LG rolls out 2021 TV lineup with OLED TVs and Mini-LED TVs

Published by

Click here to post a comment for LG rolls out 2021 TV lineup with OLED TVs and Mini-LED TVs on our message forum
#5889507
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/240/240526.jpg
Oh what I wouldn't give for all this in either a 1080p or 1440p TV instead of 4k or *yuck* 8k.
#5889513
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/50/50906.jpg
MrBonk:

Oh what I wouldn't give for all this in either a 1080p or 1440p TV instead of 4k or *yuck* 8k.
What?
#5889583
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/275/275639.jpg
MrBonk:

Oh what I wouldn't give for all this in either a 1080p or 1440p TV instead of 4k or *yuck* 8k.
Yeah, and if only it was CRT!
#5889586
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259654.jpg
MrBonk:

Oh what I wouldn't give for all this in either a 1080p or 1440p TV instead of 4k or *yuck* 8k.
Why?
#5889590
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/244/244094.jpg
PrMinisterGR:

Why?
Because we don't need 4K on small displays and we never did. 4K is not even necessary in home theatre -- it's way overkill on resolution. Higher resolutions are just a way to sell new gear and make those never ending profits grow.
#5889591
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/50/50906.jpg
Pepehl:

Yeah, and if only it was CRT!
Actually... not kidding here, but the perceived image quality of a CRT is much higher than even an OLED screen: [youtube=V8BVTHxc4LM]
#5889596
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259654.jpg
eGGroLLiO:

Because we don't need 4K on small displays and we never did. 4K is not even necessary in home theatre -- it's way overkill on resolution. Higher resolutions are just a way to sell new gear and make those never ending profits grow.
I am working on a 4k 27" monitor, and I would never switch back. The difference in clarity is immense.
heffeque:

Actually... not kidding here, but the perceived image quality of a CRT is much higher than even an OLED screen: [youtube=V8BVTHxc4LM]
No. People forget so easily. Text readability was always much better with LCD, and if you have a DC backlighting it's so much better on the eyes than even the best CRT. I don't remember anyone not jumping at the chance to get rid of CRTs.
#5889600
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/50/50906.jpg
PrMinisterGR:

I am working on a 4k 27" monitor, and I would never switch back. The difference in clarity is immense. No. People forget so easily. Text readability was always much better with LCD, and if you have a DC backlighting it's so much better on the eyes than even the best CRT. I don't remember anyone not jumping at the chance to get rid of CRTs.
Did you actually watch the attached video? Yes, of course CRT is hell for the eyes and I wonder if they did any permanent damage to my eyes, but the image quality perceived by the brain is tons higher than flat pannel displays, which is my point, not that I would go back to CRT whatsoever.
#5889702
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270008.jpg
PrMinisterGR:

I am working on a 4k 27" monitor, and I would never switch back. The difference in clarity is immense. No. People forget so easily. Text readability was always much better with LCD, and if you have a DC backlighting it's so much better on the eyes than even the best CRT. I don't remember anyone not jumping at the chance to get rid of CRTs.
I personally don't see any difference between 1440p 27 inch and a 4k 27 inch. Why I went with 1440p since its cheaper to drive it. However I can tell a huge difference going from 1080p to 1440p.
#5889711
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/280/280231.jpg
JamesSneed:

I personally don't see any difference between 1440p 27 inch and a 4k 27 inch. Why I went with 1440p since its cheaper to drive it. However I can tell a huge difference going from 1080p to 1440p.
For monitors and TV anything with more density than 111 ppi and mobile phone with more than 333 ppi is overkill, gimmick. Maximum perspective of 666 ppi is acceptable for the human eye due to its limitations.
PrMinisterGR:

I am working on a 4k 27" monitor, and I would never switch back. The difference in clarity is immense. No. People forget so easily. Text readability was always much better with LCD, and if you have a DC backlighting it's so much better on the eyes than even the best CRT. I don't remember anyone not jumping at the chance to get rid of CRTs.
That's why you need gpus like 3090 for more clarity per inch due to enforced 4k? 😀 You remind me those who were telling me, shouting with zealotry that the difference between 400 ppi and 800 ppi 6" smartphone is immense, HUGE. 🙄
#5889714
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/56/56686.jpg
eGGroLLiO:

