LG OLED65E6V - 65" - Smart 3D+4K + FREE SKYQ 12m Subscription - £3699 @ SELFRIDGES - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
-112

LG OLED65E6V - 65" - Smart 3D+4K + FREE SKYQ 12m Subscription - £3,699.00 @ SELFRIDGES

£3699.00 @ Selfridges
I know this deal is not for everyone so no surprises if it is rated COLD, as some may think this is lot more expensive. OLED is new technology and possibly the future. LG OLED65E6 is one of the best m…
telcoengr Avatar
2m, 2d agoFound 2 months, 2 days ago
I know this deal is not for everyone so no surprises if it is rated COLD, as some may think this is lot more expensive. OLED is new technology and possibly the future. LG OLED65E6 is one of the best model of 2016, check the reviews online.

I found this deal at Selfridges which is cheaper than Amazon, Currys, John Lewis, and any other high street retailer. I just got it price matched with John Lewis because they offer cheaper accidental damage for 5 years along with their superb warranty and after sale support. Delivery charges maybe £5 if you buy it from Selfridges and item may arrive after new year so I doubt prices may go down any cheaper. Even if they do then you can always do price match. Prices of OLEDE6 Series may go down after new model is released in March 2017

In today's date this is the cheapest price available for this model. If you're looking for OLED 65" 4K+3D TV then this is the best one available. It is slimmer than your Samsung S7 Edge plus (maybe slimmer than iphone too).

If you buy this TV then you can also subscribe for 12m FREE SkyQ Subscription. (normally £20pm from Sky) - You need to visit http://www.lg.com/uk/skyq/main.html to claim it. Please read full terms and conditions for SKQ Subscription.
Deal Tags:
More From Selfridges:
telcoengr Avatar
2m, 2d agoFound 2 months, 2 days ago
Options

All Comments

(33) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
It's cold because it is cheaper elsewhere
#2
paulrwarner
It's cold because it is cheaper elsewhere
appreciate if you share the retailer name
#3
Whoops, I misread the product, this actually is a great price! Richer want £4K
#4
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.

Edited By: kester76 on Dec 22, 2016 14:55: grammar
#5
paulrwarner
Whoops, I misread the product, this actually is a great price! Richer want £4K
Agreed, i checked with lot other high street retailers and this one is cheapest, even amazon an online retailer is expensive, it is rated cold because of general price of OLEDs. They are still expensive to produce that is why Samsung went for Quantum Dot technology which is cheaper to produce than OLEDs. Expect prices to go down after CES 2017 when new models will be announced.
#6
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
Disagree - OLED is new technology in TVs, as they have better viewing angles than LED TVs, OLED in TVs was only started couple of years ago.
#7
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.


You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)

Edited By: paulrwarner on Dec 22, 2016 15:11: Your instead of you're - gonna get roasted!
1 Like #8
OLED can't be beaten on blacks, but for bright (1000nits) HDR not so good, LED wins there.
1 Like #9
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
#10
telcoengr
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
Disagree - OLED is new technology in TVs, as they have better viewing angles than LED TVs, OLED in TVs was only started couple of years ago.


​It has been around quite some time but they've struggled with producing larger displays. Oled display life was a major issue as well but the newer top end displays are supposed to last 100k hours but I wouldn't expect it to be 100% burn proof.
1 Like #11
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol


