Is OLED overhyped ?

[SS451]

Many people have been heralding OLED as the next revolution in display technology and many are still not impressed. The cost is still insane and it hasn't really gotten cheap the same way technology usually does. It still can't match what CRTs did decades ago. 

 

 

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

I have a OLED and its great. Perfect blacks, shows HDR well, no real issues with it. 

 

What do you mean it doesn't match CRTs? Yea it has a bit longer of lag as its digital with a frame buffer but almost everything else is better. Much less flicker, much more contrast, brighter, less noise, less power, lighter and smaller.

[Shimejii]

4 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

I have a OLED and its great. Perfect blacks, shows HDR well, no real issues with it. 

 

What do you mean it doesn't match CRTs? Yea it has a bit longer of lag as its digital with a frame buffer but almost everything else is better. Much less flicker, much more contrast, brighter, less noise, less power, lighter and smaller.

This person has pretty much made a bunch of  topics trying to stir up people rather then actually have a genuine question or conversation.

 

It started off at 1000$, within a year and a half you can buy them for 500$ new and cheaper for used panels. They are getting cheaper and better.

[RONOTHAN##]

I mean, I'm not a huge fan just from the fact that they're not as durable as traditional LCDs (even the newer OLEDs need to have maintenance software to prevent burn in), and since I have a hard time spending well over $1000 on something that I'll need to replace in 5 years I'd rather stick with traditional LCDs for the time being. They are getting better and they are getting cheaper, though they are still firmly the more premium option and their picture quality does make it worth it for some people at least. 

 

Personally I'm more excited for MicroLED on the horizon, since that should to my understanding be OLED with better brightness and without burn in. 

 

1 hour ago, SS451 said:

It still can't match what CRTs did decades ago.

Aside from connecting a Super Nintendo to it, there is no scenario where I'd want to use an old CRT (even a high end one) over a modern OLED. The only advantages they really have are their input latency (only barely, this is only an issue in Duck Hunt) and nostalgia, everything else modern TVs are better. There's a reason CRTs aren't made anymore. 

[SS451]

2 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

I mean, I'm not a huge fan just from the fact that they're not as durable as traditional LCDs (even the newer OLEDs need to have maintenance software to prevent burn in), and since I have a hard time spending well over $1000 on something that I'll need to replace in 5 years I'd rather stick with traditional LCDs for the time being. They are getting better and they are getting cheaper, though they are still firmly the more premium option and their picture quality does make it worth it for some people at least. 

 

Personally I'm more excited for MicroLED on the horizon, since that should to my understanding be OLED with better brightness and without burn in. 

 

Aside from connecting a Super Nintendo to it, there is no scenario where I'd want to use an old CRT (even a high end one) over a modern OLED. The only advantages they really have are their input latency and nostalgia, everything else modern TVs are better. There's a reason CRTs aren't made anymore. 

dealing with burn in on an expensive new display does not sound fun

[GuiltySpark_]

Whatever a CRT does/did is irrelevant to me, there is no scenario in which I'd want or desire one of those again for a myriad of reasons. 

 

7000 hours now on my C2 on my desk used 100% as a PC monitor and its still flawless, the best "monitor" i've ever had. 

 

If they start pumping enough local dimming zones into similarly sized Mini-LED based LCD's, then we might have some competition but that still doesn't exist and anything that gets close is MORE expensive than OLED.

 

What to look forward to next is QDEL and beyond that, proper Micro LED panels.

 

1 hour ago, SS451 said:

The cost is still insane and it hasn't really gotten cheap the same way technology usually does.

Is it? Do you have examples of these insane prices in comparison to equal or near equal LCD panel? (Note, must be high end Mini-LED to even stand a chance)

 

I've got one. 

 

Fantastic Mini-LED LCD TV, gets as close as you can get to OLED. 55"

 

OLED, also 55"

 

Not that insane.

 

43 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

This person has pretty much made a bunch of  topics trying to stir up people rather then actually have a genuine question or conversation.

Did a little research and yikes. I see where this thread is headed. 

