Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

[Classicgamer]

Conventional "wisdom" says we should upgrade our displays to the highest res and newest tech to get the best image but..... we are being lied to. I wanted to share a few videos to show why you should never ask this question:

What is the cheapest 4K display, or what is the cheapest pc / GPU combo for 4K gaming?

I learnt a long time ago that a higher res display does not offer any meaningful improvement in clarity. Somehow this guy managed to capture this on camera when he compares his old 1080p plasma to a far newer 4K LCD:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1R94pRQK3rg&t=27s

Even with 1/4 of the pixels, the plasma delivers a significantly sharper, more detailed and better looking image due to it's higher refresh rate and superior contrast.

But... what about gaming. Surely upgrading to a 4K set-up will give you the sharpest and most detailed image right? Check out this video comparing a 1080p plasma to an OLED:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-M6ivFf5t0M&t=219s

On paper, the OLED should pee all over the old plasma tech but.... it doesn't. It certainly delivers darker blacks and that usually means a better display but it's not so clear cut. The high plasma refresh rates can deliver a higher dynamic resolution.

And one more... OLED vs a Pioneer Elite Kuro, the best plasma ever made IMO. As an OLED fan, this one surprised me as I was expecting the OLED to win by miles but it ends up being a matter of opinion:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_MUhfOPyEQ

So, if you want to save money but want the best, IMO, the best displays from 5 (or even 10) years ago are almost always better than entry level displays of today, regardless of what the specs say.

[mikejmoffitt]

Plasma refresh rates are a scam. So many "600Hz" Plasmas still update the image buffer at 60Hz, and use the 10x factor in refresh to do temporal dithering. You may remember first-generation 60Hz plasmas having really gross artifacts on moving elements, as temporal dither was no faster than the image update (look at those 40" 4:3 Pioneer plasmas...)

A 3840x2160 setup is literally and irrefutably a more detail-capable display than a 1920x1080 one. Whether or not you are feeding it appropriate content, and consequently benefit from the added definition, is up to you. Furthermore, it is (unfortunately) the responsibility of the owner to choose settings that allow the display to accurately display the signal being fed. Never mind all the plasmas that outright lied about their resolution - so many "720p" plasmas were 1024x768 with a wide pixel aspect ratio.

That comparison video... what am I supposed to get from this?

As a rule of thumb, I would agree that the highest-spec stuff from five years ago will be better in many ways than whatever entry level options there are now, but like any rule of thumb, exceptions must be made, and judgements should be formed on which criteria are important.

[Xyga]

If to begin people understood what to get for what purpose and price that'd be a revolution. But the internet keeps making big bold statements because people can't handle the variety, there's too much to learn, it's the 21st century; everything has to be black or white, one-way opinions, simple, quick and final.

[Classicgamer]

Plasma refresh rates are a scam. So many "600Hz" Plasmas still update the image buffer at 60Hz, and use the 10x factor in refresh to do temporal dithering. You may remember first-generation 60Hz plasmas having really gross artifacts on moving elements, as temporal dither was no faster than the image update (look at those 40" 4:3 Pioneer plasmas...)

A 3840x2160 setup is literally and irrefutably a more detail-capable display than a 1920x1080 one. Whether or not you are feeding it appropriate content, and consequently benefit from the added definition, is up to you. Furthermore, it is (unfortunately) the responsibility of the owner to choose settings that allow the display to accurately display the signal being fed. Never mind all the plasmas that outright lied about their resolution - so many "720p" plasmas were 1024x768 with a wide pixel aspect ratio.

That comparison video... what am I supposed to get from this?

As a rule of thumb, I would agree that the highest-spec stuff from five years ago will be better in many ways than whatever entry level options there are now, but like any rule of thumb, exceptions must be made, and judgements should be formed on which criteria are important.

What you were supposed to get is that the number of pixels is not as important to image clarity and detail as refresh rates and contrast. In other words, you are better off with a high end 1080p than an entry level or mid-level 4K display.

Plasma refresh rates are not a scam. They are a fact and the result is less blur and a more detailed image. They produce a superior dynamic resolution. This is the resolution we perceive during regular moving content and it's a more meaningful spec than stating the number of dots. You can easily increase the number of dots without improving the viewer's perceived res.

The scam is what they do in stores to make people invest in 4K. They show some optimized hdr footage on the 4K display and some extra dim blurry footage which is meant to represent 1080p. The reality is that, when you display the same movie on both, there is very little perceivable difference at normal viewing distance.

