLED burn-in methodology also focused on TV usage, that is playing a mix content of moving image, Windows UI contains far more static image (and when you're acutally using them for something other than content consumption, it tends to last from hours on end, no amount of screen saver will help with that and it had been proven by both Linus himself and Leve One Tech)

 

If you know your use case and accept the panel limitation then sure, OLED is a great option but it wouldn't be my first choise to suggest to some random people on the internet. 

 

And to be fair, every panel types has limitation. VA is slow and has poor viewing angle, IPS has no contrast and can look washed out due to IPS glow and TN has poor colour as well as the same weaknesses of both VA and IPS (poor viewing angle and low contrast at the same time.) OLED picture quality is superb but fragile and while using LCD in the task it's not designed for is an annoyance, OLED will pretty much break if you don't use it in the correct usage pattern. Because of that it's actually have more significant drawback than other panel types despite the allures of the image quality. 

 

As for why we haven't see QD-OLED yet, I've already explained (it basically a matter of cost which will need to be passed to consumers for anything other than the super efficient UW size)

[Stahlmann]

18 hours ago, e22big said:

It wasn't clear from your post which is why I mentioned both WRGB OLED and QD-OLED altogether

 

And yes, you can change your habit to accomodate the panel weaknesses and it will probably work out for you but that doesn't change the fact that it's a weakness of the display type. You can colour grade photo on a VA monitor despite the poor viewing angle, that doesn't make it great for photo editing. rting OLED burn-in methodology also focused on TV usage, that is playing a mix content of moving image, Windows UI contains far more static image (and when you're acutally using them for something other than content consumption, it tends to last from hours on end, no amount of screen saver will help with that and it had been proven by both Linus himself and Leve One Tech)

 

If you know your use case and accept the panel limitation then sure, OLED is a great option but it wouldn't be my first choise to suggest to some random people on the internet. 

 

And to be fair, every panel types has limitation. VA is slow and has poor viewing angle, IPS has no contrast and can look washed out due to IPS glow and TN has poor colour as well as the same weaknesses of both VA and IPS (poor viewing angle and low contrast at the same time.) OLED picture quality is superb but fragile and while using LCD in the task it's not designed for is an annoyance, OLED will pretty much break if you don't use it in the correct usage pattern. Because of that it's actually have more significant drawback than other panel types despite the allures of the image quality.

So we agree that every display has some weaknesses. It all comes down to what the specific user can live with. If you can counteract (not rectify) some weaknesses with slight adjustments to your behavior than that's good. (For example using screen saver, dark mode and hidden task bar for OLED burn-in) Other issues like comparatively low brightness is not something the user can really adjust other than sitting in a dark room.

 

In the end you as a user have to decide what weakness is a dealbreaker or something you can live with.

All i can do is write about my own experience and the preferences that have arisen as a result.

 

Both Linus and Wendell are good examples of a worst-case scenario for an OLED screen. They use it for work, displaying the same apps for hours on end. In their workflow they don't even need a display that prioritizes image quality above all else. They could just aswell go for a 42" VA panel and it'll be fine. They simply chose the wrong tool for the job. Much in the same way you also don't use a ratchet screwdriver as a hammer.

 

A few notes about RTING's burn-in test and OLED burn-in in general:

 

- They used C7 TV's which are 5 generations old by now. OLED displays have gotten more resistant against burn-in ever since with both hardware improvements to the panel and software improvements to anti burn-in algorithms. Even RTINGS themself admit that these results probably don't compare to modern TV's anymore which is why they're currently in the process of starting another one of these long-term tests.

 

- The two TV's displaying games represent the closest use case to PC useage. Both of these had almost no noticeable burn-in at the end of the test. Only the FIFA (high-risk game) TV had slight issues at full red and magenta images. The COD (low-risk game) TV had no signs of burn-in. Still, these fullscreen colors don't represent real world useage, so the FIFA TV probably doesn't even have noticeable levels of burn in yet. Mind you that even these two tests are significantly more taxing on burn-in than any normal PC use-case. Normal people play different games and use different apps. I have yet to see someone with 9000 hours of playtime in a single game.

 

- The test ended at 9000 hours of useage. That's an average of just under 5 hours a day, every day, for 5 years. That's probably a lot more than the average user will accumulate over 5 years.

 

This isn't supposed to be a personal attack, but anyone that says burn-in is a huge problem on OLED hasn't done any research on the topic. It can be a problem, but it isn't for most people, which is why LG's smaller OLED TV's are very popular among display enthusiasts. If you buy an OLED as a general use monitor or a TV, don't worry about it. If you need the display for work every day and then some, get something different. OLED is not the right tool for the job.

 

I don't know why people always go by how 5+ year old OLED displays look when talking about OLED. People don't draw conclusions about intel's next generation of CPUs by looking at 6th or 7th gen products.