​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
#12
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
#13
paulrwarner
OLED can't be beaten on blacks, but for bright (1000nits) HDR not so good, LED wins there.
I think HDR is a combination of both brightness and darkness, so if it lacks in 1 area that doesn't mean that HDR image is poor comparable to LEDs. This TV supports both HDR10 and Dolby Vision and you don't get both HDR formats in cheaper version of 4K model TVs, It is possible that one of the HDR tech will phase out. I have played PS4 game (not HDR) on this TV and trust me it looks amazing. I also have plasma at home and picture quality is no where near it. Also I am not running this TV on 100% OLED light, it become very bright to my liking. (or my room lightning). I am only running it at 40% OLED lightning as recommended by AVForums and it looks brilliant !
#14
telcoengr
paulrwarner
OLED can't be beaten on blacks, but for bright (1000nits) HDR not so good, LED wins there.
I think HDR is a combination of both brightness and darkness, so if it lacks in 1 area that doesn't mean that HDR image is poor comparable to LEDs. This TV supports both HDR10 and Dolby Vision and you don't get both HDR formats in cheaper version of 4K model TVs, It is possible that one of the HDR tech will phase out. I have played PS4 game (not HDR) on this TV and trust me it looks amazing. I also have plasma at home and picture quality is no where near it. Also I am not running this TV on 100% OLED light, it become very bright to my liking. (or my room lightning). I am only running it at 40% OLED lightning as recommended by AVForums and it looks brilliant !


That's a fair point, 1000nits for south facing summer daytime!! Blacks are more important to me and 10bit colour blending to watch Eastenders on 720p compressed sky TV bullshine
1 Like #15
Awesome price - will still save a few pennies and go with the B6 if my plasma breaks, but great price for this model.
#16
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?


​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
#17
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
Wonder why you need AMOLED screen for it ?
#18
wizball
Awesome price - will still save a few pennies and go with the B6 if my plasma breaks, but great price for this model.
B6 is also very good model, but unfortunately not 3D. Also i like the slimmest model E6 when i looked them side by side. Doesn't matter which ever u get, both OLEDs are great
#19
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
Wonder why you need AMOLED screen for it ?
No idea but checking the wiki page it was released in mid 2007 and not 2006 as I thought. Awesome MP3 player for the time and looked amazing compared to some of the devices available at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iriver_clix
#20
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
Wonder why you need AMOLED screen for it ?
No idea but checking the wiki page it was released in mid 2007 and not 2006 as I thought. Awesome MP3 player for the time and looked amazing compared to some of the devices available at the time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iriver_clix
Great - but seems like that OLEDs were lot less, picture quality in that smaller screen was lot poor. In TVs OLED is still new and very much advanced now, it all started in 2012 if i remember correctly when OLED technology in TVs started to become more attractive. Prices were ridiculously high in 2012/2013 but it is slowly dropping (still not where we want it to be). One thing to remember that by the time prices become affordable, we will have 8k or probably another new technology which can give paper thin like screen. TV or mobile phone tech changes very quickly, and basic concepts probably remains same but lot other advanced stuff is added which no one have imagined 10 years ago
#21
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
Wonder why you need AMOLED screen for it ?
No idea but checking the wiki page it was released in mid 2007 and not 2006 as I thought. Awesome MP3 player for the time and looked amazing compared to some of the devices available at the time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iriver_clix
Great - but seems like that OLEDs were lot less, picture quality in that smaller screen was lot poor. In TVs OLED is still new and very much advanced now, it all started in 2012 if i remember correctly when OLED technology in TVs started to become more attractive. Prices were ridiculously high in 2012/2013 but it is slowly dropping (still not where we want it to be). One thing to remember that by the time prices become affordable, we will have 8k or probably another new technology which can give paper thin like screen. TV or mobile phone tech changes very quickly, and basic concepts probably remains same but lot other advanced stuff is added which no one have imagined 10 years ago
Depends, it's not always the best technology that wins out. Normally it's the cheapest/easier technology that becomes the standard. Oled is very moisture sensitive and needs to be handled carefully compared to LCD tech. I honestly believe Oled will struggle until costs come down and it become more robust.
#22
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
kester76
telcoengr
paulrwarner
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
You're old-tech. MP3 player ha ha X)
I hope he wasn't watching 4K 3D movies in 2006 on mp3 player lol
​No 3D but it supported avi. Also the ppi of my mp3 player probably put that 4k screen to shame as the display was about 2.2" QVGA, unfortunately it was only 18bit. :p
So you used to see the song names in it LMAO ?
​It could show track, artwork, time remaining etc on that small screen. Not a bad mp3 player but 4GB is pretty small now.
Wonder why you need AMOLED screen for it ?
No idea but checking the wiki page it was released in mid 2007 and not 2006 as I thought. Awesome MP3 player for the time and looked amazing compared to some of the devices available at the time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iriver_clix
Great - but seems like that OLEDs were lot less, picture quality in that smaller screen was lot poor. In TVs OLED is still new and very much advanced now, it all started in 2012 if i remember correctly when OLED technology in TVs started to become more attractive. Prices were ridiculously high in 2012/2013 but it is slowly dropping (still not where we want it to be). One thing to remember that by the time prices become affordable, we will have 8k or probably another new technology which can give paper thin like screen. TV or mobile phone tech changes very quickly, and basic concepts probably remains same but lot other advanced stuff is added which no one have imagined 10 years ago
Depends, it's not always the best technology that wins out. Normally it's the cheapest/easier technology that becomes the standard. Oled is very moisture sensitive and needs to be handled carefully compared to LCD tech. I honestly believe Oled will struggle until costs come down and it become more robust.
agreed, thats what happened with LED 8 years ago when they were very expensive and slowly it became more affordable but by the time they became affordable, we had OLED curved screens in place with 4K and now slowly we are moving towards HDR stuff. Same will happen with OLEDs, by the time it become affordable, we will have 8K and then 16K and so on. This will never end, latest TV sets will always be expensive.
#23
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.