A 1080p Pioneer Kuro plasma has a noticeably better image than any current LCD, even 4K ones. They have several advantages for gaming too.

[Classicgamer]

If to begin people understood what to get for what purpose and price that'd be a revolution. But the internet keeps making big bold statements because people can't handle the variety, there's too much to learn, it's the 21st century; everything has to be black or white, one-way opinions, simple, quick and final.

That would be nice but it seems to be in the manufacturers interest to use specs to mislead rather than inform. In the absence of actual progress, they like to invent issues we never knew we had.

I like to watch videos on future tech and there seems to be no end to the resolution madness. They have already started showing 8k displays when people have only just started getting limited access to 4K content.

What we need more than extra pixels we can't perceive, is a new standard for higher frame rate content. It would make a lot more difference to image clarity and motion blur.

[fernan1234]

You also linked to a video that seems to argue that current OLEDs and the best Plasmas are even. But OLEDs, at the very least from the past 4 years, destroy the best Plasmas like the Kuros in every single aspect of picture quality.

The only thing Plasma still has over both OLED and LCD is better motion resolution. Then again, in terms of motion resolution Plasma was also a step backward relative to its predecessor the CRT.

[maxtherabbit]

You also linked to a video that seems to argue that current OLEDs and the best Plasmas are even. But OLEDs, at the very least from the past 4 years, destroy the best Plasmas like the Kuros in every single aspect of picture quality.

The only thing Plasma still has over both OLED and LCD is better motion resolution. Then again, in terms of motion resolution Plasma was also a step backward relative to its predecessor the CRT.

motion resolution, IMO, is the single most important component of [motion] picture quality

that's why my main display is still a plasma, and I still keep a handful of CRTs around as well

now, I'm not deluding myself into thinking plasmas have "superior detail" than a 4k OLED, but they are superior in the one thing that matters most to me

[Brad251]

I just want to note that if this is a response to the post I made recently, asking about the the cheapest cheapest GPU for 4K @ 120Hz for Retroarch, I was specifically asking because I want to use CRT shaders in 4K @ 120Hz and in that scenario it matters very much because the quadrupled number of pixels from 1080p will do a much better job of emulating the shadow mask and CRT phosphors.

Also, I wouldn't say that there is "very little perceivable difference" between 1080p and 4K at normal viewing distances. If you have two of the same size 4K TVs next to each other (say the Sony X900F or the Samsung Q8) and you display a 1080p Blu Ray on one and a 4K blu ray of the same movie on the 4K TV, the picture on the 4K TV will look significantly better. You need at least a 50" screen to notice the 4K difference (CRT shaders being the exception) and you also need to be sitting at the recommended viewing distances for each resolution for the screen size of the TV. It is true that on a small 4K monitor, you won't really notice the 4K difference much and I also agree that contrast and motion resolution are really important for any set.

[fernan1234]

For detailed stuff like CRT shaders, it's a no brainer that the more resolution the better. No matter the screen size. My 5K 27inch screen makes some shaders shine, looking better than any existing CRT (while the picture is still, as soon as stuff scrolls fast it's a different story).

[Xyga]

If to begin people understood what to get for what purpose and price that'd be a revolution. But the internet keeps making big bold statements because people can't handle the variety, there's too much to learn, it's the 21st century; everything has to be black or white, one-way opinions, simple, quick and final.

That would be nice but it seems to be in the manufacturers interest to use specs to mislead rather than inform. In the absence of actual progress, they like to invent issues we never knew we had.

I like to watch videos on future tech and there seems to be no end to the resolution madness. They have already started showing 8k displays when people have only just started getting limited access to 4K content.

Yeah manufacturers are rather lazy, but they've never used the specs for misleading much, it's more on the marketing side that there's been abuse, in part by the retailers, but mostly and first by the people themselves (people do market for free!)
All the myths about displays were born on the internet, over communities first before social media became the standard.
The other bad influence has been customer reviews on retails websites such as amazon.

