Lg C2 42"

[rotexen]

I sold the Lg C2 42" a month ago.

But i got it back and its at home again now. I felt like made a mistake when i sold it so i got it back now and wont replace it till no longer working.

Simply its the best monitor.

[Stahlmann]

I'm also still using the C2 and I'm still very happy with it. It's just great to use as a monitor. I don't mind having to turn it on and off manually anymore, and the hardware-level calibration is still a huge bonus for me. This particular feature is something that no other competitor offers.

It's also the main reason I probably won't be upgrading my C9 anytime soon. It's still a 700-nit OLED TV, so all content looks great, and the hardware-level calibration means I probably won't get a more accurate picture on a newer TV. Literally, the only advantage newer TVs have is higher brightness. And even in terms of brightness, newer models are only 15% ahead at best. It already has HDMI 2.1, Dolby Vision/Atmos, 120Hz, and everything else I'd want. It's actually crazy to me how well it still holds up. Probably the most unintentionally future-proof electronic device I have ever bought.

 

I hope the C2 will hold up just as well.

[Motifator]

It's quite snappy, my buddy from the PC store owns multiple, around as fast as a 240 Hz IPS in response during some tests.

You'd never see me with one though. The biggest I'd do for would prolly be around 38-40 inches of ultrawide.

I can't stomach a massive panel in front of me in my 32th age. I just feel like it's a cheap attempt at using a TV for monitor. Been there, done it with older panels... as good as it gets, it's still a TV. Let's not fool ourselves too much here. It's not a fully blown computer monitor.

[GuiltySpark_]

40 minutes ago, Motifator said:

It's not a fully blown computer monitor.

What, may I ask, do you consider the difference to be? 

 

1 hour ago, rotexen said:

Simply its the best monitor.

At least for now until something better comes along, I agree. Never thought 42" would work but one year later, it does. Oh boy it does. 

 

[Stahlmann]

43 minutes ago, Motifator said:

It's quite snappy, my buddy from the PC store owns multiple, around as fast as a 240 Hz IPS in response during some tests.

You'd never see me with one though. The biggest I'd do for would prolly be around 38-40 inches of ultrawide.

I can't stomach a massive panel in front of me in my 32th age. I just feel like it's a cheap attempt at using a TV for monitor. Been there, done it with older panels... as good as it gets, it's still a TV. Let's not fool ourselves too much here. It's not a fully blown computer monitor.

Using TVs as a monitor came with significant disadvantages in the past, like input lag, lower refresh rates, no VRR, etc. But what is the difference between modern TVs and a computer monitor? For one, the TV doesn't automatically use standby when the PC is turned off. Other than that it lacks DisplayPort and some gaming-oriented features in the OSD like on-screen crosshairs or stuff like that. But other than that, if using HDMI isn't a problem, it has all the core functionality to work as a fully fledged monitor.

 

42" is surprisingly usable as a desktop monitor. It took me 1, maybe 2 days to get used to it. Before the recent introduction of 27" and 32" OLED monitors, this size was the only way to get an OLED monitor. But when it comes time to upgrade again, I'll probably go back to 32".

[Motifator]

There are more differences than just a outputs, etc.

A specific computer monitor like 38 is a computer monitor is the panel has an aggressive curve. Some smaller displays are actually cut from TVs.

Those are the hardware differences and there's also the software side of it with chroma patterning.

[GuiltySpark_]

1 minute ago, Motifator said:

A specific computer monitor like 38 is a computer monitor is the panel has an aggressive curve.

what?

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, Motifator said:

There are more differences than just a outputs, etc.

A specific computer monitor like 38 is a computer monitor is the panel has an aggressive curve. Some smaller displays are actually cut from TVs.

Those are the hardware differences and there's also the software side of it with chroma patterning.

Monitors can be curved and flat. There are 42" and 48" monitors with flat displays you can buy right now. Problems like chroma subsampling, etc. were mostly an HDMI 2.0 bandwidth limitation and these problems don't exist on more modern TVs.

