Is OLED overhyped ?

[Needfuldoer]

1 hour ago, Blue4130 said:

They got flatter, but not lighter.

Yup. Those flat-front tubes were heavier than a curved tube of the same size, since they were made from the same leaded glass but had to be thicker. I've got a flat 27" JVC i'Art next to a 65" Sony XR X90L, and the JVC easily weighs twice as much. 

 

(The JVC is just a novelty for consuming standard def content.)

[Holmes108]

3 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

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.

 

Man this thread has unlocked some core memories. My last CRT (and first HDTV) was a 30" Toshiba 1080i CRT TV. It was a beast. It had to be over 100 lbs. It had 2 hand holds on the rear/top, so if you're strong you could walk it around solo. But boy it was a tank.

 

I LOVED the picture on it. Huge fan of the TV. I can't imagine a larger CRT HDTV, although I'm sure they exist.

 

Edit: Found some pics. This site (Crutchfield) indeed says it was 111 lbs lol. Look at those sweet sweet inputs.

 

 

 

[Eigenvektor]

6 hours ago, porina said:

Edit: no surprise someone thought of this already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-powered_phosphor_display

My immediate concern here would be that it has moving parts (mirrors for the lasers). That immediately makes it more sensitive to being moved/transported than an LCD/OLED.

 

But I'm actually more concerned about refresh rate. Similar to the electron guns of a CRT, moving a laser around with any precision using mirrors probably has a hard cap in terms of refresh rate, because physics. It would likely scale with resolution, as it used to be for CRTs. Plus, you'd be back to issues with flickering based on refresh rate.

 

The Wiki article also mentions depths as an issue, so you'd probably be looking at fairly bulky monitors again. Of course it doesn't sound like that tech is really meant for monitors in the first place.

[porina]

37 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Plus, you'd be back to issues with flickering based on refresh rate.

That'll be a problem for any phosphor based system supporting different refresh rates, unless you do something like LFC.

 

37 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

The Wiki article also mentions depths as an issue, so you'd probably be looking at fairly bulky monitors again. Of course it doesn't sound like that tech is really meant for monitors in the first place.

I wasn't saying that linked system would be the solution, but was an example of a realised solution based on where my thinking was going. We could also continue the "what if development continued" part, as that was apparently from 2010. What could we do better in 14 years? 

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, Tan3l6 said:

At native resolution basically every LCD is sharper than CRT.

i don't think so... lcd always have some kind of blur or rather ghosting effect,  that's completely missing on crts, hence they look sharper.

 

mind you crts aren't perfect either but compared to lcd/led/oled the image quality is pristine (if its a good flat/trinitron style one) 

 

as said i totally understand the disadvantages of crts (heavy, bulky...) but at same resolution they'll always look more vibrant sharper and natural to me at least. 

 

(and now lets not go into how most people probably cant even tell the difference between 2k and 4k unless they're like an inch away lol)

 

ps: sure if you compare a 480p crt to a 1440p lcd the lcd will look sharper,  because it is, but that's not a fair comparison,  there are "full hd" crts out there

[Spindel]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

i don't think so... lcd always have some kind of blur or rather ghosting effect,  that's completely missing on crts, hence they look sharper.

 

mind you crts aren't perfect either but compared to lcd/led/oled the image quality is pristine (if its a good flat/trinitron style one) 

 

as said i totally understand the disadvantages of crts (heavy, bulky...) but at same resolution they'll always look more vibrant sharper and natural to me at least. 

 

(and now lets not go into how most people probably cant even tell the difference between 2k and 4k unless they're like an inch away lol)

 

ps: sure if you compare a 480p crt to a 1440p lcd the lcd will look sharper,  because it is, but that's not a fair comparison,  there are "full hd" crts out there

Actually CRTs are "blurrier" (we talk about static images). 

 

But at least console games used the dithering to great effects back in the day. 

 

On the example below (that I stole from internet) obviously the CRT "looks" better because of clever usage of the dithering but the LCD is pixel perfect and thus sharper

 

[Needfuldoer]

5 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Actually CRTs are "blurrier" (we talk about static images). 

 

But at least console games used the dithering to great effects back in the day. 

 

On the example below (that I stole from internet) obviously the CRT "looks" better because of clever usage of the dithering but the LCD is pixel perfect and thus sharper

These examples are taken on a relatively low resolution tube at standard def broadcast video resolution. You wouldn't get those artifacts running a standard emulator on a high resolution VGA monitor, and shoving composite or S-video into a modern LCD HDTV won't be pixel-perfect.

[Tan3l6]

52 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

i don't think so... lcd always have some kind of blur or rather ghosting effect,  that's completely missing on crts, hence they look sharper.

 I am talking of course about static images, like Windows desktop. Moving images of course were and still are the weakest element of LCDs and OLEDs.

I'll just leave a link here https://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html#:~:text=The CRT beam produces images,native resolution of the panel.

