MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,904
Once I got an OLED TV, there was no going back to LCD. My IPS panel looked awful compared to it, in terms of black levels, IPS glow, etc. Ended up getting a AW2725DF.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Would you ever go back to LCD after experiencing OLED?
- Thread starter Comixbooks
- Start date
xDiVolatilX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,528
LOL don't hate the player hate the game all of you guys lying to each other about no screen burning because you fell for the hype bought a dim OLED that has automatic brightness limiter fluctuating like crazy hiding your taskbars hiding your browsers hiding your logos living in a cave getting double triple curtains LOL keep doing you even if you're misleading thousands of people. I on the other hand, will keep it realWelcome back Kramnelis
We missed you!
xDiVolatilX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,528
You're right and wrong, you're right about never going back to a regular LCD. You're wrong about not going back to a mini led LCD. Mini LEDs blow the oleds out of the water when it comes to HDR and impactful color brightness. For anyone who has never had a high-end mini LED, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've had both high-end mini LED and OLED and I know the difference and the difference is pretty massive.
Last edited:
xDiVolatilX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,528
lol bro you don't realize most buyers have buyers justification who ignore issues and just want to be a part of the hype and mislead each other.
I'd put all my stock into Rtings because they are unbiased. It's crazy to hear you say that honestly.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,353
I've been here a long time , so i get why you like rtings, ive never used them, browsed it a couple times though. When you have a source that hasnt lead you wrong, you lean on it more.
Maybe ill give rtings a stronger look next time Im shopping.
They are good to look at but I will say I'd look at other sources as well, and I'd also ignore their rating and just look at their data. The things that they believe are important are not the things you may believe are important.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
While I think a lot of their individual scoring facets are valuable, I agree with your statement because they'll ding points on screens overall for "ergonomics" where I almost always use my own 3rd party tv stands,arms, mounts. That stat seems useless, at least to me personally, because I'm spending a lot of money on a display I'll use one of my existing mounts or buy a new one rather than use the included one. They are well worth it vs default stands. RTings also reduces scores for viewing angles, where at my desk setup, viewing angles aren't really an issue unless it's so bad that the head-on uniformity is very poor. Viewing angle issues are more a thing for long living room setups 2x as far away, where the screen is shrunk to your perspective and you have people sitting at off angles viewing it with the pixels way off axis from them. Scoring super bright SDR performance higher, and specifically scoring other screens lower performance wise because people are using their screens in overly bright room conditions and the SDR has to be blasted just to get back to where it would look in more controlled media viewing lighting conditions is also a thing that can tank a screen's overall rating compared to other screens on RTings. They also do a separate "TV review" and "TV as a PC monitor" review, with some biases between the two so you have to be careful of how they score things in that way also.
There are things like that which will drop the overall ratings of screens, so like you said you are better off looking at the data, but you can usually do ok starting with looking at individual category scores and disregarding any of the ones that are useless to you. Their side by side comparison tool is pretty decent in that regard.
. .
They also seem to really value contrast ratio to the point they love VA panels and kinda hate on IPS, whereas I feel the opposite, I'd much rather have IPS to VA. In general, they are just a little too up their own butt about being "objective" and not realizing or admitting that their scores are subjective.
However, their measurements are good and seem to agree with other good sites (like TFTcentral). They, TFTCentral, and Monitors Unboxed are the three I look at for good information.
All that said, you still need to know your own preferences. Those sites were pretty critical of the PG32UQX and while they weren't wrong on their criticisms, like it have slow bright-dark response times leading to blur, for me I find it to be an amazing display and it was worth the money, where they felt it was neat, but too flawed to recommend.
Heck, preferences account for some of the disagreements you see in threads like this. Some people haven't tried both technologies, but some have and different people feel different. Some try both good MiniLED and OLED and like OLED better, despite its drawbacks. Others like me try both and like MiniLED better, despite its drawbacks.
Last edited:
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,904
Problem is they still have bloom due to the dimming zones, and the input latency at lower framerates is pretty bad. Otherwise, yeah, I would have gone for one as they are cheaper as well.
