LG Announces Ultra-thin 55-inch OLED TV

[Guest]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]The cleanest setup will come from having a receiver or processor with HDMI switching. Then you only have to run one HDMI cable to the TV. Yamaha makes inexpensive receivers (~$500) that have HDMI switching built-in.[/citation]

Thanks. I'll check it out. I have a dvi to hdmi adapter cable from the pc, vga from the xbox 360, component from the wii, hdmi from cable box, and hdmi from the blu-ray player. The tv's still pretty new and I just rushed to get everything connected so I have yet to really try to organize it all, but I'm wanting to do 5.1 surround anyway, so I guess there's something that can put all of that together? Well, I'll find out.

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]hasten[/nom]Basically all receivers built in the last couple years have HDMI "switching" (unless going extreme budget route) - it's just a matter of number of inputs and HDMI version. LEDs that run all the electronics through the base have been around for a while. I set up a media room for my mother last winter with a Samsung UN55C9000 which is just over 7mm thick and everything runs in the base (including the surprisingly clear speakers). When mounting the TV the base attaches to the rear and it hangs from a wire. It's pretty impressive.[/citation]
Focusing on thickness, IMHO, loses the real advances of this technology, but that is from a media standpoint - media who just repeat marketing blather without, or so it seems, understanding what makes this technology a significant step forward.

IMHO, the real advances of this technology are color gamut, true contrast ratio, and response time. Either this one from LG, or Samsung's OLED sets will blow everything else on the market out of the water in those areas - which should mean superior picture quality. Just which set is superior remains to be seen, but the dying tech plasma is about the only thing that can even remotely hope to compete with OLED on a picture quality basis.

Thanks for pointing out that most receivers have HDMI switching.

 

[lamorpa]

There is a silly confusion that more and more contrast ratio is useful. It's not. Starting with very-near-black, the upper limit is what is comfortable to view. It is not as though you really want to view something as bright as the sun (even if the video contains a shot of the sun).

 

[zybch]

[citation][nom]TheHelix[/nom]I agree about the resolution.. Why is everyone so obsessed with increasing the resolution in TV's, when the content that is available isn't nearly using the highest resolution most of the times.... It's not like you are going to use this panel as a PC monitor anyway...[/citation]
Because since 'everybody' is fine with shitty 1080p that means that manufacturers have no incentive to go any higher, so us computer users can have nice big screens but the ppi is utterly pathetic. Try running a 27" or 32" at 1080p on your computer and you'll see just how much the industry has been screwed up thanks to 1920x1080.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]I'm stoked that OLED tech is finally getting somewhere! I'm still rocking my old 4:3 480P CRT TV (yes progressive, not Interlaced, and it makes a world of difference on my PS2! lol), and would love to upgrade, but when comparing LCD TVs to my LCD monitor there is little reason to upgrade the main TV as the computer is in a coffee table and couch configuration which works just fine for us most of the time.
I am with you! 2K and 4K have already made their debut on the ultra high end, and should start filtering down to the enthusiast end within in the next 2-3 years. Many say that it does not make a difference, but for those of us wanting a home theater setup with a 6' tall projector/screen 1080p simply does not cut it. 2K would be acceptable, and 4K would be preferred for such sizes.And I completely agree, make it as thick as needed in order to have even and controlled back-lighting, and to house all the electronics behind the screen. We consumers are much more concerned about shrinking the bevel than shrinking the back that we never look at.
Obviously you know very little about TV tech. Plasma screens have pixels, just like anything else. They just do not have square pixels like LCDs do which generally makes for a more natural looking image, but makes things like text much harder to read and textures (where you would see most of what you are complaining about) much more blurred. They use the more organic shapes of their pixels to hide some of the artifacts that you would otherwise see in an LCD, and in the real world the only difference between a good LCD/LED vs a good Plasma is contrast, black level, and natural motion, not artifacting. The real issue is pixel density, and the space/lines between the pixels. Most modern LCD/LED/OLED panels do not suffer from the 'screen door effect' or pix-elation problems, especially once you get away from the entry level models. Also, most pix-elation is introduced through compression of the video, or a bad upscaler. Watching demos in a store generally is riddled with issues because they pump everything through a low quality distributer which messes everything up for most of the screens. Until you watch the TV in a room with a dedicated blue ray player, in a dim room after it has been calibrated then there is no way to really see what you are getting. I agree Plasma is the better tech, but not for the reasons you are citing. And lets keep in mind that plasma is unusable in some situations due to burn-in issues, and blowing out the contrast levels for some types of media where an LCD is a little more 'true to life'.[/citation]
ok...i know that plasma has pixles....but the pix-elation effect (jagged edges on fast moving immages) is more dominat on LED tvs. do you understand what i am trying to say? Plasma refresh reates are 600Hertz while LED tvs are only 120 Hertz...therefore the image does not suffer from pixelation......maybe you should do some reading on image pix-elation. Compressed or uncompressed the immage will till pix-elate if you have a slow refresh rate.....get it?