[Eigenvektor]

6 minutes ago, SS451 said:

dealing with burn in on an expensive new display does not sound fun

You make it sound like they're going to burn in immediately, which is not the case. You shouldn't use an OLED to show static content at maximum brightness all day long, but the same is/was true for CRTs. That's the whole reason screen savers came into existence in the first place.

 

As someone who used CRTs in their youth, I don't want to go back. Bulky, heavy and if you were ever forced to use one of these flickering monstrosities at 60 Hz… yeah, no.

 

The Steam Deck is a good example of OLED being better than LCD, which is all that really matters. CRT is largely irrelevant outside of retro enthusiast circles. Besides, try building a handheld with a CRT.

[SS451]

16 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

If they start pumping enough local dimming zones into similarly sized Mini-LED based LCD's, then we might have some competition but that still doesn't exist and anything that gets close is MORE expensive than OLED.

 

Well for a few reasons, the yield rate on OLEDs are lower meaning that it would take a bigger company who can weather the hit of a few bad batches. OLED technologies are more locked down by patents compared to previous display tech so that means less competition.  OLED also just doesn't have the hype factor for lack of a better term that LCD had. I know that enthusiast love to hate on LCDs especially the earlier displays but they were great in the areas that mattered to the masses, they were thinner and lighter, they could be made bigger cheaper. Big CRTs were just way to big and way to heavy I think CRTs topped out at like 40,50".  

 

Because of this LCDs motivated large amounts of regular people to buy them in masses, now even poor people have big TVs when in the 2000s a big TV was seen as a rich people thing.

 

16 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Did a little research and yikes. I see where this thread is headed. 

What research did you do ? 

 

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

The Steam Deck is a good example of OLED being better than LCD, which is all that really matters. CRT is largely irrelevant outside of retro enthusiast circles. Besides, try building a handheld with a CRT.

I admit I should have specified this in the post, I meant for monitors specifically. The OLED on the steam deck is a good example of the best use case for OLEDs, OLEDs save battery life so on a portable power hungry device like the steam deck they are great and since the display is smaller the high cost isn't as big of a deal

[dizmo]

Odd statement. They haven't been around long enough to see massive drops in price, and if people are paying the higher price now (which would also point to the fact that many people think they're pretty great) then why would they drop the price? Once they see a sales slump due to the early adopters being saturated, then they'll lower the price to try and increase market share.

 

The price also isn't that crazy for the performance they provide.

 

I personally wouldn't get one (yet, the burn in issue is a little troubling for me), but I don't think they're by any means bad.

 

Did you ever own a CRT?

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, SS451 said:

dealing with burn in on an expensive new display does not sound fun

It wasn't fun with CRT's either. But you are too young to know that.

[WereCat]

In June 2023 I bought a 32" Samsung G65B 240Hz monitor for 513eur as it was the best bang for the buck monitor I could buy at the time that is 1440p and 240Hz with good colors and response times.

 

OLED monitors were around 1200eur+ at the time.

 

Now I can find some 27" 240Hz OLED at 550eur for the AOC AGON or 630eur for the GIGABYTE one.

 

They basically went down in price by half in one year, idk what you're talking about.

[Eigenvektor]

2 hours ago, SS451 said:

I admit I should have specified this in the post, I meant for monitors specifically. The OLED on the steam deck is a good example of the best use case for OLEDs, OLEDs save battery life so on a portable power hungry device like the steam deck they are great and since the display is smaller the high cost isn't as big of a deal

As I said, I grew up using CRTs. My first ever PC monitor was a 14" CRT. I remember hauling a 17" monitor around years later. My current 27" monitor would not fit on my desk if it was a CRT.

 

I also distinctly remember running that 17" monitor below its native res, to achieve 85 Hz, which was the bare minimum a could stand in terms of flickering.

 

When the first LCDs came out, few consumers bought them, because they were stupid expensive and colors and contrast were abysmal. But it was already clear they were going to be the future. Much more compact, lighter and above all no flickering at 60 Hz or below.