[e22big]

37 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

So we agree that every display has some weaknesses. It all comes down to what the specific user can live with. If you can counteract (not rectify) some weaknesses with slight adjustments to your behavior than that's good. (For example using screen saver, dark mode and hidden task bar for OLED burn-in) Other issues like comparatively low brightness is not something the user can really adjust other than sitting in a dark room.

 

In the end you as a user have to decide what weakness is a dealbreaker or something you can live with.

All i can do is write about my own experience and the preferences that have arisen as a result.

 

Both Linus and Wendell are good examples of a worst-case scenario for an OLED screen. They use it for work, displaying the same apps for hours on end. In their workflow they don't even need a display that prioritizes image quality above all else. They could just aswell go for a 42" VA panel and it'll be fine. They simply chose the wrong tool for the job. Much in the same way you also don't use a ratchet screwdriver as a hammer.

 

A few notes about RTING's burn-in test and OLED burn-in in general:

 

- They used C7 TV's which are 5 generations old by now. OLED displays have gotten more resistant against burn-in ever since with both hardware improvements to the panel and software improvements to anti burn-in algorithms. Even RTINGS themself admit that these results probably don't compare to modern TV's anymore which is why they're currently in the process of starting another one of these long-term tests.

 

- The two TV's displaying games represent the closest use case to PC useage. Both of these had almost no noticeable burn-in at the end of the test. Only the FIFA (high-risk game) TV had slight issues at full red and magenta images. The COD (low-risk game) TV had no signs of burn-in. Still, these fullscreen colors don't represent real world useage, so the FIFA TV probably doesn't even have noticeable levels of burn in yet. Mind you that even these two tests are significantly more taxing on burn-in than any normal PC use-case. Normal people play different games and use different apps. I have yet to see someone with 9000 hours of playtime in a single game.

 

- The test ended at 9000 hours of useage. That's an average of just under 5 hours a day, every day, for 5 years. That's probably a lot more than the average user will accumulate over 5 years.

 

This isn't supposed to be a personal attack, but anyone that says burn-in is a huge problem on OLED hasn't done any research on the topic. It can be a problem, but it isn't for most people, which is why LG's smaller OLED TV's are very popular among display enthusiasts. If you buy an OLED as a general use monitor or a TV, don't worry about it. If you need the display for work every day and then some, get something different. OLED is not the right tool for the job.

 

I don't know why people always go by how 5+ year old OLED displays look when talking about OLED. People don't draw conclusions about intel's next generation of CPUs by looking at 6th or 7th gen products.

 

I think OLED being more resistance to burn-in is probably more on the larger and higher end OLED (that either include heat sink or use the more efficient WBE panel) 

 

For smaller OLED it's still a remain to be seen point. Even the C2, if the 42 inches can still only get as bright as the much older CX then I would still consider burn-in as a potential issue, but yeah I admitted that calling it an 'extreme risk' is probably a bit of an exaggeration. Although that would still be my warning for mainstream people looking to buy an OLED as a monitor.

 

rting test pattern may be valid for gaming and movies consumption usage but I would not consider that an accurate representation of a general desktop usage. Even if you don't work, browsing web for 4-5 hours everyday isn't an uncommon behaviour (and it's also not uncommon for people who are on a screen this big to not diplay chrome in full windows all the time) 

 

You'll probably need to buy a secondary monitor for work and everything else if you go OLED. You said so yourself that you have another IPS for the rest of the stuff you're doing, despite already have a big and impressive OLED, and that will most likely be the nature of most people who buy it for PC. Which is fine, and the fact that LG rolled out their 42 inch TV and a monitor is probably a testament to that. 

 

But it's also make sense why they wouldn't want to sell it as their main monitor product. If you don't already buy into OLED picture quality advantage, it will simply not look as good to them on paper, and if they offer a burn-in warranty and people had been driving it as hard as they can, that's also a potential of a mass returning order. It's not a personal attack on OLED or anything but the question is about the 'why' and I think that's their PoV on the matter. 

[Stahlmann]

3 hours ago, e22big said:

I think OLED being more resistance to burn-in is probably more on the larger and higher end OLED (that either include heat sink or use the more efficient WBE panel)

Only the first few batches of 42" OLEDs had the WBC panels. Vincent from HDTV test said so in his initial review and i can confirm that my unit is in fact WBE (checked through the service menu). The only reason why smaller OLEDs are not as bright is because they have a smaller "pixel aperture ratio" according to LG. So basically the pixels are smaller than larger TVs, which is why they don't emit as much light. If they'd be tuned to the same brightness as big screens they would emit more heat and need more power, resulting in a shorter lifespan. Honestly, to me that explaination checks out.