 

[Jarmo]

[citation][nom]noblerabbit[/nom]remember when ......
I am happy that OLED is finally hitting the scene, I cannot stand the current state of LCD, well mine anyways, it is bleeding through edges and making my eyes sore. I never had this problem with old tube TV's[/citation]

Or maybe you're just getting old? And grumpy.

 

[Guest]

You will all be buying one within 3 to 5 years. These put lcd displays to shame. Of course when something is the new the price will be steep. Early adopters always pay a high price. But to really make money on a product volume is the key and and volume will only occur when the price reaches the point the average person can afford it. Eventually a 70 to 100 inch oleds will will make theaters obsolete as these screens combined with an surround system will give you something equal or better then the movie experience.

By this time movies that used to be released to the theaters first will be available from the internet on the first day. A good movie could gross a billion within a week instead of over several months.

 

[Enkal]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]ok...i know that plasma has pixles....but the pix-elation effect (jagged edges on fast moving immages) is more dominat on LED tvs. do you understand what i am trying to say? Plasma refresh reates are 600Hertz while LED tvs are only 120 Hertz...therefore the image does not suffer from pixelation......maybe you should do some reading on image pix-elation. Compressed or uncompressed the immage will till pix-elate if you have a slow refresh rate.....get it?[/citation]

I'm sorry but I think you need to work on your nomenclature.

You have Plasma, LCD and now OLED displays.
For LCD there are normally cathode or LED back light. In OLED the pixels themselves generate the light. I dont know about plasma but I presume it's the same there.

Thus, there is no LED-TV. The things that are called "LED-TV" is just a marketing gimmick for LED-back light.

On topic: I've waited many many years since I first read about LEP-displays (the printable ones). It's really exciting that they are finally coming out. Imagine having an OLED-display for your computer, noone would worry about latency anymore. And the theoretical pixel density is orders of magnitude higher, the only problem is that you need other technology to feed the data to the display.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]Enkal[/nom]I'm sorry but I think you need to work on your nomenclature. You have Plasma, LCD and now OLED displays.For LCD there are normally cathode or LED back light. In OLED the pixels themselves generate the light. I dont know about plasma but I presume it's the same there.Thus, there is no LED-TV. The things that are called "LED-TV" is just a marketing gimmick for LED-back light.On topic: I've waited many many years since I first read about LEP-displays (the printable ones). It's really exciting that they are finally coming out. Imagine having an OLED-display for your computer, noone would worry about latency anymore. And the theoretical pixel density is orders of magnitude higher, the only problem is that you need other technology to feed the data to the display.[/citation]
ok...i see your point....when it comes to image quality and movement smoothness nothing beats plasma ....i would be nice to have an OLED display for a computer as long as the pixel density was high enough to prevent jagged edges....we would needs something with the pixel density of the HTC Rezhound ....that's a display on steroids.....i know that the display is not OLED.....but it's very nice indeed

 

[colinch313]

[citation][nom]jgutz2006[/nom]DUH! you think Cable companies were flooding their cable lines with 1080i/p content when those technologies first came out? UD is the next step and those initial TV's will cost what those early LCD's cost, the wealthy will be purchasing these, manufacturing volumes will go up these panels will be produced in higher quantities and the processes will evolve, they will then become more standard as prices fall below $4,000, more and more content will be mass produced, Currently i am capable of playing HD channels on 4 of my TV's simultaneously, So the bandwidth is already there and if watching a UDTV broadcast means the other TV's cannot watch 1080p content immediately, so be it. Eventually the technology will catch up etc etc. We saw this with the first HD TVs at 720p/1080i and then 1080p so what makes you think that this same process will not happen again? Over and over again people talk about how they could never imagine needing more of this technology or that technology. I would love to see Blu-Ray discs used to their full potential and utilize multiple layers for 4x resolutions. And also just like we saw with DVD players, we will be able to "up-convert" the quality of our current 1080p content in the interim, i know its not as good but it does make a difference[/citation]

You really think you are currently getting full 1080p from you television service provider? I agree that higher resolutions would be great, however, they are not practical at the moment as your current 1080p that is broadcasted is severely compressed. To stream uncompressed 1080p across networks would eat up insane amount of bandwidth, and the fact is current networks cannot currently support that amount of bandwidth.

I believe the way that display tech is headed is the right way. Instead of focusing on resolution they are focusing on a new type of display that is greatly needed. OLEDs will combine the best of both worlds (LCDs and Plasmas). They will be able to give you the contrast and speed of a plasma without the heat, energy consumption, thickness, and burnin possibility that come with it.

I do believe that resolution increase would be a nice thing, but at the moment is not practical as the 1080p isn't even fully supported and adapted due to current network limitations.

Maybe in 5 or 10 years things will be different, but the only place high resolution displays belong is attached to high end computers