Moving images though without any ghosting are still a bit blurry.

 

CRTs of course are superior in some aspects, but the link I added perhaps is mostly right.

[tkitch]

14 hours ago, SS451 said:

What research did you do ? 

Looked at your post history and realized what kinda shitshow this thread was gonna become.  

 

That's the research.  

[Mark Kaine]

58 minutes ago, Spindel said:

Actually CRTs are "blurrier" (we talk about static images). 

 

But at least console games used the dithering to great effects back in the day. 

 

On the example below (that I stole from internet) obviously the CRT "looks" better because of clever usage of the dithering but the LCD is pixel perfect and thus sharper

 

ya but at that point we need to argue what sharper actually means... the impression is definitely the looking way sharper... its an illusion sure but who cares, i rather have that than the pixelated mess on the lcd.

 

so yes i get it, its a preference but i don't actually like pixels i guess... i mean its fine if that's how a game is made but you shouldn't actually see them (ideally) 

[Mark Kaine]

27 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

 I am talking of course about static images, like Windows desktop. Moving images of course were and still are the weakest element of LCDs and OLEDs.

I'll just leave a link here https://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html#:~:text=The CRT beam produces images,native resolution of the panel.

Moving images though without any ghosting are still a bit blurry.

 

CRTs of course are superior in some aspects, but the link I added perhaps is mostly right.

ah but see above at that point it becomes a matter of definitions and preferences. 

 

i still remember how awesome the desktop on my win 95 pc/Fujitsu monitor looked... the pixels never bothered me, just in awe of the colors and relative clarity (compared to say a tv, at the time) 

[Eigenvektor]

42 minutes ago, porina said:

That'll be a problem for any phosphor based system supporting different refresh rates, unless you do something like LFC.

Not quite the same, but TVs sort of started to do that at some point. I remember one of our last CRT TVs had 100 Hz, simply refreshing each image twice.

 

44 minutes ago, porina said:

I wasn't saying that linked system would be the solution, but was an example of a realised solution based on where my thinking was going. We could also continue the "what if development continued" part, as that was apparently from 2010. What could we do better in 14 years? 

Sorry for not making this clear, I wasn't trying to criticize you for providing the link or anything. It's definitely interesting to see this kind of tech. I just got the impression that their invention was never aimed at general consumers. I think bulkiness would be a major hurdle to overcome if you wanted to build a monitor based on it. I'm not sure many people would be willing to go back to boxes, rather than flat panels. For enthusiasts, yeah, I could kind of see the market, but not for general consumers.

 

10 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

 I am talking of course about static images, like Windows desktop. Moving images of course were and still are the weakest element of LCDs and OLEDs.

CRTs can also have ghosting effects, e.g. bright object moving on a dark background, because the phosphor takes a while to stop glowing. OLED should also have way less ghosting compared to LCD.

[danalog]

I find OLED to be not much of a step up. I'm used to ridiculously good-looking TN panels on high-end 2000s laptops - glossy, beautiful vivid colors, and a nice warm tint from the CCFL backlight. Backlight bleed is an issue as are the poor viewing angles, but looking straight-on at the display I actually prefer LCD over OLED. 

[cmndr]

OLED checks the following boxes
1. Deep blacks and excellent contrast
2. Scales to both large and small displays
3. Generally economical to make
4. Lasts years and years
5. Good responsiveness
6. High DPI/resolution
7. Good viewing angles
8. Reasonable energy efficiency
9. Gets reasonably bright

 

LCDs only check half those boxes - Find me a unit that can get VERY dark and which has sub-ms response times AND exceptional viewing angles
CRTs only check half those boxes - Find me a CRT that can get BRIGHT, do 4K and do 240+Hz
Plasma displays only check half those boxes - Find me a unit that can get BRIGHT, do 4K and do 240+Hz
Micro-LED only checks most of those boxes but costs $100k to install. 

If you're worried about burn in... don't turn the brightness so high. 

 

----

16 hours ago, SS451 said:

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

By some measure, IPS based LCDs (often considered the "good ones" though VERY high end VA panels are often a bit better) degrade worse than recent OLEDs. After around 10,000 hours there's serious degradation with most LCDs. Also if a single LED in the backlight dies... suddenly you have image degradation that's WORSE than OLED burn in. 
Also on the TV side the price is about the same for a high end LCD vs OLED. 

LCDs aren't perfect, they don't last forever and from a manufacturing perspective it doesn't seem like they scale as well. 

 

 

 

-----

 

I'll argue that most people should either be looking at "budgety" LCDs (think $200ish 34" 3440x1440 100Hz IPS ultra wides on sale) or jumping up to TVs as panels (often higher end VAs at 4K 120Hz, as low as $350ish) OR just going for an OLED TV or monitor for their set ups. 

