Gaming on 77" Oled

[BuckoA51]

not impressive at all. Two 24" Dells at my PC and still the same trusty FALD Sony LCD for movies. Planned upgrades are a 49" 32:9 to replace the two 24" monitors and a 65" or 77" OLED for movies, but what kept my from upgrading so far is that while LG is obviously the choice right now, I'm *really* used to Sony's motionflow and the LGs are really bad in this department.

I second this, even the motionflow on my ancient Sony set was better than in either the Samsung or LG I've tried since. I just turn it off on the LG altogether.

Have you ever used one of the 32:9 monitors? I have been wondering what sort of image size and zoom controls they have to see if they might have a use for two-player time crisis 4 on the PS3.

I have the Samsung one, its good, I need to do a bit of a write up on it. There's no real size and zoom control though. Also in PBP mode it locks out a lot of the monitors (quite limited) picture options so you're stuck with a badly calibrated image but hey it does work.

[bobrocks95]

Nice video Bahn Yuki, I'm sure that looks gorgeous, and when HDMI 2.1 GPUs start coming out next year, getting above 60 FPS in 4K will look wonderful on that display.

For people who are apparently getting 4K @ 120Hz right now, they might be sending compressed 4:2:0 YCbCr to their display, which I think HDMI 2.0b has the bandwidth for. Can't imagine it looks all that great though, and I doubt it has enough bandwidth for 10 bit color/HDR.

[BuckoA51]

For people who are apparently getting 4K @ 120Hz right now, they might be sending compressed 4:2:0 YCbCr to their display, which I think HDMI 2.0b has the bandwidth for. Can't imagine it looks all that great though, and I doubt it has enough bandwidth for 10 bit color/HDR.

You can definitely tell just by looking at e.g icons on your desktop if this is happening and you're right it doesn't look great.

[PearlJammzz]

@Bahn Yuki:

awesome. How low does the supported refresh rate range reach on the LG?
Already tried a game of 54Hz Raiden II or 55Hz R-Type in MAME?

The reviews I've seen list 40-120hz. I have no idea on your other question though.

[Xyga]

Nice video Bahn Yuki, I'm sure that looks gorgeous, and when HDMI 2.1 GPUs start coming out next year, getting above 60 FPS in 4K will look wonderful on that display.

For people who are apparently getting 4K @ 120Hz right now, they might be sending compressed 4:2:0 YCbCr to their display, which I think HDMI 2.0b has the bandwidth for. Can't imagine it looks all that great though, and I doubt it has enough bandwidth for 10 bit color/HDR.

Hence my question about 61Hz custom desktop, it should fix VRR near-60Hz issues and - if it works - shouldn't hurt colors.

Anyone who considers that display for emulation should ask that question.

[Classicgamer]

LG seems to take a little creative license on the refresh rates by listing a max of 4k 120hz. Both those things are true individually but not together.

My experience was the same as the guy in that video. I.e. Anything above 1440p is 60hz max but 1440p / 120hz is an option. If anyone knows a way to get 4k / 120 on a C9 then please share.

As a side note, my 4-year old thinks that the 77" LG Oled is that absolute best tv ever for playing Double Dragon Neon on the PS3. This is him playing it in 720p (filmed in 1080p). He likes to add his own sound effects:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bs_RG5miLE

I, on the other hand, am not sure I can live with the 77" now that LG is releasing an 88" Oled.

[bobrocks95]

If anyone knows a way to get 4k / 120 on a C9 then please share.

Should be able to change the output format on your GPU to YCbCr 4:2:0 somehow. It will probably look like ass though.

Next year HDMI 2.1 GPUs should be out.

[Guspaz]

For text content and desktop use, perhaps, but remember that virtually all compressed video (be it DVD, bluray, UHD bluray, YouTube, Netflix, etc) are all subsampled at 4:2:0, and it'll be far less noticeable in games than desktop.

[bobrocks95]

For text content and desktop use, perhaps, but remember that virtually all compressed video (be it DVD, bluray, UHD bluray, YouTube, Netflix, etc) are all subsampled at 4:2:0, and it'll be far less noticeable in games than desktop.

Video content certainly looks fine with 4:2:0. Not speaking from experience by any means but I would think rendered game content would still take a decent hit- maybe at 4K there's so much resolution to work with it doesn't matter though.

[orange808]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Given the small amount of 4k @ 120Hz content, it's not a big deal.

I'm not even sure people really want native high frame rate content. Gemini Man has been taking a beating. People are very attached to the look of film native 24fps with repeated frames and mild interpolation.