I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).

Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.

It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.

You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.

Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?

There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.

Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.

Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.


Edited By: Mentos on Dec 25, 2016 15:29: quoted wrong post
#24
Mentos
telcoengr
paulrwarner
Whoops, I misread the product, this actually is a great price! Richer want £4K
Agreed, i checked with lot other high street retailers and this one is cheapest, even amazon an online retailer is expensive, it is rated cold because of general price of OLEDs. They are still expensive to produce that is why Samsung went for Quantum Dot technology which is cheaper to produce than OLEDs. Expect prices to go down after CES 2017 when new models will be announced.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.

Not sure why it was replied to my message as I am the one who really favors OLED over Quantam dot or other technologies. I have done quite a bit of research before purchasing OLED and i know they have their cons and pros and in my previous post I mentioned that having high nits doesn't mean that HDR will be great. HDR is high dynamic range and best output can only be achieved if you have a combination of best blacks & whites. This TV has over 600 nits and it is still too bright to my liking and if you go to AVForms then they will tell you to reduce OLED lightning from 100 to 40 for a bright room settings. I am using a setting of 50 in my room and it works just perfect. I think samsung in their marketing campaign of Quantam Dot criticized OLED for having less nits. This is obvious case because OLED doesn't have any back lightning which make them slimmers and having very good black shades. Also if you get a chance then press LED/LCD TV and the OLED TV. You will see that LED TV pixels will spread out whereas OLEDs stay nice and sharp. There is one problem with OLEDs and that is burning out. That is why we have 5 year warranty. Also OLEDs are not as energy efficient so that is another thing people may consider. Overall, the best TV / 4K / HDR experience can be achieved in OLEDs
#25
telcoengr
Mentos
telcoengr
paulrwarner
Whoops, I misread the product, this actually is a great price! Richer want £4K
Agreed, i checked with lot other high street retailers and this one is cheapest, even amazon an online retailer is expensive, it is rated cold because of general price of OLEDs. They are still expensive to produce that is why Samsung went for Quantum Dot technology which is cheaper to produce than OLEDs. Expect prices to go down after CES 2017 when new models will be announced.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.
Not sure why it was replied to my message as I am the one who really favors OLED over Quantam dot or other technologies. I have done quite a bit of research before purchasing OLED and i know they have their cons and pros and in my previous post I mentioned that having high nits doesn't mean that HDR will be great. HDR is high dynamic range and best output can only be achieved if you have a combination of best blacks & whites. This TV has over 600 nits and it is still too bright to my liking and if you go to AVForms then they will tell you to reduce OLED lightning from 100 to 40 for a bright room settings. I am using a setting of 50 in my room and it works just perfect. I think samsung in their marketing campaign of Quantam Dot criticized OLED for having less nits. This is obvious case because OLED doesn't have any back lightning which make them slimmers and having very good black shades. Also if you get a chance then press LED/LCD TV and the OLED TV. You will see that LED TV pixels will spread out whereas OLEDs stay nice and sharp. There is one problem with OLEDs and that is burning out. That is why we have 5 year warranty. Also OLEDs are not as energy efficient so that is another thing people may consider. Overall, the best TV / 4K / HDR experience can be achieved in OLEDs