 

You're right that CRTs are superior to LCD/OLED in some aspects. But that clearly doesn't matter, or they wouldn't be as niche today.

 

In that sense OLED doesn't (need to) compete with CRT, it simply needs to be better than LCD.

[vf1000ride]

Man, you guys are slacking.  We are almost off the first page and I have to be the one to troll the conversation and bring plasma tv tech into the mix

I am tempting retribution by the gods of tech karma but I have had a 50" Panasonic plasma since 2008 and have never managed to burn an image into it.  I used to have my gaming pc hooked up to it and can't tell you how many untold hours of Far Cry and Crysis got played on that thing.  When this thing does finally give up and die I will get an Oled, it's the closest to what I have out of the current tech available and I prefer the way they look.  It really doesn't take much effort to prevent burn in and I went CRT, Plasma and future to Oled so the max brightness has never been an issue for me either.  I think I paid $2200 for my plasma when I got it so I can get a fairly high end and larger than 50 inch Oled for the same price these days.

 

Quick edit to add photos of said plasma TV running as my monitor. 

Edited October 7, 2024 by vf1000ride

[porina]

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

I also distinctly remember running that 17" monitor below its native res, to achieve 85 Hz, which was the bare minimum a could stand in terms of flickering.

CRTs didn't have a native resolution as such, but I do recall the maximum refresh dropped as you increased resolution. I had a 17" Trinitron as my last CRT display. As it was a long time ago I can't remember the exact settings, but I think I ran it 1024x768 somewhere above 60 Hz. It could go above that resolution, possibly 1280x1024? But to do so it had to fall to interlaced mode and that looked horrible.

 

I remember needing higher refresh rates so the scan rate didn't interfere with the mains frequency coming off the transformer on my desktop speakers of the time. If they got close you end up with a visible low frequency wobble which suffice to say is not good.

 

Anyway, back onto OLEDs, I currently have two displays. My oldest is an LG B9 which is about 5 years old now. No visible signs of burn in. I do have one dead pixel though, but that's a risk for LCDs too. The other is a 32" 4k monitor. Only got it early this year, but I use it almost all the time. I'm not unduly worried about burn in. On desktop I've made some minor changes, like more use of dark elements wherever possible, and shortening the time at which the screensaver kicks in. No longer is it 2 hours which I'd normally use for a LCD! Now down to a blistering 10 minutes.

[Tan3l6]

Trinitron / Diamondtron CRT-s were great for the time and the LCD-s that became to replace them were not really equal, only being better at image quality / sharpness.

Would be interesting to know what would modern CRT-s be like if their development would have continued to this day.

But are OLEDs overhyped? I don't think so. It's the best panel technology widely available this day.

[paddy-stone]

As i'm one of the people that get really triggered by the halo effect, I am a big fan of OLED. I know you can still get this happen on an OLED, but it's way less noticeable and happens less often IMO. I've done side by side comparisons with my old LCD TV, from the same source files.

Don't misunderstand though, it can still happen, especially if you don't adjust the default settings. But after doing that I can watch tv and movies in peace now mostly, obviously you still have to get good source files.

 

One example file that I used widely in testing my displays as the opening scene for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. If you have a bad source file for that movie, you can see straight away as it fades from black into cap running around the lake in Washington D.C... also if you have a really good copy you can see all the moving traffic in the background really clearly.

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

There's a reason CRTs aren't made anymore. 

ya cause they're heavy, expensive to produce and kinda fragile... lcd etc does have its advantages (lighter, cheaper to make, needs less space, no heavy ie thick glass panel, less radiation  - i suppose) but image quality isn't one of the reasons lol.  

 

but the thing is CRTs started to become lighter and "flatter" right at the end, I'm pretty sure that could have been improved further.

 

anyway, personally i went out of my way to buy a ips Vita instead of oled btw and i couldn't be happier,  with the screen,  the Vita itself is kinda of a flop lol... 

 

don't see me buy an oled ever, rather plasma (lol) or mini led. 

 

[Blue4130]

Tangent time....