I think both depending on the monitor, and on your own perception, the bloom thing can be overblown. While there are situations I can notice blooming, it is generally not an issue. To me it usually looks like the veiling glare that I see from bright objects on a dark background anyhow. Now that's going to vary person to person how much you notice, or care, and also depending on the monitor (more dimming zones will give less glare, as well as how good the algorithm is) but I think it is something people worry about too much when they hear about it or see it on camera (which exaggerates the effect) and it isn't as big a deal.
My experience is that blooming/haloing today is less of a problem than it used to be. However, this is in part due to the fact that most new MiniLEDs seem to pretend they are OLEDs, and focus have shifted from brightness with OK black levels to preserving black levels at all cost by sacrificing brightness. Which to me kind of ruins the point of MiniLED - the ones I have tried have amazing brightness in certain scenarios, especially with test images, but when actually used with mixed content, especially work related content, I find that the actual brightness difference to OLEDs are no where near that. This is especially true when comparing to my Acer X27 which is kind of an old school MiniLED, sacrificing blacklevels a bit in order to go for brightness and pop.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,195
WebOS is generally my only real issue with LG. The OS is so slow compared to Android TV. At least with LG they usually are quick to fix any issue that may pop up with a firmware update.
I disagree. I'd rather peak brightness be sacrificed for better black levels. Going from 2000 to 1400 nits isn't as big a deal as going from a black level of 0.001 to 0.010.
Which could just as well be an ad for OLED.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,904
That's fine, but it seems like I might as well just get an OLED for now. I actually did a ton of research before buying my current monitor, including looking at all of the major miniLED options. I'm willing to look at miniLED in the future (and honestly, if the tech improves to have per-pixel (or close) dimming like OLED (microLED?), then it definitely is the better tech going forward) but for now it seems the best overall gaming monitors are OLED.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,195
Not really. Modern FALD displays can go lower than 0.005 nits for blacks these days. The PG32UQX got down to 0.003 and still manages to hit 1600 nits full field.
Which is what I also said a few messages above, the problem with MiniLED mostly comes form mixed content where the brightness in my experience is no where near what it could be on a 100% white testslide as they tries so hard to achieve better black levels. Of course, this could be improved by increasing the number of zones, but that would of course also increase the price tag.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
Full field, or large enough uniform fields, yes, but in regular scene content's mixed contrast areas, and objects, detail/textures even , and (small enough black and white grid pattern tests) - FALD drop back to 3000:1 to 5000:1 in those areas, (with the accompanying black depth raised and bright colors dimmed, some detail lost) which is more like a non-FALD VA's native contrast essentially. Part of the problem with that is that it's not the whole scene doing that, so there are puddles or tetris brickworks of lower contrast right next to much darker or brighter more uniform fields at the kinds of value you quoted. So it's not uniform across the screen, it's a quilt-work, then the screen content is moving so it has some fluctuation. The way they seem to do it now is to spread that non-uniform, lower contrast area across more zones sort of like a small backlight gradient when possible, so that overt blooming "halo" , or dimming creep "dark halo" effects aren't happening as often. Still it's narrowing the contrast and muting some detail, lifting blacks and dimming brighter colors/details.
I'm still eyeing up a FALD screen I might get some months from now this year but there are some major tradeoffs between the two techs, FALD and OLED. They both use tricks/hacks/work-arounds to mask or compenstate for their limitations as best they can , but they are both still limited in what they can do.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,529
Even with the sacrificed brightness, my miniLED is still miles brighter than both of my OLEDs so that is a trade off I'm more than willing to make. If it pushed for more brightness it would just result in more blooming which I don't prefer.
This is something that surprisingly number of reviews never seem to test. They test like 100% white and then 100% black and then put out numbers that most users never come close to with actual content. With one big exception - work/productivity, at least as long as you don't go looking for dark mode, which often is just that, big bright uniform fields.
As someone looking for the ideal dream monitor, this tradeoff is a PITA. And the problem can't be solved by just throwing enough money at it. It really comes down to user preference and usage.
It should be said though that MiniLED has improved a lot and much more than I thought in the last couple of years. If only they could do something about viewing angles and that damn matte coating that seems to be mandatory on LCDs for whatever reason. For mostly gaming/entertainment, nothing beats OLED, and for mostly work nothing beats LCD, but in between...