[CatTNT]

I had a 3440x1440 175Hz QDOLED 34" monitor, and I also use a 4K 120Hz 49" LCD TV as a monitor. The QDOLED has better colors and perfect blacks, but the LCD TV has good enough colors with the adjustments I made that it doesn't bother me at all. I notice the 175 -> 120HZ downgrade way more than I notice the colors. I think OLED is worth if it's one of your obsessions with how good the colors are, but I wouldn't pay extra for it unless you really did care about the subtleties. I would rather get a bigger screen and more features with a great LCD display, than pay the OLED tax. 

[GuiltySpark_]

22 minutes ago, CatTNT said:

I would rather get a bigger screen and more features with a great LCD display, than pay the OLED tax. 

A comparable LCD (in performance, not size) is going to be a similar price. Off the top of my head Samsung's 32" 4K 240Hz LCD (Neo G8) which is as close as you can get to OLED is nearly $900 US. Similarly specced 32" 4K 240Hz OLED monitors are $950ish. 

 

The premium these days isn't as big as people think unless they are comparing OLED to far inferior LCD's which you simply cannot do. Only the best of the Mini-LED stuff is comparable. 

 

 

[cmndr]

For what it's worth from a "almost too good to be true" sale perspective...

 

48" 4K OLED, 120Hz $400
https://slickdeals.net/f/17747472-ymmv-48-lg-c4-evo-series-tv-400-at-costco?attrsrc=Thread%3AExpired%3AFalse&src=SiteSearchV2Algo1

 

Similarish units can be found for as low as $700 quasi-regularly

 

"the cost is too much" argument has SOME validity, you won't find $100 24" OLEDs or $50 used displays on craigslist. 

But by the time you're into the upper-mid end... LCDs aren't any cheaper and the only thing they have going for them is a bit more brightness. 

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

That's not really true. First OLED monitors came just recently and really for what they are their price started decent. Especially if you want a top tier spec monitor, of course you will pay premium. Even with LCDs you would, heck even more, for worse monitors, some not even good.

As for vs CRT well some of the faster LCDs with good strobing can match/beat them though. So OLED for sure can, just straight up faster Hz and response time, but also some have BFI really something every new monitor should have properly implemented.

This is just like when some say HDR is overhyped, while not understanding the tech or ever saw it.

[Stahlmann]

You're adressing two common misconceptions when it comes to OLED:

 

 

Burn-In:

By the time OLEDs burn-in with normal day to day useage, LCDs are just as likely to have some kind of failure. That applies to both TVs and monitors and can be backed up by research from the likes of RTINGS.com.

 

Also, small amounts of burn-in won't instantly make the display unuseable and might only be visible in very specific conditions. So even when an OLED starts to burn in, you can probably still use it for multiple more years before it gets too annoying. And by the time you use ANY display for 6+ years, no matter if it's OLED or LCD, you might consider an upgrade anyway.

 

 

Cost:

They started expensive, like any new technology, but already dropped a lot. You can get 27" models for around $600 now. I still remember the days when 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitors started around $600. Now these monitors go for $200.

 

Not to mention even the first OLED gaming monitors that started around $1300 massively undercut the reigning MiniLED gaming monitors that cost upwards of $3000. If you still think OLED hasn't dropped in price, or didn't at least shake up the market, you lack the context of previous high-end monitors and their prices.

 

 

 

And in what way are they inferor to CRT? An OLED has all of it's advantages. The inherent blurryness that came from CRT is only an advantage for retro games that were specifically made for CRT and it's characteristics. All modern games look better on OLED. I also grew up with CRT TVs, but even entry-level LCDs weren't a big downgrade imo. And the OLED monitors we have now are just better in every way.

 

So unless you live off retro gaming alone, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that CRT is better in any way.

[thevictor390]

Good? Yes.

Overhyped? Also yes.

It's an iteration not a revolution. For me it's not worth the cost yet but eventually it will just be what is normal. Or else have been surpassed by something even better.

[Tan3l6]

Oh, if the question was - are OLED-s overpriced then I'd say yes.

Hype - can't really measure that in any units.

[GuiltySpark_]

2 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

are OLED-s overpriced then I'd say yes.

Really? Looking at the market, I really don't see it.

 

Expensive, yes. As are all forms of high end displays. 

[Tan3l6]

3 minutes ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Really? Looking at the market, I really don't see it.

 

Expensive, yes. As are all forms of high end displays. 

Compared to LCD-s, not by manufacture cost.

Can't really measure how much are OLED-s generally better in any quantized units. Just by specs, not real usage comfort.

[GuiltySpark_]

2 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

Compared to LCD-s, not by manufacture cost.

Compared to comparable in performance LCD's? Again, i'm not seeing it. 

 

[Tan3l6]

1 minute ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

Compared to comparable in performance LCD's? Again, i'm not seeing it. 

 

I edited my last post. In what usage comfort units are we talking about?

Actually stupid thing to argue about...