Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

OLED?


onmyown
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the market for a new TV. Budget is about $1500. Been looking at the Sony A80J and LG C1 (I game) 65 inch.

I have zero experience with OLEDs and my main concern is how dark everyone says they are.

Is this true, are they too dark for a semi bright room, should I just get a high grade normal LCD like the X95J? Anyone want to share their thoughts/experience with OLED?

I game 50% of the time and movies the other half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

I'm actually in the market at well...but looking for a 75+...haven't bought a TV in 8 years, no clue where to start these days.

Basically you want a full array/QLED - (companies all have different names for it) which is basically the best standard LCD or the best on market which is a OLED.

Downfalls of the OLED are the lighting isn’t as bright. Big factor is it causing burn in (due to OLED individual lighting sources). Though they are working on that and the the future is basically a bright OLEDs.

But for now it’s a less bright OLED looking amazing in pitch black movie rooms or a full array for any lighting.

I am leaning towards the full array but I am going to the store to check out if it will be a problem. If it’s not, OLED is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hepcat said:

I work in professional AV. OLED is LG and QLED is Samsung. Either are fine consumer options. I wouldn't buy another brand of TV other than those two. 

Uh…you may want to get re certified. 

Neither QLED or OLED is brand specific. It’s a type of TV/panel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Uh…you may want to get re certified. 

Neither QLED or OLED is brand specific. It’s a type of TV/panel.

 

Lol bro. Those are the tech the companies sell and market. I’ve never seen LG sell a QLED display. Never said they are brand specific. 

Edited by hepcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience there is no "one" screen type that will blow away another. You get what you pay for though. But there's no secret product out there or everyone would own it. 4k, 8k, blah blah blah. It's all roughly the same. Not to mention, the human eye plays a great deal to do with what we can even get out of this tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

In my experience there is no "one" screen type that will blow away another. You get what you pay for though. But there's no secret product out there or everyone would own it. 4k, 8k, blah blah blah. It's all roughly the same. Not to mention, the human eye plays a great deal to do with what we can even get out of this tech.

I’m some ways I agree…but if you think OLED and LCD are even close, may be time to visit the ol’ opto.

 

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

Lol bro. Those are the tech the companies sell and market. I’ve never seen LG sell a QLED display. Never said they are brand specific. 

You don’t see how you worded that a bit off? No one knew you were going to enlighten us on what companies made the technology…because to a regular consumer that is kind of pointless information.

Sony is marketing OLED as is Vizio, Hinsense and maybe it’s TCL market QLED, someone else is doing nano, there is another called full array and another called ‘mini LED’ who cares?

I was more looking for a recommendation/experience and so for that you say LG for OLED and my question would be to share what really matters and is useful… WHY? That may be more useful than ‘they’re both fine’.

I know Sony buys their OLED from LG but in looking at Sony’s top end OLED…it looks much better than LG and Sony appears to be way ahead of LG in terms of making a bright OLED.

Edited by onmyown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, onmyown said:

I’m some ways I agree…but if you think OLED and LCD are even close, may be time to visit the ol’ opto.

 

You don’t see how you worded that a bit off? No one knew you were going to enlighten us on what companies made the technology…because to a regular consumer that is kind of pointless information.

Sony is marketing OLED as is Vizio, Hinsense and maybe it’s TCL market QLED, someone else is doing nano, there is another called full array and another called ‘mini LED’ who cares?

I was more looking for a recommendation/experience and so for that you say LG for OLED and my question would be to share what really matters and is useful… WHY? That may be more useful than ‘they’re both fine’.

I know Sony buys their OLED from LG but in looking at Sony’s top end OLED…it looks much better than LG and Sony appears to be way ahead of LG in terms of making a bright OLED.

At the consumer level LG and Samsung are pretty close in quality. The contrast ratio and refresh rates are more what you want to look if you really want to be discerning about picture quality 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to your choice, how bright is your room/is the TV in direct sunlight and what do you value most in a TV (brightness, deep blacks, etc)? We bought a Sony X95J LED for the living room and A80CJ (the Costco version, but exactly the same as the A80J) for the basement, and while I give the nod to the OLED overall they both have their strengths that made them the best choice for the rooms they're in. I primarily game on mine (Rocket League, Aliens: Fireteam Elite, Madden, Minecraft w/ the kids) and it's fantastic, an appreciable step up from the X900E it replaced (which was very good in its own right). Gets plenty bright, though not as bright as the X95J, and the contrast is exquisite.

I'm partial to Sony's processing but looked hard at the C1 vs the A80J due to the 'C1 for gaming' gospel. The C1 does offer more 2.1 ports and some other minor features, but overall the A80J just had the edge in picture quality and that's what matters most to me. I'm pretty sure I'd have been happy with the C1 but I have zero regrets in getting the Sony. 

Keep in mind also that the 65" A80J has a matte coating and not the semi-gloss, which does slightly reduce perceived contrast in high-lighting situations but isn't a major factor in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSpan said:

With respect to your choice, how bright is your room/is the TV in direct sunlight and what do you value most in a TV (brightness, deep blacks, etc)? We bought a Sony X95J LED for the living room and A80CJ (the Costco version, but exactly the same as the A80J) for the basement, and while I give the nod to the OLED overall they both have their strengths that made them the best choice for the rooms they're in. I primarily game on mine (Rocket League, Aliens: Fireteam Elite, Madden, Minecraft w/ the kids) and it's fantastic, an appreciable step up from the X900E it replaced (which was very good in its own right). Gets plenty bright, though not as bright as the X95J, and the contrast is exquisite.