Sorry quoted wrong post, corrected :)
#26
Mentos
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.
Why does my LG phone use Quantum Dot and not OLED ? Also why is the s7 and Super AMOLED display ?
#27
kester76
Mentos
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.
Why does my LG phone use Quantum Dot and not OLED ? Also why is the s7 and Super AMOLED display ?

Like Samsung, LG are a conglomerate with multiple subsidiaries. Its LG Display that make the screens. LG electronics make the mobiles and buy the screens from LG Display. It's LG Electronics decision which display they use for a particular product. And that can be driven by many different factors. Price and availability of the appropriate display being a key one.

Also LG are still one of the largest suppliers of LCD panels. Clearly its in their interest to keep up with developments in that technology. OLED may be their future, but they still need to keep up with their bread and butter.

WRT Samsung's use of OLED in their mobile phones, I would suggest you read up a bit on OLED and the difficulty the industry has had (until LG pulled it off with WOLED) producing large form factor displays. Samsung, LG and Sony have been able to produce smaller RGB screens for quite a while. What no one other then LG can do is viably produce large displays. Samsung had a crack at it around the time LG released their WOLED displays. But soon pulled out as it wasn't viable. Sony and Panasonic also haven't been able to produce viable large form factor consumer panels.


Edited By: Mentos on Dec 25, 2016 22:27
#28
Mentos
kester76
Mentos
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.
Why does my LG phone use Quantum Dot and not OLED ? Also why is the s7 and Super AMOLED display ?
Like Samsung, LG are a conglomerate with multiple subsidiaries. Its LG Display that make the screens. LG electronics make the mobiles and buy the screens from LG Display. It's LG Electronics decision which display they use for a particular product. And that can be driven by many different factors. Price and availability of the appropriate display being a key one.
Also LG are still one of the largest suppliers of LCD panels. Clearly its in their interest to keep up with developments in that technology. OLED may be their future, but they still need to keep up with their bread and butter.
WRT Samsung's use of OLED in their mobile phones, I would suggest you read up a bit on OLED and the difficulty the industry has had (until LG pulled it off with WOLED) producing large form factor displays. Samsung, LG and Sony have been able to produce smaller RGB screens for quite a while. What no one other then LG can do is viably produce large displays. Samsung had a crack at it around the time LG released their WOLED displays. But soon pulled out as it wasn't viable. Sony and Panasonic also haven't been able to produce viable large form factor consumer panels.
So LG can make cheaper large display OLED but prefer Quantum Dot for smaller displays because they're cheaper but sony use super AMOLED because they take the hit on price over performance ?
#29
Also is it due to LG using WOLED technology which uses more power than it's Super Amoled equivilant ?
#30
good specs, 4k aint going nowhere for a long time.
#31
kester76
Mentos
kester76
Mentos
kester76
Oled is old tech that I had on my iriver clix 2 back in 06. It has been slowly phased out/replaced by quantum dot due to it wearing out, not so bad on a mp3 player or phone but horrific on a £3.6k tv.
I would suggest going over to AVForums and doing some reading. Unfortunately you're missing quite a few bits of the picture (pun intended :) ).
Samsung and most other TV manufacturers have been chasing the large form factor OLED holy grail for years now. Samsung released around the same time as LG did. Unfortunately Samsung were using RGB sub pixels and these didn't prove to be viable in mass production. LG took a different approach (they purchased a patent from Kodak), WOLED with colour filters, which paid huge dividends by proving to make large screens viable.
It is Samsung's failure and inability to find an alternative to LG's patent that has led them to pursue Quantum Dot. They and other manufacturers have then used spoiler tactics, as LG have gained a huge advantage here. They've muddied the consumer market, pushing misinformation and HDR with high peak output. Things they weren't as interested in when they thought they could pull OLED off aswell.
