LG's new OLED TVs

[punisher]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why do you have such a personal disdain toward LG Oleds? I understand that you like to hold on to your old plasma, but most of us do not own a plasma or no longer do, and all former plasma users I spoke with are very satisfied with LG Oled-despite being far from perfected as of now.
And it is not true that Oled only shines with specific demos. You can watch any blurays worth a look and you will see how the perfect blacks and contrats play such a huge role in PQ. Motion issues are far from distracting, especially with TruMotion set up properly.
You are like a dinosaur unwilling to evolve

Just the opposite. I want OLED to progress faster. It has been many years since the first 20+ inch displays in the Sony stores. I want others to put out an OLED so we have a more to choose from. LG's rep isn't the best when it comes to TV's so I would like to see another brand on the market....

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by punisher

Just the opposite. I want OLED to progress faster. It has been many years since the first 20+ inch displays in the Sony stores. I want others to put out an OLED so we have a more to choose from. LG's rep isn't the best when it comes to TV's so I would like to see another brand on the market....

As long as mass consumers choose "mediocrity at a better price" LED panels will trump. Not many are willing to shell out what Oled costs. Most just want a TV that works, period.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

reduced resolution? please explain?

On passive 3D TVs you see only every other scanline through each eye. Therefore vertical resolution is cut by half. It also can introduce staircasing and other interlacing artifacts. Can't you see that a 3D picture looks much worse than a 2D picture?

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

On passive 3D TVs you see only every other scanline through each eye. Therefore vertical resolution is cut by half. It also can introduce staircasing and other interlacing artifacts. Can't you see that a 3D picture looks much worse than a 2D picture?

No. To me 3D looks way better, both active and passive 3D. But passive is easier on my eyes

[Moonlight Shadow]

Well, I don't know how a picture with half the vertical resolution and interlacing artifacts can look better to anybody but to each his own I guess.

[Robert Zohn]

@Moonlight Shadow, your technical explanation is correct, but just about all 4K OLED TV owners say 3D on their passive 3D viewing is by far the best they have ever seen.

Here's some of the reasons.

1. Passive 3D glasses are not as dark as the active 3D coating so you get a brighter and more natural image through 3D passive glasses.

2. Passive 3D technology does not require the user to hold their head perfectly straight.

3. Half vertical resolution has no effect on the perceived resolution as the human visual vision can not see the loss of resolution beyond 1x the screen height.

4. LG's 4K OLED de-interlaces the 3D image with no staircasing anomaly. So this is a non-issue with 4K OLED displays.

5. Active 3D glasses have shutters whereas passive delivers smoother and more real to life 3D images.

Ask any 4K OLED TV owner and you will hear nothing but praise for the exceptional 3D performance and these are folks who have owned the best TVs.

So although you are technically correct, in this case the advantages of passive 3D, like brighter images far outweigh the loss of vertical resolution, especially on a 4K display.

[RockyIII]

Thank goodness Robert knows how to put into words what I cant

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

[Robert Zohn]

You know what your eyes see and that's what counts.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

You know what your eyes see and that's what counts.

And what my eyes feel, which is far less strain than with active glasses

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

You know what your eyes see and that's what counts.

That is like reversing that concept and claiming that 4K looks 4 times better because you get FOUR TIMES the resolution

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

On passive 3D TVs you see only every other scanline through each eye. Therefore vertical resolution is cut by half. It also can introduce staircasing and other interlacing artifacts. Can't you see that a 3D picture looks much worse than a 2D picture?

I will be honest with you. I owned a Panasonic 65VT60 before it was stolen and absolutely loved the set. I had tweaked the picture to where the 3D was pretty stunning. After the theft I owned a 55EG9100 and I tell you I was amazed how good the 3D was. The set was impressive in general, but the 3D looked stellar even with the 540P resolution on the OLED. Now I have a 65C6P coming in a few days and honestly I don't see the argument for half resolution here. It is a 2160P set. That is 1080P per eye. That is Full HD resolution per eye in every sense of the word.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

I will be honest with you. I owned a Panasonic 65VT60 before it was stolen and absolutely loved the set. I had tweaked the picture to where the 3D was pretty stunning. After the theft I owned a 55EG9100 and I tell you I was amazed how good the 3D was. The set was impressive in general, but the 3D looked stellar even with the 540P resolution on the OLED. Now I have a 65C6P coming in a few days and honestly I don't see the argument for half resolution here. It is a 2160P set. That is 1080P per eye. That is Full HD resolution per eye in every sense of the word.

