Why no OLED Under 30”?

[CoolJosh3k]

I am curious of the reasons, both verified and speculative, as to why there is a lack of more reasonable sized 4K OLED “gaming” monitors on the consumer market.

 

Personally I’d not want to go beyond 27 inches.

 

What I’d personally look for in an OLED is native 120Hz and with BFI. The less motion blur the better.

 

I would pay a lot of money for this if only it existed.

[GuiltySpark_]

Its been explained a lot, but in short, it makes more financial sense to cut larger pieces of the "mother glass" for TV's as they sell better. 

 

However...

 

In the last few days most sites are reporting this: https://www.pcworld.com/article/1340351/cheaper-oled-monitors-might-be-coming-soon.html

 

My take is great, awesome but 4K @ 27" makes no sense to me at all.

[Zando_]

31 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

My take is great, awesome but 4K @ 27" makes no sense to me at all.

Pixel density. 1440p is noticeably less sharp even at 27". Though I am used to Macs which have been "retina" (marketing term for high ppi) for a while now. So 4K 21.5" panels, 5K 27", 2880x1800something for 15.6" panels, etc. 1080p is fine on a 14" or so laptop screen but I avoid working on larger, biggest I have is a 25" 2560x1080 UW, but I usually come home to use my 27" 4K panel for Excel work. It is a lot easier to read small text on a sharp screen, so I can run lower scaling and get far more real estate. 

 

On the main topic, I guess it is weird because you can get a 4K OLED laptop with a 14-15" screen, strange they wouldn't make a midsize desktop monitor with an OLED panel. 

[Shimejii]

More then likely its a demand issue, plus an R&D thing that may not pay off. They will be pretty expensive, and with the amount to make it profitable vs what they will probably get back, they just dont value that unless there is enough demand for it. LG and Samsung will likely try out more  as time goes on and see just where the interest is, but i dont expect these companies to dump hundreds of million to billions on a product that may not sell well. 

 

Id love a proper 27" High refresh rate OLED, but i just dont see it happening at a decent price. 

[GuiltySpark_]

8 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

Pixel density.

Understand completely, I have a 13" laptop with a 3200x1800 display. For my desktop, I want screen real estate. If I have 3840x2160 pixels, I want to be able to use them all and 100% display scaling on a 27" display is just too small to be usable. Increasing it to something like 125% or 150% feels like massive waste but again, that's just me. I like lots of pixels and the ability to actually use them. 

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Understand completely, I have a 13" laptop with a 3200x1800 display. For my desktop, I want screen real estate. If I have 3840x2160 pixels, I want to be able to use them all and 100% display scaling is just too small to be usable. Increasing it to something like 125% or 150% feels like massive waste but again, that's just me. I like lots of pixels and the ability to actually use them. 

Hilariously enough, my Mac is actually running with the scaling option that says "looks like 2560x1440", so I don't have more screen real estate than a 1440p monitor, my text is just far sharper with the same usable space. When I use the internal display (15" 2880x1800) it's slammed to the smallest scaling, so same real estate as the older MBPs with 1680x1050, just again far sharper text. 

[CoolJosh3k]

WOLED sounds real promising!

 

I’d happily pay the same price for a monitor where the only difference is that it is smaller.

[Stahlmann]

5 hours ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

My take is great, awesome but 4K @ 27" makes no sense to me at all.

You have to account for the fact that OLED is almost never a normal RGB subpixel layout, so text artifacts will be a thing. And the higher the pixel density, the less noticeable these text issues will be. So basically OLED benefits more from pixel density than your average IPS panel.

[Stahlmann]

LG's TVs get smaller and smaller with every generation. Give it one or two more generations and you'll have your 32" and 27" monitor panels. My guess would be that they're 1440p though because the common OLED techs haven't reached the necessary pixel density yet.

[PaulFCB]

 Why? We already have 32 LG OLED monitors and they’re 4k, just not made for gaming, only 60hz.

[GuiltySpark_]

10 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

You have to account for the fact that OLED is almost never a normal RGB subpixel layout, so text artifacts will be a thing. And the higher the pixel density, the less noticeable these text issues will be. So basically OLED benefits more from pixel density than your average IPS panel.

Then an OLED at that size at that res simply isn't for me. If I purchase a display that's 3840x2160 pixels, I want to run at 100% display scaling and use all of them. Which, is really what I kind of said originally anyway.

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, PaulFCB said:

 Why? We already have 32 LG OLED monitors and they’re 4k, just not made for gaming, only 60hz.

They're not for gaming because they're built on an entirely different manufacturing process and panel technology than Samsung's and LG's high refresh rate models. The manufacturing process is also why they're so ridiculously expensive. I don't really see a $3500 60Hz monitor as a viable option.