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
Just one caveat there. If you are using it for graphics work, or video work productivity wise rather than spreadsheets/data/coding "pages" type stuff, the non-uniformity of the screen can be evident (unless you turn off the local dimming/FALD) for the reasons I mentioned. It's hot and cold zones affecting surround zone's values. Much like bleeding into letterboxing, brightness of interface elements, timelines, etc can even bleed into darker parts of an image or video's editor windows. Even the mouse pointer or graphics tool icon can have a lower contrast area around it.
Well something I'd note to look at/test with that if you can: Can you actually tell the difference on an image? The reason is that while our eyes have a staggeringly large total contrast ratio, the actual amount of contrast we can perceive at one time is not that high. Bright objects make dark objects less visible. It's a trick I use for hiding Halloween props: I'll put a light somewhere that make it so you can't notice the prop that is dark but not completely hidden. This applies on monitors as well, and you can notice it with old non-FALD IPS. When the image is dark, the raised black level is super noticeable and looks grey. However when the image is bright, black looks much more black. Your eyes have trouble telling the difference. So have a look and see if you really can tell the difference when an actual image is on the screen. Do you notice the black level vs OLED, or are your eyes biased by the brighter details such that you can't tell?
This applies to all senses, BTW. Unless your hearing is damaged you can hear some incredibly soft sound, down in the 0-10dBSPL range. However you can only do that when it is quiet. If you are listening to music I can insert some pretty nasty noise at like 50dB below peak levels and you won't near it at all. Your total dynamic range of your ears is on the order of 120dB between the softest thing you can hear and loudest thing you can tolerate (you can hear louder but it is instantly damaging) but your actual perceptual SNR is more like 50dB.
If you do an ANSI checkerboard test on a movie theater screen you'll find it is about 500:1 contrast ratio or so. However the total film will have way more CR than that and difference between bright and dark scenes.
Can your OLED do those levels though? Mine can't. Nobody responded to my thread on the forum but I tested my S95B and my PG32UQX and with the DisplayHDR test app, which does back level surrounded by grey, the lowest I could see on the S95B was display level 17 in HDR10, which is slightly above 0.05 nits. With the PG32UQX the lowest I could see was display level 11 which is 0.026 nits. The OLED has black crush issues where though the zero level is lower, it has trouble displaying the darkest shades.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
It's not just how bright and dark FALD are to your eyes in mixed content as a binary thing to your eyes. . . . . it's that there are larger fields of dark in scenes that are much deeper darks/blacks, and larger more uniform fields of brighter colors, which are in scenes with mixed contrast areas( and objects, textures) and the shared perimeters of objects and areas throughout a scene. That causes non-uniform contrast, areas where the contrast drops around bright colors/light sources and dims the sources somewhat too depending on the firmware/AI and # of zones the contrasted areas are spread across, etc. That means that in a dark scene like a distopian dark ship deck that has bright readouts and light sources in an inky black ship space, well lit faces and bodies of the characters, etc. . the blacks around the lights and populated areas will be lighter than the blacks in other parts of the scene. Specifically, a FALD in mixed areas drops to 3000:1 to 5000: 1 contrast typically while the rest of the scene, even representing the same objects and areas, has drastically higher contrast/richer values. Think of a watercolor painting on paper. Add a few drops of water to where the light and dark areas meet. They'd be less contrasted and saturated, with the blacks washed out some, while the more uniform areas you didn't drip water on would still have fully deep and vibrant paint colors. This effect happens more noticeably around a bright mouse cursor, and can happen with subtitles, and bleed/glow into letterboxing bars, etc. at times, but it's pretty much how it's working all of the time, even inversely, dimming on colors/brights. It's just a matter of how obvious it is at any given time.
It's less extreme looking than that watercolor metaphor in practice, but in essence, FALD are still blooming/haloing (and/or dark-area bleeding~radiating), it's just smartly spread out across zone balancing into adjacent areas (kind of like a localized gradient) affecting/reducing their parameters. So the whole scene is non-uniform. A given color brightness or black value of something won't be the same when it is near to a different area or object in the scene. The scenes are also moving a lot typically so in dynamic scenes there can be noticeable fluctuation as the scene moves across the zones/zone balancing too. FALD and OLED both do a good job using hacks/work-arounds to mask or compensate as much as possible for their faults so they both provide a good experience but they are both flawed.