Game devs and popular game engines aren't dialing back features to prioritize frame rate, either. I don't see anybody serious about getting 120Hz games into our hands. PC gamers are lucky if they can hold a stable 60Hz with everything maxed out.

Broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite companies are already pushing the limits of their networks and they have zero appetite to invest in 120Hz content. Same thing applies to broadband networks (which share space on the wire with cable television), nobody wants to push more packets down the wire. Video content is unlikely to move to 120Hz. When Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix make an original, they aren't going 120Hz.


Seems like a dead end right now and a mostly useless feature for most shoppers. No content.

[Guspaz]

PC gaming is just about the only use case I can think of, but even then, no PC configuration can drive a display at 4K120 at the top settings for any remotely modern game.

[nmalinoski]

PC gaming is just about the only use case I can think of, but even then, no PC configuration can drive a display at 4K120 at the top settings for any remotely modern game.

I think it really depends on what kind of games you're playing. If you're going to play something that strives for hyper-realism, then I'd agree; but I think something with simpler graphics, along the lines of Thomas Was Alone, could easily run at 4K120 on contemporary PC hardware.

[orange808]

PC gaming is just about the only use case I can think of, but even then, no PC configuration can drive a display at 4K120 at the top settings for any remotely modern game.

I think it really depends on what kind of games you're playing. If you're going to play something that strives for hyper-realism, then I'd agree; but I think something with simpler graphics, along the lines of Thomas Was Alone, could easily run at 4K120 on contemporary PC hardware.

Hyper realism is the entire point of 4k @ 120Hz.

Anyhow, there is a one potential use case for regular people. If Sony ever sells an upscaling 4k Blu-ray machine with Motionflow and 120Hz output, that would provide a valuable additional feature for many people. However, I doubt that will come around. Sony knows they have the best video/film processing in the market and I doubt they want to help us add their tech to other brands of displays.

[Margatroid]

Hey guys, I'm thinking about picking up a 65" LG C9 and I wanted to ask for some opinions!

I'm replacing a 50" Panasonic plasma from 2010 that I like quite a bit, but I feel like it's starting to show some signs of degradation. I've moved it around a lot and I live at 5000 ft. altitude, which makes it work pretty hard.

I have a Framemeister and a bunch of old consoles that I'll be using with the C9, and I also want to use it to do some PC gaming--particularly playing older 3D games at 4k 120hz, which should be awesome--and to watch 1080p video files. I figure for the latter two uses this TV will be great, but I saw a lot of people here saying that the motion on plasma is preferable for retro gaming, and even that the pixel spacing seems better for games with pixel art. I guess the beautiful colors and blacks of OLED would be the tradeoff for losing these things, but it makes me wonder if I should set up my plasma in another room specifically for the Framemeister.

A few specific questions about the C9:

Do you guys use the black frame insertion mode for PC gaming or retro gaming, or do you like it better without?

Do you think the image processing improvements make it worthwhile compared to a B9, which is $300 less? I'm not sure what the input lag difference is.

How much of an issue is OLED banding in retro gaming? I figured if you're playing simple stuff like SNES or NES games the banding might be pretty visible. I guess this also depends on the quality of the particular panel you get.

And lastly, do you think 65" would be too large for retro gaming when sitting 7-9 feet away? I'm tempted to get a larger TV for movies and PC games, but I wonder if pixel art games would just look too big on it. (Kinda hard not to go for 65 anyway though, just for the immersion of it.)

I'm pretty excited about getting one of these! Especially when I get a new video card later so I can do actual 120hz at 4k. I've been watching the news about the "large format gaming displays" for over a year, so I was rather amazed when I realized these OLEDs do all the same things now for less than half the price!

[bobrocks95]

Hey guys, I'm thinking about picking up a 65" LG C9 and I wanted to ask for some opinions!

I'm replacing a 50" Panasonic plasma from 2010 that I like quite a bit, but I feel like it's starting to show some signs of degradation. I've moved it around a lot and I live at 5000 ft. altitude, which makes it work pretty hard.

I have a Framemeister and a bunch of old consoles that I'll be using with the C9, and I also want to use it to do some PC gaming--particularly playing older 3D games at 4k 120hz, which should be awesome--and to watch 1080p video files. I figure for the latter two uses this TV will be great, but I saw a lot of people here saying that the motion on plasma is preferable for retro gaming, and even that the pixel spacing seems better for games with pixel art. I guess the beautiful colors and blacks of OLED would be the tradeoff for losing these things, but it makes me wonder if I should set up my plasma in another room specifically for the Framemeister.