[Motifator]

This TV in specific did suffer for some part of those issues, as much as you make it sound like it's the best thing since sliced bread, it really isn't.

Also it's OLED, it's cookie cutter tech still a bit. Why? Because it's not AMOLED. Don't get the pointless WHAT in here if you don't understand how old of a tech OLED realistically is. It's nothing new. Sony did it with 15 inch cameraman monitors 2 DECADES ago.

An actual computer monitor is a product built with PC usage in mind, lower eye strain, computer monitor panel inside, outputs and such. This is why IPS panels still sell on the lower echelon. You're clearly biasing what is essentially a big OLED display with a TV tuner inside as a computer monitor. It may work but it's not the best.

[GuiltySpark_]

4 minutes ago, Motifator said:

it really isn't.

No one is saying anything apart from modern 4K 10-bit OLED "TV's" are not really any different to modern "monitors". This distinction you seem to believe exists was true a decade ago but much less so today. 

 

6 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Also it's OLED, it's cookie cutter tech still a bit. Why? Because it's not AMOLED. Don't get the pointless WHAT in here if you don't understand how old of a tech OLED realistically is. It's nothing new. Sony did it with 15 inch cameraman monitors 2 DECADES ago.

This entire string of words has no bearing on anything at all being discussed. What are you even replying to? 

 

7 minutes ago, Motifator said:

An actual computer monitor is a product built with PC usage in mind, lower eye strain, computer monitor panel inside, outputs and such.

• Ok so your first point isn't an actual point, it just your opinion on mentality, that can be disregarded. "PC usage in mind"?
• Lower eye strain.. Can you be more specific? 
• "Computer monitor panel" Can you tell me how modern 3rd gen Samsung QD-OLED panels in the latest TV's differ from the same panels latest monitors? 
• "Outputs". Do you mean Inputs? Yeah, you've got one point there, most TV's will not have displayport, though not that it matters for 4K 120 anyway. 

 

Honestly it sounds like you're simply not very familiar with the difference between the latest displays sold as monitors vs. those sold as TV's and its just not that different anymore. 

[Motifator]

There are still differences, and the C2 is not quite there. The differences with calibration, etc. You'd compare the OLED to an actually pro calibrated 10-bit panel and not some gamer mumbo jumbo if you want that color gamut whatever.

I'm replying to YOU, who FELL for the OLED FAUX. Why? Cause hurr, AMOLED is where it is at. Or even, micro LED thereof.

Micro LED is the best for eye strain, this is all there. OLEDs are organic light emitting diodes that have a lot more pain on your eyes at full blast brightness. AMOLED figures a bit due to having an LCD layer up the back, but only so so...

and yes I do want my Displayport.

Enjoy your massive TVs.

[GuiltySpark_]

I don't even know how to respond to that. Going on about nebulous "calibration" without actual facts is not an argument. Pro-level displays? Is that the topic now? 

 

So you don't like large displays. Fine.

 

But this soapbox you're standing on about how today, in 2024, monitors and high end TV panels are SO different is very, very weak. In fact you've not actually said anything in favor of your point that makes any sense. 

[Motifator]

30 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I don't even know how to respond to that. Going on about nebulous "calibration" without actual facts is not an argument. Pro-level displays? Is that the topic now? 

 

So you don't like large displays. Fine.

 

But this soapbox you're standing on about how today, in 2024, monitors and high end TV panels are SO different is very, very weak. In fact you've not actually said anything in favor of your point that makes any sense. 

How so? I defended the fact that OLED PC monitors are cookie cake.

Show me a single one that isn't. The Samsung in your glorified list is the biggest GuiltySpark. Does not even have a proper Displayport, nor a good stand. Instead, some stupid Smart TV option set.

Now I'd post something regarding how superior my AMOLED tablet is, but I'll let you go figure if you even can. Sigh.