In practice reviews and articles that can really help people understand better what they need and buy, have been around since the beginning of flat panels on the market, but they have like only a fraction of the influence VS. a random community claim that'll build a myth widespread for years on, or a product popular just by retail/copy effect (owner's satisfaction vs. rational)

I like to talk about displays but as I've mentioned not long ago, with time I've learned that because people don't know by themselves much about displays, and more importantly are not too sure what they'd want as a consequence, they also ask advice in too random fashion, which like 9/10 times makes participants waste both OP's and their own time.
There really is too much to say about displays to satisfy everyone, we've seen that some people have priorities putting particular specs over everything else (contrast, motion, lag, resolution, colors, scaling, blur reduction) which might make them less objective regarding other areas, but there's the main issue that it really takes time if you want to know enough in general about displays and one in particular.
Learn about the various technical aspects, find the reliable reviews websites, find the right products.
It is true that the official specs and docs don't help much, and reading (understanding) reviews really takes too much time for the majority of people who have either not the time/patience or are just lazy punk asses (the latter becoming the majority over time)
It results that - again like 9/10 times - advice threads are worthless, too much differences in experience and expectations ruin the process and purpose.

Until the day we get a race of perfect displays that's defeated all the disappointing flaws, all the issues, is competent at everything, then what I say won't change.
The perfect display won't happen IMHO so when you're into that 'side-hobby' there's no other choice but get several of different types according to your needs and wallet.

What we need more than extra pixels we can't perceive, is a new standard for higher frame rate content. It would make a lot more difference to image clarity and motion blur.

Yeah new standards would help for the future, but refresh is one part of the issue not the whole issue, unfortunately (plus new standards won't do shit for our retro stuff, rather they could be a death sentence)

[BONKERS]

I agree that 4k is honestly a waste for the time it was introduced. For a lot of reasons. (13 years since Blu Ray was introduced for reference of 1080p home media and we still aren't guaranteed content to be 1080p native. Let alone 4k)

Motion resolution though on Plasmas was better simply due to the fact they have lower display persistence. This brings problems of it's own. If you aren't playing a refresh rate matched game on an impulse display. Then you run into the same problems as on a CRT.

HDR is really the difference maker and HDR should've been the next evolution on it's own. (Followed by fixing the major problems with current display tech as a whole)
Instead we are stuck with having to continue to put up with the continued slog of non-native resolution content and ugly upscaling. (Video game scalers withstanding for 240p content, as the important step is getting the signal to as high of an integer scale as possible before your TV handles the rest http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/132921)

Then there's this nonsense about 8k TVs I mean FFS. They are just trying to distract us from the real problems with current display technology. (Viewing angles,HDR lit per pixel not per zone, color consistency, poor real native contrast ratios, persistence, pixel response, dirty screen effect, banding,etc)

Resolution is not the problem.
Pixel Quality > Pixel Quantity
4k is really where resolution should stop. An end game if you will.
Once you get perfect pixel quality for 4k there really wouldn't be any need for anything higher. We still don't have near perfect pixel quality with 1080p displays. (If you own a PS4Pro/XBoX and a 1080p display you are a step in the right direction. If you watch blu ray if possible and not streaming/garbage HD cable you are a step in the right direction to give you an idea)

[Xyga]

For photo editing and other stuff that requires huge resolution though that's sooo sweet.

[fernan1234]

The resolution race being made fun of here is actually a key development for retro game experience emulations, though of course not the only one. 8K will be a great thing for that. HDR will be another one. Emulating more and more of the good features of a CRT without the drawbacks is in the horizon. As mentioned by other people, there may also be tech developments that make it harder for the retro gamer. It'll be a mixed bag most likely.

But the good TV manufacturers like Sony, Panasonic (sell in the US again please!), and LG are, at least for their high-end models, are trying to do more than just increase resolutions. Are they doing enough? Definitely not. But every year does see improvements, albeit at snail pace in some things.

[nmalinoski]

The resolution race being made fun of here is actually a key development for retro game experience emulations, though of course not the only one. 8K will be a great thing for that. HDR will be another one. Emulating more and more of the good features of a CRT without the drawbacks is in the horizon. As mentioned by other people, there may also be tech developments that make it harder for the retro gamer. It'll be a mixed bag most likely.

But the good TV manufacturers like Sony, Panasonic (sell in the US again please!), and LG are, at least for their high-end models, are trying to do more than just increase resolutions. Are they doing enough? Definitely not. But every year does see improvements, albeit at snail pace in some things.

Resolution increase may be part of it, but it's not everything. What might be really groundbreaking for us would be a display that can simulate a CRT electron beam, with a display controller fast enough to match the frame timing of a CRT. If it can do that, we might be able to finally use light guns on flat panels.

[Classicgamer]

You also linked to a video that seems to argue that current OLEDs and the best Plasmas are even. But OLEDs, at the very least from the past 4 years, destroy the best Plasmas like the Kuros in every single aspect of picture quality.