You've mentioned the 1000nits peak output for HDR that LCD's can achieve. But haven't considered in achieving this, as a backlit tech, this compromises the black levels of adjacent pixels. The key benefit of HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the acronym suggests, is the ability to display both high's and lows (dynamic range) in a single frame.
Think of an image displaying a sunset. You have the Sun which is very bright and the landscape which will be much darker. Is it preferable for the image to be displayed on an OLED, where the sun is at 600 nits and the landscape can be represented at anywhere down to 0 nits on a per pixel basis? Or is it better to have the Sun displayed at 1000 nits and pixels which should be 0 nits start to become washed out as a result?
There are some very good FALD LCD's out there right now. But the best are close to the price of OLEDs. And if HDR is your thing, IMO you're better off with an OLED.
Where the peak brightness of LCD's really comes into its own is when you're viewing room is particularly bright. Say a south facing room with lots of windows.
Other then that, I'd go with OLED or a cheap LCD to hold me over.
Why does my LG phone use Quantum Dot and not OLED ? Also why is the s7 and Super AMOLED display ?
Like Samsung, LG are a conglomerate with multiple subsidiaries. Its LG Display that make the screens. LG electronics make the mobiles and buy the screens from LG Display. It's LG Electronics decision which display they use for a particular product. And that can be driven by many different factors. Price and availability of the appropriate display being a key one.
Also LG are still one of the largest suppliers of LCD panels. Clearly its in their interest to keep up with developments in that technology. OLED may be their future, but they still need to keep up with their bread and butter.
WRT Samsung's use of OLED in their mobile phones, I would suggest you read up a bit on OLED and the difficulty the industry has had (until LG pulled it off with WOLED) producing large form factor displays. Samsung, LG and Sony have been able to produce smaller RGB screens for quite a while. What no one other then LG can do is viably produce large displays. Samsung had a crack at it around the time LG released their WOLED displays. But soon pulled out as it wasn't viable. Sony and Panasonic also haven't been able to produce viable large form factor consumer panels.
So LG can make cheaper large display OLED but prefer Quantum Dot for smaller displays because they're cheaper but sony use super AMOLED because they take the hit on price over performance ?

"Sigh". When did I say any of that?

LCD displays are cheaper. Even quantum dot ones. I don't know why LGE chose that over OLED for your phone, but I presume price was a big factor.

At some point they designed the phone, looked around at cost and availability of displays, how it integrated with the other components/design and made a decision. Possibly the bean counters looked at the target market and said the extra cost of OLED isn't justified.

Every product involves a complex process of design/analysis/targeting/etc. Otherwise every phone/manufacturer would just throw the best component available in every product and be done with it.
#32
kester76
Also is it due to LG using WOLED technology which uses more power than it's Super Amoled equivilant ?

WOLED was the answer to large displays. Lots of manufacturers can viably make smaller panels using RGB. LG could as well.

Currently OLED is more expensive across the board. It does have the potential to be cheaper then LCD. For smaller screen sizes it's getting closer to that point.

What you have to remember is LCD has been around for a long time. The ROI has long since been realised. OLED still involves billions of $ of investment to setup fabs.
#33
Mentos
kester76
Also is it due to LG using WOLED technology which uses more power than it's Super Amoled equivilant ?

WOLED was the answer to large displays. Lots of manufacturers can viably make smaller panels using RGB. LG could as well.

Currently OLED is more expensive across the board. It does have the potential to be cheaper then LCD. For smaller screen sizes it's getting closer to that point.

What you have to remember is LCD has been around for a long time. The ROI has long since been realised. OLED still involves billions of $ of investment to setup fabs.


​Please explain how it can have the protential to be cheaper that LCD ?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!