[e22big]

17 hours ago, PaulFCB said:

 Why? We already have 32 LG OLED monitors and they’re 4k, just not made for gaming, only 60hz.

It's insanely expensive that's why. Every product is always priced according to the estimated volume sold vs production cost, for something 1440p you can probably reuse some of the TV tooling (a TV is a much bigger market and thus have lower production cost per unit) as they are the same as 42 inch 4k TV (well roughly)

 

But going 4k 32 inches means you will have to create a custom motherglass just for your spesific monitor model (not even models) and so whoever bought that will have to bear the entire cost of making that panel from the start to finish with no other consumers to share the burden. 

[ewitte]

 I've found the PPI at 4k on a 48in screen to be fine.  It is the same as 1080p on a 24 inch screen.  At 27inches I hate 1080p so its borderline.  My hope is I can hold out with OLED long enough that microled is available at good sizes and prices.  Even if I have to get another OLED between now and then.  I don't think I'll ever go back to 27in but 40in would be reasonable.

[CoolJosh3k]

I feel like 40” would be fine for a monitor/tv hybrid, where you’d be sitting on a couch.

Sitting at a desk though, it would just be awkward.

[Rusty Proto]

I believe Linus runs a 42 inch OLED as his monitor. However, he showed part of the reason you don't see that many OLED monitors when he showed off the burn in that developed over a few months of use. While it wasn't drastic, it was definitely noticeable. I can only imagine how bad it would get after 5 years or so. Heck, even 2 years.

 

Still, that doesn't stop me from wanting a 20 inch or so OLED to use as part of a semi-portable gaming table setup.

[xg32]

3 hours ago, Old School Gamer said:

Why go with OLED when mini-LED is almost as good without burn in issues? 

the burn in issues are way overblown, and if the user doesn't like blooming then mini-led is not an option.

 

on topic 27inch 4k LD oled (probably the same process with p3 hdr10 support) at CES 2023, nice.

[Stahlmann]

On 10/9/2022 at 4:28 AM, CoolJosh3k said:

I feel like 40” would be fine for a monitor/tv hybrid, where you’d be sitting on a couch.

Sitting at a desk though, it would just be awkward.

I'm currently using the 42" C2 and it's completely fine. It took about 1 day of adjusting until i got used to it going from a 34" ultrawide. After that day, it's actually great to use as a desktop "monitor" in terms of size. Never felt too big to me after the first day of use.

 

21 hours ago, Rusty Proto said:

I believe Linus runs a 42 inch OLED as his monitor. However, he showed part of the reason you don't see that many OLED monitors when he showed off the burn in that developed over a few months of use. While it wasn't drastic, it was definitely noticeable. I can only imagine how bad it would get after 5 years or so. Heck, even 2 years.

 

Still, that doesn't stop me from wanting a 20 inch or so OLED to use as part of a semi-portable gaming table setup.

He never talked about any burn-in issues with the OLED models he's using at home. The problem was the one he had sitting in his office, which is a worst-case scenario for any OLED panel. 8+ hours each day of having the same 4 apps open.

 

8 hours ago, Old School Gamer said:

Why go with OLED when mini-LED is almost as good without burn in issues? 

Because it actually isn't nearly as good. Most of the people who used OLED displays will agree that there simply isn't any competition when it comes to raw picture quality. While current OLED tech only goes up to around 700-1000 nits depending on the model, the perfect blacks more than make up for it.

 

Even the best MiniLED monitors will emit blooming. Plus, MiniLED monitors typically also cost significantly more than current 34", 42" and 48" OLED displays so the value comparison is also heavily tilted towards OLED.

 

Basically, it's very hard to find scenes where OLED displays will look bad. MiniLED montiors make it quite easy.

[HumdrumPenguin]

I read somewhere these days Gigabyte was working on 27" and 32" high-end OLED monitors. Can't remember if the refresh rate was 144 or something similar though.

[e22big]

19 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I'm currently using the 42" C2 and it's completely fine. It took about 1 day of adjusting until i got used to it going from a 34" ultrawide. After that day, it's actually great to use as a desktop "monitor" in terms of size. Never felt too big to me after the first day of use.

 

He never talked about any burn-in issues with the OLED models he's using at home. The problem was the one he had sitting in his office, which is a worst-case scenario for any OLED panel. 8+ hours each day of having the same 4 apps open.

 

Because it actually isn't nearly as good. Most of the people who used OLED displays will agree that there simply isn't any competition when it comes to raw picture quality. While current OLED tech only goes up to around 700-1000 nits depending on the model, the perfect blacks more than make up for it.

 

Even the best MiniLED monitors will emit blooming. Plus, MiniLED monitors typically also cost significantly more than current 34", 42" and 48" OLED displays so the value comparison is also heavily tilted towards OLED.