Like I said, saying that with 3D you get half the resolution is as asinine as claiming that 4K gives you 4 times the resolution of 1080p

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

@Moonlight Shadow, your technical explanation is correct, but just about all 4K OLED TV owners say 3D on their passive 3D viewing is by far the best they have ever seen.

Here's some of the reasons.

1. Passive 3D glasses are not as dark as the active 3D coating so you get a brighter and more natural image through 3D passive glasses.

2. Passive 3D technology does not require the user to hold their head perfectly straight.

3. Half vertical resolution has no effect on the perceived resolution as the human visual vision can not see the loss of resolution beyond 1x the screen height.

4. LG's 4K OLED de-interlaces the 3D image with no staircasing anomaly. So this is a non-issue with 4K OLED displays.

5. Active 3D glasses have shutters whereas passive delivers smoother and more real to life 3D images.

Ask any 4K OLED TV owner and you will hear nothing but praise for the exceptional 3D performance and these are folks who have owned the best TVs.

So although you are technically correct, in this case the advantages of passive 3D, like brighter images far outweigh the loss of vertical resolution, especially on a 4K display.

I don't have a 4K-OLED yet. I do believe you that some of the problems inherent in current 3D technology has been reduced or even disappeared on the new set. On my 1080p OLED however the image quality is clearly reduced when watching in 3D mode.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Like I said, saying that with 3D you get half the resolution is as asinine as claiming that 4K gives you 4 times the resolution of 1080p

I don't want get into a discussion about your strawman argument but I have to say that I did not say that "3D will get you half the resolution", I said that "PASSIVE 3D will give you half the VERTICAL resolution". That is a FACT.
It's also clearly visible on every 1080p TV including my LG OLED.
As Robert Zohn said this problem may very well be all but eliminated on the 4K-sets but I have not checked one of them myself, I'm waiting for the prices to drop.
But even then I will probably buy the 55B6 which has no 3D capability.
For me 3D is a nice gimmick to have but it's not essential, especially since there are only very few movies that have actually been filmed in true 3D. I don't like upconverted 3D at all, not even in the cinema. Even in "Gravity", which has great 3D CGI the actors looked like cardboard cutouts to me.

I DID enjoy 3D somewhat in "Avatar" and in Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" but that's about it.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

I don't want get into a discussion about your strawman argument but I have to say that I did not say that "3D will get you half the resolution", I said that "PASSIVE 3D will give you half the VERTICAL resolution". That is a FACT.
It's also clearly visible on every 1080p TV including my LG OLED.
As Robert Zohn said this problem may very well be all but eliminated on the 4K-sets but I have not checked one of them myself, I'm waiting for the prices to drop.
But even then I will probably buy the 55B6 which has no 3D capability.
For me 3D is a nice gimmick to have but it's not essential, especially since there are only very few movies that have actually been filmed in true 3D. I don't like upconverted 3D at all, not even in the cinema. Even in "Gravity", which has great 3D CGI the actors looked like cardboard cutouts to me.

I DID enjoy 3D somewhat in "Avatar" and in Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" but that's about it.

Now you are changing the basis of your argument altogether. You never said that you never really liked 3D per se, but you said "Can't you see that a 3D picture looks much worse than a 2D picture?

Not trying to make a big deal here, I respect your personal disinterest in 3D and what it offers, but no I dont see that a 3D picture looks MUCH WORSE (your words) than a 2D picture

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

I don't want get into a discussion about your strawman argument but I have to say that I did not say that "3D will get you half the resolution", I said that "PASSIVE 3D will give you half the VERTICAL resolution". That is a FACT.
It's also clearly visible on every 1080p TV including my LG OLED.
As Robert Zohn said this problem may very well be all but eliminated on the 4K-sets but I have not checked one of them myself, I'm waiting for the prices to drop.
But even then I will probably buy the 55B6 which has no 3D capability.
For me 3D is a nice gimmick to have but it's not essential, especially since there are only very few movies that have actually been filmed in true 3D. I don't like upconverted 3D at all, not even in the cinema. Even in "Gravity", which has great 3D CGI the actors looked like cardboard cutouts to me.