 

3 hours ago, e22big said:

rting test pattern may be valid for gaming and movies consumption usage but I would not consider that an accurate representation of a general desktop usage. Even if you don't work, browsing web for 4-5 hours everyday isn't an uncommon behaviour (and it's also not uncommon for people who are on a screen this big to not diplay chrome in full windows all the time) 

The FIFA example is actually pretty good at emulating how an OLED would work with a taskbar or a browser adress bar long-term, as it has it's score overlays etc that are constantly there.

 

3 hours ago, e22big said:

You'll probably need to buy a secondary monitor for work and everything else if you go OLED. You said so yourself that you have another IPS for the rest of the stuff you're doing, despite already have a big and impressive OLED, and that will most likely be the nature of most people who buy it for PC. Which is fine, and the fact that LG rolled out their 42 inch TV and a monitor is probably a testament to that.

The 24" IPS i have at the side is only there to play back some video or podcast while i'm playing games. As long as i'm not ingame i still use my main OLED as my primary display. Literally the only reason why my 2nd screen is not OLED atm is because there are no small OLEDs available for a reasonable price. Plus i just cannot get by with only 1 display, no matter how big it is. Burn in is not a factor in this decision.

 

3 hours ago, e22big said:

But it's also make sense why they wouldn't want to sell it as their main monitor product. If you don't already buy into OLED picture quality advantage, it will simply not look as good to them on paper, and if they offer a burn-in warranty and people had been driving it as hard as they can, that's also a potential of a mass returning order. It's not a personal attack on OLED or anything but the question is about the 'why' and I think that's their PoV on the matter. 

LG seems confident in their panels, seeing as this generation of panels will also be the first to fuel dedicated gaming monitors that are specifically meant for PC use. Some upcoming models include the Corsair Xeneon FLEX, LG 48GQ900 and LG 45GR95QE.

[Mortis Angelus]

4 hours ago, e22big said:

For smaller OLED it's still a remain to be seen point. Even the C2, if the 42 inches can still only get as bright as the much older CX then I would still consider burn-in as a potential issue, but yeah I admitted that calling it an 'extreme risk' is probably a bit of an exaggeration. Although that would still be my warning for mainstream people looking to buy an OLED as a monitor.

 

Actually the CX was less bright than the C9, which is why it was kinda funny that when the first EVO panels came, they were essentially the C9-panels with some more safeguards. The C2 should be brighter than the C1, which was as bright as the C9. Or am I misinformed here?

 

Nevertheless, this thread is getting really off-topic, isn't it? This was just to discuss news and potential rumors and potential development pipeline for what we can expect. Not a "is OLED good or bad"-thread. Plenty of those threads already. I respect your criticisms towards OLED, and they are legit (even if I think you are overly cautious), others might find the benefit of the technology.

 

It is just that after I got my C9, both my PC monitors look so terrible by comparison; even my photo-grade panel (which albeit is from 2011).

 

Best compromise would probably be a miniled screen, but they don't come in any smaller size than 32" still, and they are somehow more costly than OLED. The dream is MicroLED, but those are faaaaar from being accessible for normal consumers in a 27"- 32" format, even less for a sensible price. Thus QD-OLED (or regular OLED too) is more appealing for that (imho) perfect experience

[Stahlmann]

44 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Actually the CX was less bright than the C9, which is why it was kinda funny that when the first EVO panels came, they were essentially the C9-panels with some more safeguards. The C2 should be brighter than the C1, which was as bright as the C9. Or am I misinformed here?

That's pretty much what i perceived aswell. Also got a C9 a few months before the CX was released. It was kind of funny seeing them market higher brightness, just to match the model that was released 2 generations ago.

 

Still, the smaller C2 OLEDs are still on the same 700 nits brightness level as the C9. Only the 55" and up models get significantly brighter.

 

44 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Nevertheless, this thread is getting really off-topic, isn't it? This was just to discuss news and potential rumors and potential development pipeline for what we can expect. Not a "is OLED good or bad"-thread. Plenty of those threads already. I respect your criticisms towards OLED, and they are legit (even if I think you are overly cautious), others might find the benefit of the technology.

Tbf it was kinda predictable that any thread about OLED will become an OLED vs LCD topic

Just like you can't stop a covid topic getting too political and ultimately locked by mods.

 

Still, the whole point of discussion was brought up when one of the participants said OLED isn't ready for the monitor market, which is what the argument is about. So not really off-topic.

 

44 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

It is just that after I got my C9, both my PC monitors look so terrible by comparison; even my photo-grade panel (which albeit is from 2011).

That was exactly what happened to me aswell. I was perfectly happy with my monitors, then the C9 ruined LCD's for me. Ever since i got my C9 i was keen to get my hands on an OLED display as my main monitor. And after about 2 months of use with my C2 i can say it was worth it. Even my PG35VQ which was twice as expensive pales in comparison.