Because we don't need 4K on small displays and we never did. 4K is not even necessary in home theatre -- it's way overkill on resolution. Higher resolutions are just a way to sell new gear and make those never ending profits grow.
Says you, I see difference between 1080p and 40 and even 32 vs 4K of same size just fine, More PPI the better image, small the screen get more dense ppi better image looks. 32" 4k look better then 55" 4k cause of the dense PPI alone, 32" does not have same look as 55" simply cause it bigger, but PPI suffer and as such so does image, Bigger screen need higher res to match image and PPI has small screens They said same crap about 1080p that is ment for bigg screen and was useless for small screens and that people cant see the difference, it was BS then and BS now
#5889720
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/242/242134.jpg
funny how this equals lot of customers i had looking at 4k tvs stating they are useless. then i showed the same (1080p) content (pics/vid) on the same tv side by side (65in, one in 1080p, one in UHD). after that no one ever said it looked better on the FHD unit/that they couldnt see the difference.
#5889747
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/285/285068.jpg
Retina display size for 4k is only 16" To get a retina display for 65" we'll need 16k TV's. We'll all be using 16k TV's one day.
#5889755
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259654.jpg
heffeque:

Did you actually watch the attached video? Yes, of course CRT is hell for the eyes and I wonder if they did any permanent damage to my eyes, but the image quality perceived by the brain is tons higher than flat pannel displays, which is my point, not that I would go back to CRT whatsoever.
I saw the video yes, I believe they were a bit nostalgic, and they're correct about some aspects, but I would never go back.
JamesSneed:

I personally don't see any difference between 1440p 27 inch and a 4k 27 inch. Why I went with 1440p since its cheaper to drive it. However I can tell a huge difference going from 1080p to 1440p.
I see a big difference in text rendering, ironically not as much in media.
itpro:

For monitors and TV anything with more density than 111 ppi and mobile phone with more than 333 ppi is overkill, gimmick. Maximum perspective of 666 ppi is acceptable for the human eye due to its limitations. That's why you need gpus like 3090 for more clarity per inch due to enforced 4k? 😀 You remind me those who were telling me, shouting with zealotry that the difference between 400 ppi and 800 ppi 6" smartphone is immense, HUGE. 🙄
Ironically, I didn't pay neither for the 4k monitor, nor for the laptop driving it. I only play demanding games with my actual rig on the TV (which is a 4k OLED and working fine in most things at 1140p with a 1070). The monitor is driven by a 2019 16" MacBook Pro, and the difference in text clarity between 1440p and 4k is immediately noticeable. On the other hand, Windows apps who don't scale well look like crap, but that's totally irrelevant for work which is mostly done on macOS and Arch. As for the 3090, it was s gift to myself after a long time of hard work. I had at fairly low spec system before, but not being able to afford a high frame rate at 4k didn't mean I was suddenly blind to the difference 😛
#5889778
data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp
I had a CRT 19" Sony in the attic and tried it around 2015 I didn't last long, yes the black were good but omg the blur and that was when I only had 1080p no CRT don't look amazing >< they look awful..must be "one of those" that think TAA is "ultra" when all it does is blur the whole screen down to an inferior resolution, sharpness > all black frame insertion technology + lcd/oled screen is superior in every way to a CRT oled 4K 55"+ tvs are awesome with the right content....which means no modern movies as 99% of them are 2K upscaled (because of cgi rendering times) the real quality ones are 1980-2000 movies remastered in 4K or youtube channels like : Jacob + Katie Schwarz Bashir Abu Shakra Birder King TheSilentWatcher Nature Relaxation Films after buying an lg oled 4k I went once to the movie theater and it felt like I was drunk or losing eyesight 😕 (one of the hobbit movies)
#5889964
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270008.jpg
kakiharaFRS:

I had a CRT 19" Sony in the attic and tried it around 2015 I didn't last long, yes the black were good but omg the blur and that was when I only had 1080p no CRT don't look amazing >< they look awful..must be "one of those" that think TAA is "ultra" when all it does is blur the whole screen down to an inferior resolution, sharpness > all black frame insertion technology + lcd/oled screen is superior in every way to a CRT oled 4K 55"+ tvs are awesome with the right content....which means no modern movies as 99% of them are 2K upscaled (because of cgi rendering times) the real quality ones are 1980-2000 movies remastered in 4K or youtube channels like : Jacob + Katie Schwarz Bashir Abu Shakra Birder King TheSilentWatcher Nature Relaxation Films after buying an lg oled 4k I went once to the movie theater and it felt like I was drunk or losing eyesight 😕 (one of the hobbit movies)
CRT's were all about the size of the shadow mask / aperture grille. Most CRT's were crap with a few like high end Trinitrons had really good picture quality. They always gave me a lot of eye strain vs LCD so I was more than happy to move on even with contrast drop off.