Even saying all of that, I'm looking into getting a FALD this year. The zone balancing's methods of masking bloom/dimming's effect with the limited # of zones available will never compare to per pixel emmisive, but they seem to do an 'ok' job at masking how bad it would otherwise look. OLED have their own issues in what they are capable of, what types of scenes exacerbate those limitations, and how well their limitations can be compensated for or masked generally. OLED are also somewhat limited in resolutions, hz, sizes and aspect ratios/designs, etc. compared to some of the available FALDs, which would be the main reason for me.
It's less extreme looking than that watercolor metaphor in practice, but in essence, FALD are still blooming/haloing (and/or dark-area bleeding~radiating), it's just smartly spread out across zone balancing into adjacent areas (kind of like a localized gradient) affecting/reducing their parameters. So the whole scene is non-uniform. A given color brightness or black value of something won't be the same when it is near to a different area or object in the scene. The scenes are also moving a lot typically so in dynamic scenes there can be noticeable fluctuation as the scene moves across the zones/zone balancing too. FALD and OLED both do a good job using hacks/work-arounds to mask or compensate as much as possible for their faults so they both provide a good experience but they are both flawed.
Even saying all of that, I'm looking into getting a FALD this year. The zone balancing's methods of masking bloom/dimming's effect with the limited # of zones available will never compare to per pixel emmisive, but they seem to do an 'ok' job at masking how bad it would otherwise look. OLED have their own issues in what they are capable of, what types of scenes exacerbate those limitations, and how well their limitations can be compensated for or masked generally. OLED are also somewhat limited in resolutions, hz, sizes and aspect ratios/designs, etc. compared to some of the available FALDs, which would be the main reason for me.
Last edited:
I understand and I'm not saying I've never seen it, particularly since I run my monitor in an aggressive dimming mode which gives better highlights but maxes the zones more noticeable (level 3 in the menu, rather than the default level 2). My message to you and others is just to see how much you actually notice/care. It is less than I thought it would be. To me it's a case where the specs, the numbers, aren't inaccurate, but are telling a misleading story because it doesn't matter as much as you think.
It honestly surprised me when I got my monitor. I already had my S95B TV, so I knew what QD-OLED looked like, and I liked it. I didn't expect to like the monitor as much as I do, I figured more it was a tradeoff that wouldn't burn in and would still allow my to game in HDR when my GF is using the TV/living room. However, since having it, I've liked it better. The increased peak brightness and lack of ABL make for a better experience, to me, despite things like the increased blur and haloing.
My experience is why I tell people "try it before you knock it" because I really was in the camp of "OLED is better," until I tried it. The on-paper problems with MiniLED ended up not being as noticeable in actual use. The contrast issue being the biggest one. For the most part, I just don't notice the raised black levels in scenes with bright objects because of how our vision works. I know it is happening, and I could measure it if I wanted, but perceptually it isn't an issue.
That said, your visual system will be different than mine, and your preferences may be different than mine. I'll never claim MiniLED is the One True Way(tm), some people are going to try both and say "Nope, I like OLED better." I just want to encourage people, when they can, to try it themselves and not to get too worried about specs.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
Yeah like I said, both FALD and OLED use tricks/hacks/work-arounds to mask or compensate for their limitations as best they can. What they can squeeze out of each tech and how much they can ameliorate their limitations is considerable, and good. I'm not trying to dismiss either of them, I'm just trying to be realistic about how they each perform. In fact I'm eyeing up a FALD later this year potentially if it's performance pans out, because there are no 8k 120 (/4k240?) OLEDs. It might even essentially be a glossy FALD at that, which would eliminate one of the other major cons of FALDs to me personally - matte abraded outer layer.
My IPS also looks awful compared to my modern mini-led. Honestly if you think you'll stress about burn in ever so slightly just go for the mini-led.