A few specific questions about the C9:

Do you guys use the black frame insertion mode for PC gaming or retro gaming, or do you like it better without?

Do you think the image processing improvements make it worthwhile compared to a B9, which is $300 less? I'm not sure what the input lag difference is.

How much of an issue is OLED banding in retro gaming? I figured if you're playing simple stuff like SNES or NES games the banding might be pretty visible. I guess this also depends on the quality of the particular panel you get.

And lastly, do you think 65" would be too large for retro gaming when sitting 7-9 feet away? I'm tempted to get a larger TV for movies and PC games, but I wonder if pixel art games would just look too big on it. (Kinda hard not to go for 65 anyway though, just for the immersion of it.)

I'm pretty excited about getting one of these! Especially when I get a new video card later so I can do actual 120hz at 4k. I've been watching the news about the "large format gaming displays" for over a year, so I was rather amazed when I realized these OLEDs do all the same things now for less than half the price!

I just bought a 55" B9 and have really enjoyed running PC games at 1440p 120Hz (which it natively supports) and 60FPS-locked games at 4K. I've even been able to do 1440p 120Hz HDR which is supposed to exceed HDMI 2.0b bandwidth a bit??

I have not heard of any tangible differences between the B9 and the C9 yet- reviews offer a nebulous statement of "the C9 has a newer processor so it looks better" which sounds like tech journalism just pushing for the latest stuff. The B9 has the same HDMI 2.1 support, and I didn't find any information about any features the C9 offers other than some automatic color calibration for people with colorimeters and other tools I don't think I'll ever own.

I don't use black frame insertion because the flicker bothers my head a bit and the brightness loss hurts to see. With a new, sensitive panel I don't really want to crank the brightness to compensate either. Also BFI doesn't work with variable refresh rate tech, which I'd say is necessary for PC gaming at high resolution and frame rates since you won't really be able to hit a locked 4K 120Hz for quite a number of years yet. As far as motion resolution goes I can't fairly compare to plasma since I had a 2005 Panasonic EDTV plasma beforehand. OLED motion resolution doesn't seem good enough for scanlines I'd say in the brief testing I did with the OSSC- Link to the Past looked great when I wasn't moving, then the scanlines all blurred together when the screen scrolled vertically.

55" looks great at 5.5-6 feet, I don't think 65" will be too big.

[Margatroid]

I just bought a 55" B9 and have really enjoyed running PC games at 1440p 120Hz (which it natively supports) and 60FPS-locked games at 4K. I've even been able to do 1440p 120Hz HDR which is supposed to exceed HDMI 2.0b bandwidth a bit??

I have not heard of any tangible differences between the B9 and the C9 yet- reviews offer a nebulous statement of "the C9 has a newer processor so it looks better" which sounds like tech journalism just pushing for the latest stuff. The B9 has the same HDMI 2.1 support, and I didn't find any information about any features the C9 offers other than some automatic color calibration for people with colorimeters and other tools I don't think I'll ever own.

I don't use black frame insertion because the flicker bothers my head a bit and the brightness loss hurts to see. With a new, sensitive panel I don't really want to crank the brightness to compensate either. Also BFI doesn't work with variable refresh rate tech, which I'd say is necessary for PC gaming at high resolution and frame rates since you won't really be able to hit a locked 4K 120Hz for quite a number of years yet. As far as motion resolution goes I can't fairly compare to plasma since I had a 2005 Panasonic EDTV plasma beforehand. OLED motion resolution doesn't seem good enough for scanlines I'd say in the brief testing I did with the OSSC- Link to the Past looked great when I wasn't moving, then the scanlines all blurred together when the screen scrolled vertically.

55" looks great at 5.5-6 feet, I don't think 65" will be too big.

I wonder if the black frame insertion would help specifically with that scanline issue. I don't use scanlines that often with the Framemeister, but it'd be nice to be able to have them on some games... How is the TV's upscaling on 720p vs 1080? Apparently there is no integer mode, which is too bad since 720 multiplies perfectly into 4k... I'm assuming 1080 coming out of the Framemeister or OSSC would look better than 720.

Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're loving your B9! The other thing I'm wondering after doing some more reading last night is how enjoyable one of these screens would be for browsing the internet and looking at art. I was planning to do this with a browser in fullscreen mode to avoid burn-in, but apparently these OLEDs all have auto brightness limiting, and I imagine that'd make internet browsing pretty dim with all the white backgrounds on webpages. Apparently the B9 has less aggressive ABL than the C9, probably because it has a slightly dimmer picture in general. As far as the processing quality difference goes, all I've heard is some comments that the B9 sometimes has artifacting or visible gradients. I'm not sure how noticeable this would really be, since it sounds like you haven't noticed it. If any of you other guys have C9s and would like to pitch in, I'd love to hear your impressions!