[Stahlmann]

18 hours ago, Motifator said:

This TV in specific did suffer for some part of those issues, as much as you make it sound like it's the best thing since sliced bread, it really isn't.

Can you be more specific in what Issues this TV had? The LG C2 doesn't suffer from chroma subsampling, input lag or any other issues I've previously mentioned other than lacking DisplayPort.

 

18 hours ago, Motifator said:

Also it's OLED, it's cookie cutter tech still a bit. Why? Because it's not AMOLED. Don't get the pointless WHAT in here if you don't understand how old of a tech OLED realistically is. It's nothing new. Sony did it with 15 inch cameraman monitors 2 DECADES ago.

This doesn't add any value to your argument. All current display technologies are several years old. If you still want to go that route, the QD OLED panels used in most of the recent OLED gaming monitors is much newer than your vaunted AMOLED.

 

18 hours ago, Motifator said:

An actual computer monitor is a product built with PC usage in mind, lower eye strain, computer monitor panel inside, outputs and such. This is why IPS panels still sell on the lower echelon. You're clearly biasing what is essentially a big OLED display with a TV tuner inside as a computer monitor. It may work but it's not the best.

You still haven't mentioned the difference between a TV and an actual PC monitor. A TV has a tuner, you're right, but you can ignore that part of the display just like you can ignore any other feature a monitor has that you don't need. I don't understand your point here. Of course I'm biased, that doesn't need to be mentioned. Everyone is biased based on their personal opinions and experiences. To say otherwise is just a lie.

 

IPS panels are still sold because it's much cheaper. There are some other advantages, like power efficiency, or higher brightness  in higher-end models. But in the end it's simply the cheaper display technology, which is why it still takes up the majority of the market.

 

I don't see why that means OLED is bad though. There is a place for both.

 

14 hours ago, Motifator said:

There are still differences, and the C2 is not quite there. The differences with calibration, etc. You'd compare the OLED to an actually pro calibrated 10-bit panel and not some gamer mumbo jumbo if you want that color gamut whatever.

You can apply every normal PC monitor calibration technique to OLED TV's. On LG's specific models you have even more calibration options and TVs overall have more hardware-level calibration capabilities. Even if there are differences, the calibration features offered by TVs are generally much more in-depth and useful than basic RGB or color space controls that most monitors offer. Once you set your normal monitor to sRGB mode for example, you probably can't even change brightness anymore, not to mention white balance.

 

14 hours ago, Motifator said:

I'm replying to YOU, who FELL for the OLED FAUX. Why? Cause hurr, AMOLED is where it is at. Or even, micro LED thereof.

AMOLED is a technology specifically developed for phone use. It has some advantages, but also some significant disadvantages, like it's weird subpixel layout or VA-like black smearing for example. MicroLED is still in the "if you have to ask for the price, you can't afford it" class so I don't see any point in comparing that to any other display technology that is readily available for consumers.

 

14 hours ago, Motifator said:

Micro LED is the best for eye strain, this is all there. OLEDs are organic light emitting diodes that have a lot more pain on your eyes at full blast brightness. AMOLED figures a bit due to having an LCD layer up the back, but only so so...

What the actual frick are you even talking about? Your eyes don't care if the light comes from an LED backlight (regular LCD), LED subpixels (MicroLED), or organic pixels (OLED). The biggest factors in eye strain is the color temperature, brightness, and flickering. Any display technology can cause eye strain if one of these factors is past the comfort level of your eyes.

 

14 hours ago, Motifator said:

and yes I do want my Displayport.

That's fine and probably your only valid and agreeable criticism in this whole thread.

 

14 hours ago, Motifator said:

Enjoy your massive TVs.

I do.

 

13 hours ago, Motifator said:

How so? I defended the fact that OLED PC monitors are cookie cake.

How would you even call it a fact if you can't even bring up a single reason for it that isn't just speculation or entirely wrong other than the lack of DisplayPort, which I've already mentioned and agreed with multiple times.