I've got both and like others have said they just trade blows.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,904
I'm not concerned about burn-in, it's not as big of an issue with these newer panels and OLED care features, and I turn it off when I'm not using it (display standby/sleep stops working randomly on my computer for some reason). I hide the taskbar, hide desktop icons using Fences, dark backgrounds, etc. Not a big concern of mine.
Prince Valiant
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 345
How's the glow and black uniformity on them?
Now that I own both Oled and miniled backlit VA, Panasonic JZ980 oled 55" as a TV and TCL C805 50" TV as a monitor, I am shocked how good the TCL is. The native contrast ratio is really high and what ever halo glow there is almost imperceptible in test images, and completely non existent in real life media use. The only clear give away that I am using an LCD instead of OLED is the horizontal gamma shift because I am after all sitting only 1.5m away from the screen and unlike my previous "monitor" TV, Samsung KS8500, this isn't curved so the downsides of VA panel are a little bit more noticeable.
OLED is still better in every way but HDR peak brightness BUT if I were on a market for a new actual TV, I could very well buy a bigger version of the C805 instead of OLED and be a happy camper. I really wouldn't miss a thing that actually matters, it is just that good.
OLED is still better in every way but HDR peak brightness BUT if I were on a market for a new actual TV, I could very well buy a bigger version of the C805 instead of OLED and be a happy camper. I really wouldn't miss a thing that actually matters, it is just that good.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
Even if avoiding outright bloom halos or keeping them to a minimum, the raised dark areas and muted bright areas in mixed contrast objects and at perimeters are always going to be a thing on FALD due to the # of backlights, like a patchwork where the contrast drops to 3000:1 to 5000:1 in those shared/blended areas. . They can do a good job making that look as good as possible though for sure.
One of the other major tradeoffs on most FALDs for me is that there are very few available without a matte abraded outer layer, which adds more cons that I dislike a lot.
Either way they are both flawed technologies and do the best they can with work-arounds/hacks to shore up their limitations as best they can, which is pretty good on both depending on the model.
OLED has it's own issues, it's the 25% and 50%, larger screen area/scene brightness and sustained in HDR, not just peak brightness, but there are several other cons on oleds besides that. I still love them though. Pick your poison kind of thing.
. .
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,529
I can guarantee you that once you compare a high end FALD (probably the QN900D 8K that you are eye'ing) vs a mid OLED like the LG CX, you are 100% going to prefer the "patchwork" FALD option over per pixel dimming. Of course if you were to compare high end FALD to a top end OLED like the LG G4 or S90/95D then yeah maybe OLED would still be preferrable. But a high end FALD is going to run circles around a CX you will see
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
I can guarantee you that once you compare a high end FALD (probably the QN900D 8K that you are eye'ing) vs a mid OLED like the LG CX, you are 100% going to prefer the "patchwork" FALD option over per pixel dimming. Of course if you were to compare high end FALD to a top end OLED like the LG G4 or S90/95D then yeah maybe OLED would still be preferrable. But a high end FALD is going to run circles around a CX you will see
Tech wise, they both do the best to cover their faults or more like, reduce the impact of their weaknesses. OLED ABL and brightness limitations, etc. to reduce accelerated burn down of the emitters is a big fault on that end too (among a few other things).
I just wanted to be clear that neither can completely compensate for their faults in today's tech.
I think a high performer of either wouldn't be bad. I still have to use some edge lit screens without hdr at times. Or watch average tvs at the in laws. The horror.
I think emissive will always be far superior to something that requires a huge work around, which FALD is, to shine.
That said, there are some excellent displays utilizing that technology as I understand it.
However, the garbage the display industry hoisted upon us for all of those years should not be forgotten.
That said, there are some excellent displays utilizing that technology as I understand it.
However, the garbage the display industry hoisted upon us for all of those years should not be forgotten.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
. .
I love oled, but OLED require huge work-arounds to operate without burning through the emitters too fast. That was my point. Both FALD and OLED require tricks/hacks/work-arounds to squeeze what performance they can out of their flawed technologies, and to mask their weak points as best as the can. They both require huge work-arounds, just different ones. It's a pick your poison choice, just which kind of poison you want to choose and are willing to suffer the side effects of.
