OLED vs. QLED; LG vs. Samsung— Comments please

[W9TR]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Yeah... About that 8K hype https://www.cnet.com/news/8k-tv-what-you-need-to-know/

I liked this quote from the article:

“Without 8K content, an 8K TV is just a 4K TV with a few thousand dollars stuck to it with duct tape.”

Then again I remember similar things being said about UHD, and man is it spectacular in my theater compared to 1080p. For some titles, not all.

[doggiehowser]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Great info - thanks. Do you know if Samsung Electronics or another OLED panel supplier is going to produce smaller form factor panels? I’d like to see something in the 42” size for our living room, which has a specific fixed width space.

Not sure of the process. OLED now goes to 48”. I understand no of panels of those sizes are small because they cut 48 and 77 panels from the same large OLED panel - to improve the best use of the entire panel. But they usually use the same area to cut more 65 panels.

Maybe if they did an 80 or 88” we might have smaller than 48 panels. Can’t imagine the demand is high for that. Australia distributors for OLEDs won’t even import the 48” panel initially.

[W9TR]

I’m a big fan of emissive panels which is why I like OLED. It looks like there will be a wait for them to trickle down to smaller sizes. Thanks.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by W9TR

I liked this quote from the article:

“Without 8K content, an 8K TV is just a 4K TV with a few thousand dollars stuck to it with duct tape.”

Then again I remember similar things being said about UHD, and man is it spectacular in my theater compared to 1080p. For some titles, not all.

All I can say is I am very happy with my 4K OLED but I really do miss the 1080P Plasma Kuro Elite... Can't appreciate the difference in resolution from over 10ft distance but that plasma was way superior to most of the stuff out there today IMHO. It did always raise the room temperature by a few degrees though

[tonyptony]

PHC1, interesting. I’m still using a Pioneer Elite Kuro but was thinking about an LG OLED. Are you saying the Kuro for as far back as it goes is still better?

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by tonyptony

PHC1, interesting. I’m still using a Pioneer Elite Kuro but was thinking about an LG OLED. Are you saying the Kuro for as far back as it goes is still better?

Since you still have it, you can easily compare with the same source to see if an OLED can outdo your Kuro... At normal viewing distances and beyond, the extra resolution is hardly a bonus since the biomechanics of our eyes do not allow us to appreciate it. One has to sit really close and compare to appreciate the difference of 4K with 4K source.

The other characteristics of the Kuro however were superior IMHO. The picture was more "cinematic" and "film" like depending on the source of course. It is however quite possible that spec wise the blacks and contrast may even be better on OLED. I often feel that cinematic quality has been lost and everything looks like high resolution soap opera quality instead of Hollywood cinema. Could also be Hollywood is to blame

I'm going by memory since it has been a few years but I recall being blown away by that Plasma each and every time I watched a good source but it may also be personal preference and what looks better to my eyes. Easy enough to compare for yourself.

[PHC1]

While on the topic of picture quality, the switch from celluloid to digital in Hollywood is an interesting topic. CGI is the future for all Sci-Fi to create scenes and stunts that would be impossible to achieve but what about other genres of film? Digital has taken over Hollywood as well.

https://stephenfollows.com/wp-conten...-2-900x513.png

As the chart below shows, digital formats had overt
taken film by 2013. Five years later, there is no competition. Of movies released in 2018, 91% used a digital format and just 14% used film.

[W9TR]

Hey Serge - just curious why the tears?

With Red’s latest sensors going native 17 stops without HDRx and another several stops with it, performance is now better than the best film stocks in every measurable way.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Hey Serge - just curious why the tears?

With Red’s latest sensors going native 17 stops without HDRx and another several stops with it, performance is now better than the best film stocks in every measurable way.

Tom
I certainly understand all the advantages of digital in terms of technical aspects, as well as ease of handling, editing, etc... But to my eyes digital cinema is not much different than what the transition was from film to digital in photography. Movies are often missing that cinematic film quality which I’m afraid we may never get back.

While I’ve enjoyed watching some 4K content of nature, in high definition and eye popping color, I’m much less impressed with every visible pore and every tiny skin defect on the actors faces... I feel its unnecessary and the lack of smoothness and over the top sharpness is often irritating to me.

I guess I’m old school when it comes to still and moving images, I prefer softer focus and smoothness, often a more traditional movie effects of shallow depth of field to sharpness and soap opera like homogeneity of image with little creativity.

It all may be a moot point anyways as computer graphics will be the bulk of created scenes anyways and I’m sure the manipulation of such advanced graphics can yield any desired effect the director wants. We are living in an ever increasing digital and virtual age with less human contact, interaction and ultimately even need for Hollywood actors. I’m sure the day will come when digitally rendered heroes will replace any and all actors. I don’t think the generations growing up on anime and VR will ever miss the human actors.

[PHC1]

The experts can put into words much better than I can...

“If I can't shoot on film I'll stop making movies," Tarantino said on Los Angeles radio station”


https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/1071458...70mm-explainer