The only thing Plasma still has over both OLED and LCD is better motion resolution. Then again, in terms of motion resolution Plasma was also a step backward relative to its predecessor the CRT.

I am not going to argue against OLED as I love them and consider them to be a major step forward. I would choose a 1080p OLED over any 4K LCD. But... that does not mean they are always the best for every application.

The motion resolution point with plasma tech is not trivial, espiecially for gaming. The underlying aim with most of the upgrades we are sold is to improve image clarity, detail and realism. Improving dynamic resolution and contrast both deliver a meaningful (I.e. Noticable) improvement. Far more than increasing the static resolution.

OLED wins hands down on the contrast side. Plasma wins hands down with dynamic resolution. Which is more important becomes a matter of opinion and what you use it for. The Pioneer Elite Kuro series are certainly no slouch when it comes to contrast and deep dark blacks.

Anyway, putting plasma against OLED is not my intention. The point I wanted to make is that the manufacturers specs that many people use to choose a display do not mean as much as some think. Having 4 times as many dots on screen does not mean 4x the detail. A high full on / full off contrast ratio does not mean much in real world viewing.

OLED provided a great demonstration of this point when it first came out. Best Buy had 1080p Oleds next to and showing the same content as Sony's new 4K TV's. The Oleds blew them out the water.


btw, I am not going to argue against CRT tech either. I agree 100% that there are many areas where they are superior to later tech. The Sony G90 is still a marvel.

[Kez]

Well, 4K is objectively superior to a lower resolution.. and I used to think I wouldn't be able to notice a difference but I absolutely can - especially with monitors but even with TVs at normal viewing differences. Over time, the movement to higher resolutions makes sense BUT I agree that it is not always worth the trade off. Resolution is only one factor in picture quality and it is certainly possible for a good 1080p display to look a lot better than a 4K one.

In terms of gaming, it is clear that having a 4K monitor is not that useful unless you also have a very expensive graphics card to back it up.. and even then you might struggle to maintain 60fps on the latest games, let alone 100/120/144. The Pro/X console games make huge sacrifices to performance to achieve 4K which is usually still upscaled anyway, It is such a waste of power when clearly many gamers will choose 60fps over 4K and yet we constantly see new releases running below 60 with compulsory 4K and no option to render at a lower resolution (sometimes even when the output is 1080p... e.g. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice uses high res supersampling even on 1080p while delivering crappy framerates). The idea of 8K gaming is ridiculous as the performance cost of each of these resolution bumps is exponential, even very high end PC gaming is a long way away from producing playable 8K games with high visual quality.

[Classicgamer]

The issue isn't so much about whether you can see a difference between 1080p and 4K when you look for it (although I'd question if it was the resolution that created a perception of more detail). It's whether it's the best upgrade to spend your money on.

If the choice is between a 1080p OLED and a 4K OLED with all else equal, you'd go with the 4K. But, if the choice is between a 1080p Pioneer Elite Kuro or a 1080p Oled vs a 4K LCD, I'd go with the 1080p options.

For gaming, if the choice is 4K 60hz vs 1080p 120hz, the higher frame rate is more beneficial to viewing clarity. It's ultimately about getting more information to your eyes. Netflix 1080p is less detailed than Blu Ray 1080p because there is less information in their 1080p image. Bit rate, frame rate and contrast all matter more than the number of pixels.

It is worth remembering that the argument for 1080p and then 4K originally was that, as people are choosing larger screens and sitting closer to them, you'd be able to see individual pixels. I sit 8 feet from a 110" 1080p screen in my living room and there is no way anyone could see individual pixels. That hasn't really been an issue since the old CRT line doubling days.

[Classicgamer]

Well, 4K is objectively superior to a lower resolution.. and I used to think I wouldn't be able to notice a difference but I absolutely can - especially with monitors but even with TVs at normal viewing differences. Over time, the movement to higher resolutions makes sense BUT I agree that it is not always worth the trade off. Resolution is only one factor in picture quality and it is certainly possible for a good 1080p display to look a lot better than a 4K one.