 

13 hours ago, Motifator said:

Show me a single one that isn't. The Samsung in your glorified list is the biggest GuiltySpark. Does not even have a proper Displayport, nor a good stand. Instead, some stupid Smart TV option set.

You literally didn't even understand what he was saying. The latest OLED panels are used both in TVs and monitors alike. Other than the smart-TV interface on top of that, the hardware between TVs and monitors is literally the same.

 

13 hours ago, Motifator said:

Now I'd post something regarding how superior my AMOLED tablet is, but I'll let you go figure if you even can. Sigh.

Like I said above, AMOLED is good and all, but also comes with it's own downsides, just like any other display technology. Do you really thing Samsung would've developed QD-OLED technology if they already had the best with AMOLED? (which is also manufactured and sold by Samsung)

 

You obviously haven't seen newer TVs in action when it comes to being used as a computer monitor, and while it's not a perfect experience, you really seem to think they're vastly inferior to any monitor, even though you don't even know what the real differences are. So you just keep moving the goalposts. You're being disingenuous, and I hope you'll come around and see that, but I guess you've already picked the hill you're willing to die on.

[Motifator]

As much as you want to love your un-fully baked OLEDs, I'll let you know the Tab S Pro Windows tablet I bought in 2015 came with a better technology.

Yes, I want Displayport and that Displayport existed on the Panasonic OLED TVs from 2015 too... people on Hardocp originally used those as monitors, 4k. Talk about actual panel and products not the cookie cutter Samsung gamer monitors. 

You don't seem to realize there are better AMOLED panels burning out there in the realm of notebooks.

The reason of this is they cheap out and focus on the margins by selling TVs to you.

Go figure already, jeez.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, Motifator said:

As much as you want to love your un-fully baked OLEDs, I'll let you know the Tab S Pro Windows tablet I bought in 2015 came with a better technology.

Yes, I want Displayport and that Displayport existed on the Panasonic OLED TVs from 2015 too... people on Hardocp originally used those as monitors, 4k. Talk about actual panel and products not the cookie cutter Samsung gamer monitors. 

You don't seem to realize there are better AMOLED panels burning out there in the realm of notebooks.

The reason of this is they cheap out and focus on the margins by selling TVs to you.

Go figure already, jeez.

You're actually being unreasonable. I see this discussion is going nowhere. Congratulations, you're the second person who ever managed to get on my ignore list.

[Motifator]

Oh yeah? So you're blocking me because you can't accept the fact that a massive TV is not the best monitor? Lol.

Do you really want me to go out and pull an article on what AMOLED is and how superior a modern AMOLED is to OLED? There are differences. Heck my father's old S10e blows a lot of OLEDs out of the water.

Bad play, go home.

[GuiltySpark_]

1 hour ago, Motifator said:

Oh yeah? So you're blocking me because you can't accept the fact that a massive TV is not the best monitor? Lol.

Do you really want me to go out and pull an article on what AMOLED is and how superior a modern AMOLED is to OLED? There are differences. Heck my father's old S10e blows a lot of OLEDs out of the water.

Bad play, go home.

You're incapable of having a conversation on topic and within the realm of sanity. 

 

No one said one thing or the other was "the best monitor" apart from maybe you.  

 

AMOLED phone screens have quite literally nothing to do with this topic or thread and you keep bringing them up for seemingly no reason. 

[Motifator]

5 hours ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

You're incapable of having a conversation on topic and within the realm of sanity. 

 

No one said one thing or the other was "the best monitor" apart from maybe you.  

 

AMOLED phone screens have quite literally nothing to do with this topic or thread and you keep bringing them up for seemingly no reason. 

You sure? I'm not sure you can read the topmost statement, here... let me get it for your guiltyness:

"I sold the Lg C2 42" a month ago.

But i got it back and its at home again now. I felt like made a mistake when i sold it so i got it back now and wont replace it till no longer working.

Simply its the best monitor."

We done?

[GuiltySpark_]

2 minutes ago, Motifator said:

We done?

Trust me, we've been done.