I DID enjoy 3D somewhat in "Avatar" and in Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" but that's about it.

On a 1080p set it does cut the vertical resolution in half. 1080p OLED's are soon to be history. A 2160p OLED gives full HD 1080p per eye. There is no 2160p 3D format. On all the new 2160p sets they will suffer no loss in resolution for 3D.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Now you are changing the basis of your argument altogether. You never said that you never really liked 3D per se, but you said "Can't you see that a 3D picture looks much worse than a 2D picture?

Not trying to make a big deal here, I respect your personal disinterest in 3D and what it offers, but no I dont see that a 3D picture looks MUCH WORSE (your words) than a 2D picture

It does on my LG OLED. Even my wife can see the difference and that's saying a lot ;-)

[Moonlight Shadow]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

On a 1080p set it does cut the vertical resolution in half. 1080p OLED's are soon to be history. A 2160p OLED gives full HD 1080p per eye. There is no 2160p 3D format. On all the new 2160p sets they will suffer no loss in resolution for 3D.

So in essence there won't be resolution loss because you can't have 4K resolution in 3D to begin with.
People with very big TVs WILL see a difference (on 4K content).
If it wouldn't be noticeable 4K would be a waste of money.

Of course if you feel that the advantage of seeing the picture in 3D outweighs the (however small) loss in picture quality that's your perogative.
It all depends on your viewing habits, your eyesight, your screen size, TV model etc.

All I wanted to say is that with current technology you have to deal with a certain amount of quality loss when you watch 3D TV. That's hardly a sensational opinion because you can read about it in pretty much every article on 3D technology so I was just stating the obvious.

[Robbie The Robot]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

On a 1080p set it does cut the vertical resolution in half. 1080p OLED's are soon to be history. A 2160p OLED gives full HD 1080p per eye. There is no 2160p 3D format. On all the new 2160p sets they will suffer no loss in resolution for 3D.

I love 3D and will always opt to watch a movie with it as I enjoy the emersive effect. I find home TV's far better at producing it then in the Cinema.

However I am not sure your correct about 2160p producing a 1080p image. Your getting tripped up on the player itself outputting the signal at 2160p. This only occurs for UHD disks that currently do not support 3D. A 3D disk played through a UHD player will only output at 1080p. So it would be no different then playing the disk in a standard bluray player. I am not sure about a UHD player applying up scaling to the image and the impact that would have?

I am close to upgrading to an OLED. I have had a Samsung active 3D 64 inch and loved the quality of 3D so I am glad to hear no one is complaining about the passive quality on the OLEDs. I once tested a passive tv in the store and the stepping and lines were painful back in the day which pushed me to the active option.

[vinnie97]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Shadow

So in essence there won't be resolution loss because you can't have 4K resolution in 3D to begin with.
People with very big TVs WILL see a difference (on 4K content).
If it wouldn't be noticeable 4K would be a waste of money.

Of course if you feel that the advantage of seeing the picture in 3D outweighs the (however small) loss in picture quality that's your perogative.
It all depends on your viewing habits, your eyesight, your screen size, TV model etc.

All I wanted to say is that with current technology you have to deal with a certain amount of quality loss when you watch 3D TV. That's hardly a sensational opinion because you can read about it in pretty much every article on 3D technology so I was just stating the obvious.

You're still coming at this from the angle of a 1080p OLED owner where even the porous pixel structure creates a screen-door effect from a significant distance. That's a slightly different topic but semi-related in that it can have a detrimental effect on PQ.

If you can point to a single review or owner complaint where this passive resolution loss on a 4K OLED has any detrimental effect on the 3D viewing experience, I'd love to hear it. The only complaint I've heard about is crosstalk, which typically comes from a poorly applied filter. Otherwise there has been nothing but superlative remarks about passive 3D on these sets.