 

44 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Best compromise would probably be a miniled screen, but they don't come in any smaller size than 32" still, and they are somehow more costly than OLED. The dream is MicroLED, but those are faaaaar from being accessible for normal consumers in a 27"- 32" format, even less for a sensible price. Thus QD-OLED (or regular OLED too) is more appealing for that (imho) perfect experience

And that's exactly what MiniLED is imo: A compromise. A "good" miniLED screen will be a VA panel, which will have slow-ish response times, especially in dark transitions. Any MiniLED IPS will suffer from blooming, which is something i never want to see again. Blooming really ruined a lot of HDR scenes on my PG35VQ.

 

OLED is also a compromise in some ways, but again imo it's the best we got.

 

Obviously MicroLED is the jack of all trades when it comes to raw capabilities. But here we still run into compromises: They struggle at making the pixels small enough and cheap enough to produce. A 27-32" MicroLED display using current technology would probably be 720p while costing 5 figures or more and consuming ungodly amounts of power. LG's currently announced MIcroLED options are either 1080p 108" or 8K 325" models, which fall in at a pixel density of 20-25 PPI, which is 4-5 times lower than what is considered useable as a PC monitor. Samsung at least has a 4K 110" model which sits around 40 PPI - still way too low.

 

MicroLED still has a long way to go before being a real option for consumers. And until MicroLED arrives OLED is the next best thing where major improvements can still be had. LCD is a dead end imo. Samsung Display seems to agree, seeing as they commited to stop production of LCD panels reallocating these resources into QD-OLED technology.

[e22big]

58 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

That's pretty much what i perceived aswell. Also got a C9 a few months before the CX was released. It was kind of funny seeing them market higher brightness, just to match the model that was released 2 generations ago.

 

Still, the smaller C2 OLEDs are still on the same 700 nits brightness level as the C9. Only the 55" and up models get significantly brighter.

 

Tbf it was kinda predictable that any thread about OLED will become an OLED vs LCD topic

Just like you can't stop a covid topic getting too political and ultimately locked by mods.

 

Still, the whole point of discussion was brought up when one of the participants said OLED isn't ready for the monitor market, which is what the argument is about. So not really off-topic.

 

That was exactly what happened to me aswell. I was perfectly happy with my monitors, then the C9 ruined LCD's for me. Ever since i got my C9 i was keen to get my hands on an OLED display as my main monitor. And after about 2 months of use with my C2 i can say it was worth it. Even my PG35VQ which was twice as expensive pales in comparison.

 

And that's exactly what MiniLED is imo: A compromise. A "good" miniLED screen will be a VA panel, which will have slow-ish response times, especially in dark transitions. Any MiniLED IPS will suffer from blooming, which is something i never want to see again. Blooming really ruined a lot of HDR scenes on my PG35VQ.

 

OLED is also a compromise in some ways, but again imo it's the best we got.

 

Obviously MicroLED is the jack of all trades when it comes to raw capabilities. But here we still run into compromises: They struggle at making the pixels small enough and cheap enough to produce. A 27-32" MicroLED display using current technology would probably be 720p while costing 5 figures or more and consuming ungodly amounts of power. LG's currently announced MIcroLED options are either 1080p 108" or 8K 325" models, which fall in at a pixel density of 20-25 PPI, which is 4-5 times lower than what is considered useable as a PC monitor. Samsung at least has a 4K 110" model which sits around 40 PPI - still way too low.

 

MicroLED still has a long way to go before being a real option for consumers. And until MicroLED arrives OLED is the next best thing where major improvements can still be had. LCD is a dead end imo. Samsung Display seems to agree, seeing as they commited to stop production of LCD panels reallocating these resources into QD-OLED technology.

Eh not necessarily, VA has the potential to be fast, and is in fact, the fastest LCD type there is at the moment with the introduction of the Neo G7 and Neo G8. Blooming is a thing but with that level of dimming zones, I'll argue that it's not really an issue. It's not an issue in Neo G7 and even less of an issue in a bigger QN90B of 55 inches and up.

 

The still mostly unresolved for any monitor-suitable size microled is the viewing angle but we had already seen it being easily solved with WVA layer.

 

If anything, I'll say that the local dimming itself is the only real compromise that you can't escape with mini-LED. No matter how many zones you get, local dimming is just suck. It added complication to picture processing and it can introduce both dimming lack and interfere with the LCD response time. One reason why OLED is so great is because it delivers HDR without any use of FALD.

[xg32]

2 hours ago, e22big said:

.

the blooming on mini-led is still bad, it just doesn't bother me very much. Both VA and OLED are just slightly weaker in color coverage, but oled is catching up, don't think VA will ever catchup there.

 

for me it's been mini-led>qd-oled>x27>c2

 

i really miss the pixel density of 4k in 27inch (even compared to 32inch), waiting on the FQS in Q4 as a secondary monitor.