Also the 55" C9 is hugely on sale now, making it pretty tempting... I'm not sure if upgrading my TV to practically the same size is really worth it though, considering how much people on here have praised plasma. But the 4k and 120hz is tempting! And I wonder how much more vivid the colors and the contrast are than a plasma. I went to Best Buy and looked at their demo model, but in that lighting environment and with the content they have playing on it it's really hard to tell what it's actually like.

[bigbadboaz]

BFI should help.. I believe its sole purpose is in improving motion resolution. But as has been mentioned, the hit to brightness is extreme.

I've used it and can confirm both that the effect on motion is amazing and the hit to brightness is totally not worth it. It doesn't seem like the rate of improvement on its implementation is anything worth holding your breath for.

Overall, from my reading it seems like "upgrading" to an OLED might be a tradeoff at best for you. The virtues of OLED do not seem exagerrated yet it simply does not have the motion resolution. How bad are the "signs of degradation" in your plasma? Serious issues are one thing, but if you still enjoy the TV a lot you'd probably make a mistake throwing money at something else. Someone who misses his own plasma talking here.

[Margatroid]

BFI should help.. I believe its sole purpose is in improving motion resolution. But as has been mentioned, the hit to brightness is extreme.

I've used it and can confirm both that the effect on motion is amazing and the hit to brightness is totally not worth it. It doesn't seem like the rate of improvement on its implementation is anything worth holding your breath for.

Overall, from my reading it seems like "upgrading" to an OLED might be a tradeoff at best for you. The virtues of OLED do not seem exagerrated yet it simply does not have the motion resolution. How bad are the "signs of degradation" in your plasma? Serious issues are one thing, but if you still enjoy the TV a lot you'd probably make a mistake throwing money at something else. Someone who misses his own plasma talking here.

Given that everyone also seems to experience eye strain from BFI, I probably won't use it. Apparently the issue with scanlines disappearing when the screen scrolls vertically is something that happens on CRTs as well, so it's really just normal. We're just all used to seeing artificial scanlines from our fancy hardware displayed on plasmas and LCDs.

My plasma is in good shape honestly, and I do enjoy it a lot. I just notice that it seems to show excessive ghosting sometimes, and the screen sometimes seems a bit blotchy in black areas. But every kind of content still looks great on it. OLED interests me mostly because of the tech advantages for PC content, like 120hz and HDR, and the fact that the colors seem to be so pretty. I always loved the vibrancy and blacks of Samsung's "Super AMOLED" screens on their tablets, so it seems like it'd be pretty sexy to have a TV like that. I wish there were some way I could check out the motion resolution difference. I'm going to go to Best Buy today and see if they'll let me view some other kind of content on the TV instead of the "pouring honey" demo.

[bigbadboaz]

Seriously, bring a gaming system and ask to plug it in. It's not unheard of and makes complete sense when you explain your main concern with the TV is gaming. If they let you, that's the best hands-on answer you're going to get.

[Guspaz]

Whelp, Samsung went all-in. They're shutting down all LCD production (which includes "QLED") and going all-in on QD-OLED. They're ending all LCD production by the end of the year:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sams ... SKBN21I0BY

It's not that shocking of a move for televisions, if they really do believe that their approach can save enough money over competing OLED solutions to be price-competitive with LCD panels, but it's a bit more impactful on computer monitors. I guess there will be three options for Samsung monitors:

1) Produce QD-OLED computer monitors
2) Stop making computer monitors
3) Use LCD panels from another panel manufacturer

EDIT: While some reports, like the Reuters one, say "all LCD production", and others specifically say "including QLED", I'm now seeing some reports that say "shutting down all traditional LCD", meaning "except QLED". So I guess it's not exactly clear what they're doing.

[Cannonballs]

So are the the QD-OLEDs going to be actual OLED monitors? Or is it like the QLED and just using similar naming to trick people?

[Jdurg]

I've always been under the impression that LED and LCD are two completely different technologies, and therefore stopping production of LCD displays would have zero impact on QLED displays.

[nmalinoski]

I've always been under the impression that LED and LCD are two completely different technologies, and therefore stopping production of LCD displays would have zero impact on QLED displays.