Way back in the day I used to get interest free loans through work for computers. I would order a new system every three years from NCIX and have it shipped to my office. The last one I got was a diy with a viewsonic p95f. A glorious 19 inch beast. 1600x1200 @ 85 hz. At the time, I drove a Honda Del Sol. A small 2 seater convertible. The only way to get it home was to take it out of the box and seatbelt it into the passenger seat. Great monitor, glad I don't need to deal with beasts like that any more.

 

(not like man handling a 65 inch TV is much better)

[Mark Kaine]

46 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

Trinitron / Diamondtron CRT-s were great for the time and the LCD-s that became to replace them were not really equal, only being better at image quality / sharpness.

Would be interesting to know what would modern CRT-s be like if their development would have continued to this day.

But are OLEDs overhyped? I don't think so. It's the best panel technology widely available this day.

better image quality?  how so?

 

the thing is with trinitrons at least the colors are super vibrant, image is sharp, almost no "flicker"... that's the problem with modern displays, colors aren't natural or vibrant,  they're either oversaturated or washed out... they're boring/ sterile. 

 

last part: what happened to plasma? whenever i saw one in stores i thought it's the best thing ever... exactly diametrically to whenever i see an oled , im like "whyyy"...

 

 

[Blue4130]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ya cause they're heavy, expensive to produce and kinda fragile... lcd etc does have its advantages (lighter, cheaper to make, needs less space, no heavy ie thick glass panel, less radiation  - i suppose) but image quality isn't one of the reasons lol.  

 

but the thing is CRTs started to become lighter and "flatter" right at the end, I'm pretty sure that could have been improved further.

 

anyway, personally i went out of my way to buy a ips Vita instead of oled btw and i couldn't be happier,  with the screen,  the Vita itself is kinda of a flop lol... 

 

don't see me buy an oled ever, rather plasma (lol) or mini led. 

 

They got flatter, but not lighter.

[porina]

14 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

(not like man handling a 65 inch TV is much better)

With modern flat TVs the size is the problem for one person, not so much the weight. Even at half the size a CRT would likely have been a 2 person lift.

 

57 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

Would be interesting to know what would modern CRT-s be like if their development would have continued to this day.

Instead of using a single emission point using multiple smaller ones could significantly reduce depth. Maybe they could offset the phosphor mask so that curves weren't needed on the screen at all. With modern control electronics this should be more possible to correct for. Or maybe even come up with a new emission scheme totally.

 

By definition this wouldn't be CRT any more, but if you want that phosphor look, you could use UV ones for example and activate it by other means, like a laser. That could be much more compact to generate. Edit: no surprise someone thought of this already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-powered_phosphor_display

[Tan3l6]

23 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

better image quality?  how so?

At native resolution basically every LCD is sharper than CRT. I'd call it a better image quality.

[Eigenvektor]

2 hours ago, porina said:

CRTs didn't have a native resolution as such, but I do recall the maximum refresh dropped as you increased resolution.

Yeah, you're right. It's been a long time. Guess I should've said maximum supported.

 

I think it's stated maximum was 1280x1024, but that was only possible at 60 Hz, so I dropped it to 1152x864 to run at 85 Hz instead.

 

~edit: actually I think it was 1600x1200 and 1152x864, so much more reduction.

[Blue4130]

50 minutes ago, porina said:

With modern flat TVs the size is the problem for one person, not so much the weight. Even at half the size a CRT would likely have been a 2 person lift.

Yea, thats what I mean with "man handle". I had to move my 65 inch to may apartment alone. It was less than fun just due to the shape ans size of the box. My old CRT, while heavy, was much easier to move around. At least I could get my arms around the box.

[maplepants]

In my opinion, OLED is not overhyped. Looks gorgeous on handhelds like the Steam Deck OLED and Switch OLED.

 

And if you're shopping for a TV, and you're the kind of person who cares about display panel tech then you're likely to care about all the things OLED TVs are good at. But if you don't know anything about panel tech, you won't be shopping in the OLED price range and won't care or miss it.