In terms of gaming, it is clear that having a 4K monitor is not that useful unless you also have a very expensive graphics card to back it up.. and even then you might struggle to maintain 60fps on the latest games, let alone 100/120/144. The Pro/X console games make huge sacrifices to performance to achieve 4K which is usually still upscaled anyway, It is such a waste of power when clearly many gamers will choose 60fps over 4K and yet we constantly see new releases running below 60 with compulsory 4K and no option to render at a lower resolution (sometimes even when the output is 1080p... e.g. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice uses high res supersampling even on 1080p while delivering crappy framerates). The idea of 8K gaming is ridiculous as the performance cost of each of these resolution bumps is exponential, even very high end PC gaming is a long way away from producing playable 8K games with high visual quality.

PC gaming has always been slightly crazy and wasteful with hardware upgrade requirements. Every time you catch up they seem to find new ways to make your kit obsolete and usually with little benefit.

The viewing experience that highlights the most how irrelavent the resolution can be for me is when I run my PS3 in 480p on my CRT arcade monitors. The image is every bit as detailed as on my 1080p monitor and most HD games actually look better.

The biggest gain from increased resolution is at the content creation phase. If more detail is created it will be apparent on a decent display even when displayed with less dots.

[Steamflogger Boss]

If to begin people understood what to get for what purpose and price that'd be a revolution. But the internet keeps making big bold statements because people can't handle the variety, there's too much to learn, it's the 21st century; everything has to be black or white, one-way opinions, simple, quick and final.

Oh hey Xyga is back, nice to see you. The problems are as you say and there is a fascination with one perfect display (doesn't exist) instead of having different displays for different tasks.

PC gaming has always been slightly crazy and wasteful with hardware upgrade requirements. Every time you catch up they seem to find new ways to make your kit obsolete and usually with little benefit.

The viewing experience that highlights the most how irrelavent the resolution can be for me is when I run my PS3 in 480p on my CRT arcade monitors. The image is every bit as detailed as on my 1080p monitor and most HD games actually look better.

But otoh you can buy a video card and generally ride it for many, many years. You don't have to upgrade for awhile.

The second part here is uh... Not sure I buy this at all. Are you using a garbage 1080p display?

[Xer Xian]

Remember that most PS3 games are natively 720p or less - https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/list ... st-1114422

I'm all for old techs, but, even keeping aside resolution, how can people dismiss the advancement today's best displays have got in terms of contrast, dynamic range, color gamut, higher and variable refresh rate, scaling and deinterlacing algorithms, general video settings and features, connectivity, etc etc.

Motion resolution is the only thing that still lags behind what was available with CRTs and Plasma displays, but BFI and/or frame interpolation are getting better and better every year.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Fair point, PS3 games look pretty bad even back then I complained a lot. I haven't had a PS3 hooked up in ages so my brain was probably thinking PS4.

And yeah 4K is great I am very impressed with recent Bravias as well as some others.

[FinalBaton]

I guess it depends what parameters are important to you. For me motion resolution is indeed towards the top of the list and that's why I like plasma. But someone else might have a different parameter at the top of his/her list and that will inform his/her choice of flat panel display

[Ikaruga11]

The difference in motion clarity between an LCD and a CRT is night and day.

[Xyga]

LCD motion resolution (well the most common 60Hz sample and hold) is decent enough for a good number of uses and contents, it just won't perform well-enough for the stuff that really needs more than that.
The second thing that makes our experience worse with it is that we all sit closer than we should, I'd say on average people sit 2/3 if not 1/2 what should be the normal distance, because we seek more immersion/wow.

Then there's like tens of specs/performance areas to think about when you buy one because different LCDs definitely don't all provide the same experience depending on those, you have to know your needs. Some are better at colors reproduction, some have better contrast and blacks, some better response, strenghts and weaknesses vary with each model etc, you can choose and you should do so carefully, even if it takes time.

The point of bothering with LCD's, especially the basic 60Hz ones then ? while they're so limited ? perspectives: you can have them new everywhere, for relatively cheap these days, benefit from the many different sizes and resolution/estate that fit your needs (esp if it's not just gaming), they're also lightweight and unproblematic for rotating.

You just don't have that liberty with CRT's and plasmas which are all used, sometimes antique, that you don't necessarily find everywhere easily in good shape, they're not as easy to manipulate and have their technical limitations in size and resolution, CRTs will often require work and skills for maintenance, and you'd better treat your plasma with care if you want to avoid burn-in.
They're dedicated displays, much less accessible and versatile, also consider the prices got out of hand since the availability's gone down.

Oleds, well, also have their issues with image retention, are 4K and still very large, also not too affordable, but they're available, new.

