LG 32GS95UE – OLED 31.5″ with 4K @ 240Hz and 1080p @ 480Hz Support - The death knell of LCD panels

MistaSparkul said:
Bruh....you do realize the 1-3% window is like the most useless one right?
Click to expand...
Most valid one for brighter highlights, which is the point of HDR in the first place. I'll also reply with a real scene test showing that OLEDs arent behind most LCDs.

fk.jpg


Anyone paying $800 for an LCD that performs worse than any OLED needs to use that money for medical help rather than on a new monitor.
 
Personally I don't think 400 nits is adequate, it's one reason I stuck with my X27 for so long. I remember also with that 27" OLED the HDR was nowhere close to my X27 even with the better black levels of OLED, HDR on that OLED almost looks like SDR on an X27, a more vibrant of course.

I am at a point where I need lower latency for gaming (streaming media is secondary). The X27 has 2 frames of latency with overdrive, near 3 frames of latency with HDR enabled. I play fighting games (Tekken primarily) so it is locked at 60 FPS, an OLED offers near zero latency even at 60hz, which would give me 2-3 frames more to react to attacks that are considered barely re-actable (17 frames or lower). I wrote last year when I had the 27" OLED on hand, the OLED felt like cheating in fighting games compared to my X27. Another thing I miss about the OLED is how sharp the image was since it had no LCD blur, I only got rid of it because it was 1440p, I prefer 4K.

I expect that I'll replace this display in 3-5 years if it doesn't have too much flicker, I'm hoping it has minimal flicker, because flicker does give me a headache.
 
SoCali said:
You're just reinforcing his point. That scene is LOW APL as in sub 5% like a single light source indoors in a game.

Anyone who thinks that 400nits is adequate when a highlight demands 1000+ are the ones necessitating medical intervention.


View: https://youtu.be/XPzM3NDGuSc?si=XecXA7YOSA_1q0Dh
Click to expand...


Dude is literally cherry picking as best as he can lol. Just let him huff that copium. I know exactly which video he's trying to cherry pick from and if you watch for another 30 seconds you will see just how badly cherry picked that slide is lol.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssesoCm4lU

1711231751320.png


1711231777355.png


1711231876292.png
 
Last edited:
tongshadow said:
Most valid one for brighter highlights, which is the point of HDR in the first place. I'll also reply with a real scene test showing that OLEDs arent behind most LCDs.

View attachment 643326

Anyone paying $800 for an LCD that performs worse than any OLED needs to use that money for medical help rather than on a new monitor.
Click to expand...

Ohh so we want to try cherry picking MonitorsUnboxed now? Ok then here you go. Do you even own these QD OLED monitors at all?

1711232311863.png
 
Last edited:
MistaSparkul said:
Ok fair enough perhaps asking for no brightness nerfs is asking a bit much. I would just like to have at least 1000 nits for most real scene content and I'll be happy for a while. The current QD OLEDs are more like 300-400 nits for a lot of real content.
Click to expand...

It's true , OLED mids and sustained mids+highs are limited , but there are major tradeoffs between FALD and OLED besides that. They are both using hacks/work-arounds to get the best picuture they can but they are both flawed, so it'll be a circular argument as always.

I prefer the pixel level granular uniformity and contrast on OLEDs, and the "infinite" black depth even right next to bright pixels, but I could see me trying a FALD again at some point. It would be great if glossy was an ordering option on them all though. I also only use my oleds for media and games, not static desktop/apps, and I always use smart lamps so that I'm in dim to dark viewing conditions when really diving into a game or movie. If you are viewing in relatively bright conditions, you are essentially cutting the brightness of the screen down by a lot since our eyes view everything relatively. Would also be activating the matte abraded outer layer on matte screens which pollutes the screen parameters and even affects the clarity a little.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
It's true , OLED mids and sustained mids+highs are limited , but there are major tradeoffs between FALD and OLED besides that. They are both using hacks/work-arounds to get the best picuture they can but they are both flawed, so it'll be a circular argument as always.

I prefer the pixel level granular uniformity and contrast on OLEDs, and the "infinite" black depth even right next to bright pixels, but I could see me trying a FALD again at some point. It would be great if glossy was an ordering option on them all though. I also only use my oleds for media and games, not static desktop/apps.
Click to expand...

I would completely ditch FALD if OLED monitors were a lot closer to their TV counterparts in the brightness front. Right now there is simply too big of a gap between monitor and TV with the latter being anywhere from double to triple the brightness. If I had TV level brightness in my monitor then I would have no reason to have a FALD anymore.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Do you even own these QD OLED monitors at all?
Click to expand...
What is this supposed to mean? That I need to own something to have an opinion instead of relying on professionals? Or that good reviewers cant be trusted?
SoCali said:
Anyone who thinks that 400nits is adequate when a highlight demands 1000+ are the ones necessitating medical intervention.
Click to expand...
And that's it, OLEDs beat LCDs at every other relevant performance metric. Prove me otherwise.
 
tongshadow said:
What is this supposed to mean? That I need to own something to have an opinion instead of relying on professionals? Or that good reviewers cant be trusted?