Misleading marketing terminology. LCD TVs are LCDs with a CCFL backlight, and [Q]LED TVs are LCDs with an LED backlight; thus, if "LCDs" in the marketing sense are being discontinued, then, you're right, zero impact on QLEDs; however, if it's LCD panels that are being discontinued, then that would definitely affect all of LCD, LED, and QLED TVs and monitors.

[Guspaz]

QD-OLED is kind of similar to LG's OLED panels: they use a single uniform colour of OLED (white in LG's case, blue in Samsung's case), and then use a layer on top of that to change the output colour to be appropriate for the subpixel (quantum dot for red/green with passthrough for blue in Samsung's case, traditional colour filter in LG's case). Another way of putting it is an OLED backlight with per-subpixel control.

These approaches produce image quality that is equivalent to a "true" RGB OLED panel, because the pixel response times and contrast ratio are still provided by the OLEDs. They lose out on power efficiency, however, due to light loss from the filtering step. Well, LG's do, I think quantum dots can be a lot more energy efficient than a colour filter.

What Samsung sells as QLEDs today (and what LG sells as Nano IPS) are just LCD panels that use a quantum dot layer on top of their regular LED backlight to get more pure R/G/B light from the backlight, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the colour filters. This is called photo-emissive quantum dots: they absorb light from the backlight, and emit light based on their properties.

There is also a future technology called electro-emissive quantum dots, which is where you drive the quantum dots directly with electricity without a backlight. This is basically the same as an OLED display, but with quantum dots instead of OLEDs. It has some big potential advantages over OLED, such as better colours, better efficiency, and indefinite lifespans. This technology is not ready yet: it's what Samsung intends to replace QD-OLED with some day, but QD-OLED still isn't ready for the market yet...

[fernan1234]

The QD-OLED is an interesting concept, and I bet it will deliver better results than any of the LG WOLEDs. But at the end of the day OLED is still going to be a transitional tech, abandoned as soon as an LCD-based solution can match all the OLED advantages. In a way OLED was already killed by being abandoned at the top production level with Sony discontinuing its RGB OLED master monitors, opting for a dual-layer LCD. And dual-layer LCDs are also starting to become available at the consumer level, and I think these will be a better value proposition than any upcoming OLED innovation. Well, to be more precise what killed OLED was HDR mastering needs.

[bigbadboaz]

Fantastic news if it can be taken at face value. A real volume competitor to LG (possibly with better industrial design on the casings as well), and maybe the move that finally pushes OLED into the leading position. Would be about damn time.

[Guspaz]

Dual-layer LCDs have viewing angle issues. Transitional techs are going to take us to true electro-emissive quantum dot displays and microled, not fancier LCDs.

LG's OLED televisions have resulted in them having a dominating presence in the high-end TV market, with their OLED panels being used by everybody who makes true high-end TVs. Sony's high-end TVs use LG OLED panels. Far from having been killed, OLED has dominated the high-end. And small displays too, the vast majority of smartphones and smart watches are OLED now.

The problem is, LG's OLED displays aren't terribly cheap, and from what I've heard, they can't really do much to make it all that cheaper. That is the only thing that has stopped their panels from taking over the midrange market.

[fernan1234]

Dual-layer LCDs have viewing angle issues.

So do OLEDs. LG's OLED panels have terrible color shifting if you move in any way while watching, as I discovered sadly while trying to use it while working out lol. Guess I'm just pampered by CRTs and even IPS LCDs. Late Sony RGB OLEDs did improve viewing angles, well, at least enough to let 2-3 people evaluate content at the same time.

Dual-cell LCD is transitional too, more than OLED probably, but I'm just saying if I were to buy a new TV next year or two, I would much sooner buy a Hisense dual-cell "ULED" than the next WOLED with baby improvements. Maybe if I could get one of those new Panasonic I might reconsider, those are the only interesting OLEDs on the horizon.

[vol.2]

Maybe if I could get one of those new Panasonic I might reconsider, those are the only interesting OLEDs on the horizon.

what's special about the panasonics?

[fernan1234]

what's special about the panasonics?

This video covers it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6MHccp8xnM

Basically they have some exclusive voodoo to boost peak brightness by 20% over all other WOLEDs, even though it's the same panel. Filmaker mode also sounds pretty cool, especially for people who can't fully control ambient light at all times.

Though I guess thinking purely in terms of gaming, and especially retro gaming, I'd also consider a 48inch OLED from LG, but I'd need them to at least offer 1/4 frame or variable BFI, whatever it's going to be at some point. Which still won't be as good as a rolling scan, but it may get to good enough territory.