4K since this is the topic, is great for large sizes whether upscaling is used or not, because it's more gentle on the eyes at close disance, if you've ever seen a Full-HD 50+incher besides a 4K one, it's rather obvious.
There's several articles on the benefits of finer resolution panels that explain it's not just about rationality with contents/applications.
Opinions like human vision quality vary, but it's kind of incredible how little the latter is considered when it plays such an important part.

IMO in any case - sorry in advance for the redundancy - it's pointless to argue about which type of display is superior as long as the ideal universal one doesn't exist, it's our place to educate ourselves and think in advance about what we need for what purpose and then seek which display(s) we can afford (and find!)
I don't necessarily place one particular charateristic on top of everything, nor completely disregard one, like it's a definitive answer to all cases, because I know too well it's not.

[FinalBaton]

Forgot to say in my last post : I'm a hockey fanatic and watch 100+ games a year (probs 120 even) and plasma is soooooo nice for this. It really trounces the other flat panel techs, for that specific content (sports). And since that content is so important to me, it makes sense for me to look out for it. One of my buddy has a Samsung 1080p plasma and it's the best set up I've seen for watching hockey, it's a treat to experience. Everything stays so crisp in movement (and god knows there's movement and fast ones at that, in that sport), it's really refreshing to see.

Something in that regard I'd be curious to see with my own eyes(maybe I'll check them at a store) is the Sony XF90 and the new X95G, which have a feature that keeps the brightness from taking a hit when using BFI, And tests report register 1080 lines of motion resolution with BFI enabled and barely a dent in brightness drop. NOw it's probably still not as elegant a solution as plasma and the PWM flicker would maybe annoy me. but I'd still be curious to see it in action myself

[ZellSF]

Title's way too clickbaity.

Opening post neither addresses why 4K is a waste (compared to everything else) or why specifications should be ignored properly.

Why not go with a title that's more representative of what you're trying to say, like "Old high-end TVs are better than modern medium-end ones".

[Xyga]

Why not : "displays are shit and a waste of money, change my mind"

[FinalBaton]

Just noticed that the input lag on the new Sony XG95 I mentionned in my last post, is mesured between 18.5ms and 21ms at middle of screen, for both 1080p and 4k. FWIW (a nice upgrade versus the 2018 models)

That on top of extremely good motion resolution and a very bright picture, could maybe prove interesting for some.
Lack of HDMI 2.1 ports throws future-proofing out the window though...

I guess if excellent motion resolution and pretty good high peak brightness and excellent upscaling is all you care about, then this is a display for you

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, good points. Through the history of Shmups Farm we've seen an awful lot of threads where people seem to think old or obscure technology is better for motion resolution just because.

Oftentimes 4K panels aren't great for retrogaming - but if you're going to use modern panel tech you really are likely looking at either a specialist gaming monitor, or else a 4K TV, as all the other features that are improving motion resolution are typically being featured on the higher-margin 4K panels.

Incidentally, it is quite possible to get a good guess at which of two panels will be best by carefully understanding the specs. Total resolution is just one of these. Misleading backlight / 'effective refresh rate' numbers need further investigation - that's what sites like Rtings are for, so you can get the real specifications & understand what the numbers reference.

[Xyga]

@FinalBaton: I see nothing different from other TVs in that aspect, response seems good (Rting's test is too limited to tell better), but the increased motion resolution is of course only achieved using X-Motion, which undoubtedly introduces a lot of lag.
(doesn't matter for watching sports though)

For nearly the same price you get an LG B8, which outperforms it in pretty much every area (less sophisticated blur reduction tho, the panel has instant response which might compensate a bit for not maxing out interpolation, but to be sure that's something to experience live with both models anyway)

This is why OLEDs are frustrating, the only reason to avoid them vs. a VA telly is fear of burn-in, but in terms of price/performance they're unquestionably superior.
In comparison mid/high end LCD TVs have become Rube-Goldberg machines packing tons of support techs that increase the price consideraby yet barely manage to keep them running the displays tech marathon, you know they barely manage 3rd place.
If you read reviews of the 75"/85" versions featuring an (overkill) polarizing layer that increases viewing angles at the expense of contrast, it's hard not have that image in mind;
*huff huff wheeeeze* I...I can make it to 3rd place, I'm still worth something! *wheeeze* ugh m...my pacemaker is...

Not saying I wouldn't buy a mid/high end LCD TV these days, but I have a problem with the value for money. For me something like the X95 should be half the asking price.

I'd hunt down a plasma unicorn if I had the patience.