And that's it, OLEDs beat LCDs at every other relevant performance metric. Prove me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! The only thing your "professional" reviewers do is run some quick tests and then put out a review. The people who actually own these monitors alongside Mini LED displays or OLED TVs and use them everyday will catch things that reviewers might miss and can give different perspectives. If you just looked around to see what people who own both these highend OLED monitors alongside highend OLED TVs or Mini LED monitors then you'd actually realize that these OLED monitors are dim as shit for HDR and need a ton of improvement. What they are good at though is delivering a combination of high res + high motion clarity that cannot be found anywhere else. For HDR, they are just ok at best.
 
For HDR I'd argue the OLED monitors are bad. I don't even consider them ok because they are so limited. Super low APL they are amazing, mid APL they aren't even decent (325nits 25% window) and high APL worthless. Average that out across content.

The new Horizon (after HDR fix) is a great example of a game where all of these OLED monitors just fall apart. You spend 90% of the game outdoors with a skybox and it really looks no better than SDR as a result.

I dunno about everyone else but my definition of a great HDR display is not one that does HDR justice sometimes.

Motion clarity and refresh rate are where these monitors are champs. HDR absolutely not.
 
Forreal HFW has zero pop on my MSI. I just play on my InnoCN since I can't get over 144fps with everything maxed + DLAA.
 
SoCali said:
For HDR I'd argue the OLED monitors are bad. I don't even consider them ok because they are so limited. Super low APL they are amazing, mid APL they aren't even decent (325nits 25% window) and high APL worthless. Average that out across content.

The new Horizon (after HDR fix) is a great example of a game where all of these OLED monitors just fall apart. You spend 90% of the game outdoors with a skybox and it really looks no better than SDR as a result.

I dunno about everyone else but my definition of a great HDR display is not one that does HDR justice sometimes.

Motion clarity and refresh rate are where these monitors are champs. HDR absolutely not.
Click to expand...

OLED HDR is decent in that they can do uniform pixel lighting down to the hairline pixel side by side with other color levels and down to "infinite blacks" which creates side by side pixel by pixel contrast and maintains detail. That side by side isn't just object and areas based in scenes either, it's down to the detail and texture within objects. OLED HDR is good in highlights, isolated light sources, and details rather than large bright mids (and highs) scene areas.

FALD are still swiss cheese of lighting zones, a tetris brickwork of backlights where the contrast drops in darker colors and dark areas around the bright backlights (and sometimes "radiates" the other way dimming a brighter object and making it less detail, paled). They are non-uniform, making localized brightness gradients of zones if not outright blooming at times. It works really well for what they are able to do with the tech, but it's a tradeoff either way, among several other tradeoffs overall between the two techs.

I may even end up with a 8k 900D fald sometime before I get a 5000 series gpu, so I'm not bashing FALDs or writing them off really, both techs are using hacks to ameliorate their faults as best they can but neither is perfect by a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Too bad the rear world scene HDR brightness is below the QD-OLED's and the colors are meh, otherwise I'd get it. 480 Hz OLED for fast paced FPS has to be amazing. And then you have 4K for desktop and slower games.
 
Last edited:
The only hope is the Asus version since they push WOLED panels to spec vs being super conservative for longevity like LG.
 
As expected, a 480hz OLED destroys any 500hz+ LCD because of response time. You can clearly see the eyes of the alien without motion blur reduction techniques.


View: https://i.imgur.com/xILPF7x.jpeg

To reach similar motion to the OLED, an LCD would need to be at least 700hz and have pixel response below ~1.5ms throughout all GTG transitions. And this is a pipe-dream for any LCD because the fastest one can barely average 2.3ms:


View: https://i.imgur.com/ok8XaxL.jpeg

If this isnt proof that LCD is a dead-end technology when it comes to display performance, then I dont know what is.
 
Well that review was a massive let down.

I've seen a couple other reviewers show a live testing of 800ish nits on a 10% window in their video which is more expected for a woled so little surprised to see hardware unboxed have such a different result.
 
Should wait for other reviews because HWUnboxed seems to always demonstrate some discrepancy.
 
LG desperately needs PHOLED. All this MLA+ stuff is for nothing if this is the end result, 1300 nits my ass. They are basically just finding bandaid solutions to an outdated technology at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
MistaSparkul said:
LG desperately needs PHOLED. All this MLA+ stuff is for nothing if this is the end result, 1300 nits my ass. They are basically just finding bandaid solutions to an outdated technology at this point.
Click to expand...
It's baffling to me that they plan to launch RGB panels next year. As you mentioned previously it's hard to believe that won't result in a drop in brightness.
 
Lava Lamp Freak said:
It's baffling to me that they plan to launch RGB panels next year. As you mentioned previously it's hard to believe that won't result in a drop in brightness.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think the move to RGB will finally give us great HDR on OLED monitors. So what we have now is either this trash WOLED that isn't making use of it's MLA+ tech, or the QD OLEDs which are just as bad because Peak1000 mode has finally been proven to be even dimmer than TB400 thanks to horrible PQ-EOTF tracking in that mode.