I'm partial to Sony's processing but looked hard at the C1 vs the A80J due to the 'C1 for gaming' gospel. The C1 does offer more 2.1 ports and some other minor features, but overall the A80J just had the edge in picture quality and that's what matters most to me. I'm pretty sure I'd have been happy with the C1 but I have zero regrets in getting the Sony. 

Keep in mind also that the 65" A80J has a matte coating and not the semi-gloss, which does slightly reduce perceived contrast in high-lighting situations but isn't a major factor in the dark.

Nice, this is good info. TV won’t be in direct sunlight but the room isn’t as dark as a basement. It’s average I guess you’d say? Has one large window coming from the side but that’s it. I’d say picture is more important but not at the expense of not being able to see it 50% of the day just because it’s clear and sunny.

I’ve always loved Sony’s quality and admittedly never owned a LG. Samsungs for me have been utter trash. I am like you and looked at the processing. I have asked around and everyone says the C1 over Sony if I spend at least a quarter of my time gaming, which I do. Yet I still like the Sony, this puts my mind at ease should it be my choice.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Nice, this is good info. TV won’t be in direct sunlight but the room isn’t as dark as a basement. It’s average I guess you’d say? Has one large window coming from the side but that’s it. I’d say picture is more important but not at the expense of not being able to see it 50% of the day just because it’s clear and sunny.

I’ve always loved Sony’s quality and admittedly never owned a LG. Samsungs for me have been utter trash. I am like you and looked at the processing. I have asked around and everyone says the C1 over Sony if I spend at least a quarter of my time gaming, which I do. Yet I still like the Sony, this puts my mind at ease should it be my choice.

The A80J does just fine in typical room lighting, so I don't mean to imply that it's dim. It gets squintingly-bright at times with the lights off and no complaints with the lights on. The direct sunlight question had as much to do with direct sun being hard on OLED panels as it does the brightness.

I found this video to be a helpful perspective when making my decisions. Our living room gets direct afternoon/evening sun and is a huge light box, so while an OLED would probably be visible it just didn't make a ton of sense. I'm still very pleased with the X95J and have no complaints, having bought it knowing the weaknesses of LED panels (there is some blooming at times but it's better than I expected). It also gets eye-searingly bright even at 16ft and the colors can leap off the screen at times with a bit more vibrancy than the OLED due to this brightness, but the A 80CJ just has a depth and 3D feel to it at times that an LED can't match. Its all about what's most important to you at this point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 1) Signed 2 high profile guards to big contracts. Did we need guards? Yes. But there's a reason you draft guards and pay tackles. It's easier to find solid guards in the draft. Now we have the most expensive line in the league and still can't get 100 yards passing before halftime.  2) Traded up to get a RB when we didn't really need one. Chuba is one of the better RBs in the league right now and while it is a contract year, we had a crap ton of holes all over. Brooks was a luxury pick we didn't have the luxury to make. 3)Spending a small fortune to build a supporting cast for BY. Bryce didn't even put the work in himself during the offseason by his own admission. We didn't need to build an offense specifically for BY. We brought in DJ and drafted XL. These guys need a QB with a live arm. That's not BY. Speed kills but not when your QB can't legitimately make an accurate, deep ball strike without putting a ton of air under it and floating it.  4. Not looking for a true center. There were several available and it's been a position of need for years. We could have had our choice but we rolled with Corbitt, who did look good at the spot, but had an injury bug that struck again this year.  5) He didn't bring in any serious competition for Bryce. Now you can say that BY needs time to develop and we needed to show we had faith in him, blah blah blah. But the simple matter of fact is Bryce looked like a PS QB last year, Andy has one foot in the QB grave, and there was never an attempt to actually compete for the job. If he genuinely believed that BY was going to magically make it all come together watching YT and chillin for 4 months to unplug, then there's nothing else that needs to be said.  The goal of every GM should be to build a winning team. Players are commodities and loyalty leads you to an early walk out the door. We've tried to build a system to work around the most limited QB in NFL history. 60 years of history should have told him it was never going to work. And benching BY after 2 games is the real truth, he never should have been starting anyway. And either Dan should have known that as the great MLB that he was after watching BY's game tape, or someone else is making the call and Dan is just rubberstamping that decision.  Either way, doesn't matter. We're screwed because we've devoted 2 years of resources to build around a player that didn't put in the work in the off season after one of the worst NFL QB seasons ever. 
    • Something I find interesting is that you are more likely to find successful players as UDFA's than you are to find them with a single pick in any round past 3.  Those 3rd round compensatory choices?  Largely worthless.  Yes, I get it, there are a lot more UDFA's than there are drafted players in later rounds.  Basically, if you're fishing for starters you are simply not going to find anything in Rounds 4 - 7 with any regularity.
    • the argument that Dan Morgan was assistant GM for years while running counter to everything both his bosses signed off on (who look down at him and his staff for info).....is a tough sell.  I feel we do a variant of this every year.  You aren't this bad...becuase of 1 person.  You are this bad because of LOTS of bad people.  It was never just Joe Brady.  Which is why firing him didn't lead to better offense.  It was never just Matt Rhule.  It was never just Fitterer.    As bad as we are, we need to scorch Earth this puppy and quit letting people who were part of making the mess be the designed folks to lead us out of the mess.  when David Tepper and Jim Caldwell found the answer on the roster......it was clear from the jump nothing had really changed.   
×
×
  • Create New...