That's why OLED have aggressive ABL, and why their 25%, 50% and larger screen spaces can't do brighter HDR, and sustained. They have to curtail their output overall, and do reflexive large "safety drops" (ABL) besides that, to prevent full blast wear on the oled emitters. They also need hacks like MLA to try to make up for it, and up til now a lot of them needed an additional white subpixel (some still have it). That and they have to do wear-evening routines with a reserved energization buffer to keep the tv operating at full output. Essentially when some of their "candles" burn down enough, it will burn them all down to even and boost them back up to normal level, over and over throughout the lifetime of the tv until it runs out of buffer and you are wide open to "un-healable" burn in. You might also consider "oled best use practices" as another work-around, if you feel the need to employ them.
Both tech's work-arounds/tricks/hacks are clever and ameliorate each tech's flaws as best they can. They do a decent job but they are all flawed when it comes down to it.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,606
MLA isn't a hack. It gets more light through the panel layer. Increasing apparent brightness, for the same output. (Or the same brightness, for less output. Which seems like what LG may have done with their new 32inch. As it strangely follows a very similar brightness curve, as the QD-OLED panels. I think they did it on purpose, is what I mean.)
IPS with FALD would also benefit from an adjacent tech. And be even brighter.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
They are all hacks to squeeze more performance out of flawed technologies, and to mask their limitations. Clever design "Hacks" are a good thing, compared to not having them to leverage more out of each display tech. MLA is needed because OLED has to run at low burner mode on the stove. It can't run 1 out of 4 burners bright or 2 out of 4 burners bright on the stove, it can flare out of some burner holes but it can't do 25% and 50% or more very bright, and what it can it can't do for very long usually, due to hard limits on the firmware plus another hack/workaround/saftey-feature ---aggressive ABL.
Again, I love oled display, I own two.
"something that requires a huge work around"
Both FALD and OLED require tricks/hacks/work-arounds to squeeze what performance they can out of their flawed technologies, and to mask their weak points as best as the can. They both require huge work-arounds, just different ones. It's a pick your poison choice, just which kind of poison you want to choose and are willing to suffer the side effects of.
However, the LCD panel itself is the weakness here. That you can position flame throwers behind it doesn't entirely solve the problem. It's not solvable. At least emissive, be it OLED now or increasingly MicroLED, has potential.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,316
Per pixel emissive is definitely the way to go forward in the future, but OLED is not a microLED. For now we have two techs that can't do either method (FALD/emissive) without huge work-arounds. Backlight/emission granularity is one of the biggest weaknesses of LCD, but likewise, degrading emitters requiring more restricted brightness, some brightness governors and patch-up routines, (and I think for a lot of people, a modification of their usage practices) are some of the major weaknesses of OLED tech.
Currently neither is solved currently, just worked-around / ameliorated with the best tricks they can implement at the consumer level, (if that vs price/profit restrictions).
----
Coming straight from CRT I don't even think about this stuff, but you're right, most, normal, people's expectations are different now.
xDiVolatilX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 2,528
I've been saying this also. All these blooming accusations maybe only apply to some mini LEDs, not the good ones. I agree with Maza fully, I never have noticed blooming in any game or movies and when I say never I mean literally never. The color contrast is so powerful it's just amazing. I didn't feel any of these awesome feelings with the OLED because the dim brightness and automatic brightness limiter killed the whole experience, and that's with the lights off and full brightness. The disappointment was stunning.
So for me it's quite the opposite. Once you experience an amazing mini led, there's no going back to anything else if it can't compete where it matters for me. Mini led dominates in areas that "normies" want. The experience is just better. Normies don't wanna deal with jumping through 10 hoops to watch content. Substantial hoops too, like chores and necessarily being in the dark. That's unacceptable. Huge compromises make it very unattractive to me from a normie's point of view, although I'm a lot more picky than your average normie and it blows me away in amazement.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,529
Aaaaand this is why I go back to Mini LED. Yes OLED shines in dark HDR scenes but it falls apart in bright ones. Peak1000 mode has craptastic ABL that makes sunny days look like cloudy ones like the reviewer pointed out while TB400 is capped below 500 nits. A lose-lose situation for bright HDR scenery.