1711560146508.png


What a crappy state for HDR on OLED monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
There's no way that the 450nits it's going on a 10% window is correct. I'm expecting it to be fixed otherwise it makes no sense relative to the 27 they just released.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yeah I don't think the move to RGB will finally give us great HDR on OLED monitors. So what we have now is either this trash WOLED that isn't making use of it's MLA+ tech, or the QD OLEDs which are just as bad because Peak1000 mode has finally been proven to be even dimmer than TB400 thanks to horrible PQ-EOTF tracking in that mode.

View attachment 644136

What a crappy state for HDR on OLED monitors.
Click to expand...

Could be better but don't really think oled is in a crappy state.

I really think we need to see some more reviews on this monitor. I don't really trust the brightness numbers here as every other reviewer has shown way higher peak brightness in 10% windows.

QD peak 1000 mode is dimmer in full screen whites but not necessarily a bad mode or a worse experience in real content.

Darker content - HDR1000 mode for a better HDR experience
Brighter content - HDR400 mode for a better HDR experience

Just setup 2 HDR config profiles and flip em
 
Hypez said:
Could be better but don't really think oled is in a crappy state.

I really think we need to see some more reviews on this monitor. I don't really trust the brightness numbers here as every other reviewer has shown way higher peak brightness in 10% windows.

QD peak 1000 mode is dimmer in full screen whites but not necessarily a bad mode or a worse experience in real content.

Darker content - HDR1000 mode for a better HDR experience
Brighter content - HDR400 mode for a better HDR experience

Just setup 2 HDR config profiles and flip em
Click to expand...

Why should I do that? If the monitor is capable of 1000 nits then it should just do it properly in the first place. As TFTC mentions, this is something that should be able to be fixed with a firmware update to more fine tune the EOTF tracking. That piss poor tracking isn't what one should expect.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Why should I do that? If the monitor is capable of 1000 nits then it should just do it properly in the first place. As TFTC mentions, this is something that should be able to be fixed with a firmware update to more fine tune the EOTF tracking. That piss poor tracking isn't what one should expect.
Click to expand...
Couldn't tell you why it works like that other then probably how the algorithm is designed to identify and bump up highlights.

It's been like this for over 2 years on the AW34 so I wouldn't bet on it getting a firmware update.
 
Yeah I don't think they will fix it. Every QD-OLED monitor to date behaves like this. No clue why it took 2 years for a reviewer to actually investigate but it just goes to show that they really don't use the displays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hypez
like this
The biggest take aware from the Hardware Unboxed review is apparently the LG doesn't have any sort of burn in warranty?

That should be a deal breaker for almost everyone unless you only plan to game and limit all static images.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah I don't think they will fix it. Every QD-OLED monitor to date behaves like this. No clue why it took 2 years for a reviewer to actually investigate but it just goes to show that they really don't use the displays.
Click to expand...

Yeah this was almost instantly noticeable when I switched over from Peak1000 to TB400, anyone with working eyes should've caught on. Anyways the whole idea of switching back and fourth between HDR modes also isn't viable for the reason that many games are a mix of low and high APL content. Take Horizon Forbidden West for example, high APL during daytime and low APL during nighttime. Not every game is like RE4 Remake where it's ONLY low APL. So what am I supposed to do when I'm playing HFW, switch my HDR mode every time the day/night cycle changes? :ROFLMAO:
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yeah this was almost instantly noticeable when I switched over from Peak1000 to TB400, anyone with working eyes should've caught on. Anyways the whole idea of switching back and fourth between HDR modes also isn't viable for the reason that many games are a mix of low and high APL content. Take Horizon Forbidden West for example, high APL during daytime and low APL during nighttime. Not every game is like RE4 Remake where it's ONLY low APL. So what am I supposed to do when I'm playing HFW, switch my HDR mode every time the day/night cycle changes? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Its so dumb. I mentioned it back in the AW3423DW thread when I got mine soon after launch and even back then everyone just blindly suggested HDR1000 mode while I complained about how much it would dim the screen in Doom Eternal. I still can't wrap my head around why they are so hellbent on satisfying marketing departments with both the HDR400 cert and 1000nit peak brightness bullet point if neither can be achieved in a single mode instead of just making it a better product by ditching the HDR400 certification and providing a mode that caps peaks to like 800 but eliminates the ABL behavior of HDR1000 mode. It may necessitate being just under 250nits full field but its much better than the huge 100nit full field dips of HDR1000 mode.
 
Monitors Unboxed got their hands on it and it looks... not super impressive other than the 480Hz features. It doesn't look BAD but when there's the QD-OLEDs for about the same price it isn't as tempting. The HDR performance doesn't seem to be any brighter, and in fact seems to be worse, than the QD-OLEDs which is perplexing since the whole advantage of the white subpixel should be higher brightness at the expense of lower color volume. Likewise the color accuracy and uniformity aren't bad, but the QD-OLEDs, particularly the ASUS and Dell, and outstanding. Finally, there's no burn-in warranty which would certainly give me pause.

Have to see how other vendors do with the same panel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
weird, lg called me to say the monitor will be delivered on april 16th...
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top