 

Basically, it's very hard to find scenes where OLED displays will look bad. MiniLED montiors make it quite easy.

To be fair, it's more like trading blow comparing to any decent VA mini-LED, yes you will have some blooming and lose some small light and shadows details but made up for it in the suprior colour volumne and big bright highlight details (also full screen highlight obviously) 

 

The only area where OLED completely crushed any LED is response time and motion quality. The better mini-LED can match OLED in light and shadow (and even have the same true black in some TV) but it will just be slow and emit some ghosting in a lot of the time.

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, e22big said:

To be fair, it's more like trading blow comparing to any decent VA mini-LED, yes you will have some blooming and lose some small light and shadows details but made up for it in the suprior colour volumne and big bright highlight details (also full screen highlight obviously) 

QD-OLED actually doesn't lag behind in terms of color volume, only in raw brightness numbers. W-OLED does lose some color volume, but their internal tone and color mapping algorithms make so it's hardly noticeable to the end user.

 

4 hours ago, e22big said:

The only area where OLED completely crushed any LED is response time and motion quality. The better mini-LED can match OLED in light and shadow (and even have the same true black in some TV) but it will just be slow and emit some ghosting in a lot of the time.

FALD and MiniLED displays always have to choose one of the two: Surpress blooming at the cost of accuracity OR accurate brightness at the cost of introducing blooming. You can't have both. Not even 1000+ zone count MiniLED monitors can do it. No MiniLED monitor can match an OLED's shadow detail. Most MiniLED montiors actually crush some dark details (turn the zone off earlier that it's supposed to be off) to surpress blooming.

 

In the end it comes down to preference. Still, it's very hard to make an OLED display look bad. (maybe dim, but not bad) But it's pretty easy to bring any FALD algorithm to it's knees, no matter how many dimming zones there are.

[e22big]

6 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

QD-OLED actually doesn't lag behind in terms of color volume, only in raw brightness numbers. W-OLED does lose some color volume, but their internal tone and color mapping algorithms make so it's hardly noticeable to the end user.

 

FALD and MiniLED displays always have to choose one of the two: Surpress blooming at the cost of accuracity OR accurate brightness at the cost of introducing blooming. You can't have both. Not even 1000+ zone count MiniLED monitors can do it. No MiniLED monitor can match an OLED's shadow detail. Most MiniLED montiors actually crush some dark details (turn the zone off earlier that it's supposed to be off) to surpress blooming.

 

In the end it comes down to preference. Still, it's very hard to make an OLED display look bad. (maybe dim, but not bad) But it's pretty easy to bring any FALD algorithm to it's knees, no matter how many dimming zones there are.

Well, you can also make a case that OLED, not matter what type also can't display a perfect HDR image either. Even QD-OLED struggled to display scenes like big power explosion in the avenger - or any bright object larger than a star for that matter, suddenly your highlight go back to 200 nit despite the scens calling for 600 or 1000.

 

And with the modern mini-LED TV with image processing, in normal movie viewing conditoion, you actually need to pixel peep to see the blooming. While you will for sure noticed the lack of brightness, even when not in 1v1 comparison.

 

It's the combination of the lack of DSC effect, the perfect image handling, and the good overall picture quality that makes OLED stood apart from a high end mini-LED LCD. HDR-wise, they are about trading blow. There are scens that OLED will do better and one that will not be able to get even close.

 

And that's the best case scenario for both, the actual QD-OLED that can realistically use as a monitor (aka the Alienware) fall far behind compare to a TV like S96B.

 

 

 

 

 

[Andrewtst]

After own both the mini-LED (in VA) and OLED display, now I am mixed in between, not like previously I always said OLED is the best.

 

To me, blooming is never an issue for mini-LED, you can't seen any blooming issue when watching movie or gaming.

Not enough bright is also never an OLED issue, it just cannot show the striking bright highlight with double wow but never not enough bright.

 

But below two is actually issue for each I hope it can be solved.

• OLED
  • The very bright highlight can't as stunning as mini-LED which give double wow factor on striking out the pop highlight.
• mini-LED (in VA)
  • For too dark scenes, sometimes still happened black crush a bit and it is not that clear details as OLED.

But currently this two tech is the best display for the moment, both can show true black and each got it own pros and cons. None of it is perfect.

 

In summary, OLED stunning in dark scenes, mini-LED (in VA) stunning in bright scenes.

[MadAnt250]

I want more more and better OLED options, until the right one comes along, I will still be using a CRT for my gaming needs.

[Rusty Proto]

1 hour ago, MadAnt250 said:

I want more more and better OLED options, until the right one comes along, I will still be using a CRT for my gaming needs.

I'll have to see what that 16x9 CRT that CRT-Dude found is, though I also have a couple plasmas that I use for some of my gaming as well. Sadly, they don't work at 1080p.