I know we're neanderthals for doing so, but a bunch of us actually prefer old-fashion caveman TV stands on our entertainment units rather than wall mounting for various reasons. Though I guess for $60,000 they could bundle a elegant-enough stand option for a couple thousand extra.
I didn't mind TV stands up until the point that it became necessary to wall anchor them anyhow for tip-over safety reasons with a child in the house... At that point, I just wall-mounted them all.
+2
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Every house is different, and sometimes mounting just can't happen for whatever reason. But if it can, man it looks nice.
Every house is different, and sometimes mounting just can't happen for whatever reason. But if it can, man it looks nice.
Cosmetics was what discouraged it in my apartment when I got my first UHD television.
I have a lot of cables running to that thing, even if the Kinect were sitting beneath it, using all five HDMI ports and the S/PDIF and component. The entertainment unit and sound bar are the exact right height to hide all of them. Mounting it? Nope, not unless you do it comically low. I stuck with that after I replaced it.
So I put a lighting strip behind it (not that you couldn't do that if mounted, it just works better if not). Maybe next place I live though.
I have no idea how I'd even start laying everything out with a wall mounted TV. I guess I'd still have to have an entertainment unit there, the TV would just be higher up and yeah, have a bunch of cables running to it (and now the PS camera). Our TV has a frosted clear stand so even now I have all the cables bundled together behind it as much as possible.
McFodder on
Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
+1
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
edited January 2020
I've posted this before but here's my setup. TV on the wall, entertainment center below. I've added a Genesis Mini, an XBox One S, and an HDMI switch (for the mini consoles) since then, but it's still largely the same.
Cables go in the wall. Buy some decent in-wall rated cables. They don't need to be the $100 ones, anything with a CL2 or 3 rating will do fine. High Speed HDMI is all the same spec wise. This widget will get your power behind the TV as well and is pretty easy to install. It's the one I bought. If you find one you like that's a bit cheaper go for it, but make sure it's UL rated and that it's as easy to install with enough room for running all your cables. Some of the less expensive ones only give enough room in the brush plate for a couple HDMI cables to pass through. In the end you'll have a spot behind the TV that looks like this.
Edit: this was from when we were moving in. That's not an LG TV, but I took the box from work after an install to move.
That is very slick. I switch HDMI cables too often to get away with putting cables in the wall (especially in an apartment), though advances in display projection from Windows 10 might change the former.
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
If you want to cheat a bit, get some wire molding. It sticks to the wall and hides the wires inside, leaving just an off white strip of vinyl on the wall. It also sucks up paint real well if you want it to match the wall. One tip though: whatever you think is the piece that will fit all your wires, pick the next widest one. You want some room to work in.
If you want to cheat a bit, get some wire molding. It sticks to the wall and hides the wires inside, leaving just an off white strip of vinyl on the wall. It also sucks up paint real well if you want it to match the wall. One tip though: whatever you think is the piece that will fit all your wires, pick the next widest one. You want some room to work in.
Having seen practical applications in person (among people I know who own their homes, but this being a college town, had various reasons not to go further with their walls), I've seen bad examples of that, but there are good ones out there.
Definitely not for me personally (changing the molding would be more trouble than it's worth if you're doing it more than once a month), but it's an option.
EDIT: The way to have done it for those who need to that flexibility would've been to run "permanent" cables, and then attach the devices to those in turn. That, or get a television with a one-cable breakout box (Samsung does this, I'm sure other brands do too). Still, my entertainment unit is too perfectly sized for the stand feet on 65" televisions now. :biggrin:
If you want to cheat a bit, get some wire molding. It sticks to the wall and hides the wires inside, leaving just an off white strip of vinyl on the wall. It also sucks up paint real well if you want it to match the wall. One tip though: whatever you think is the piece that will fit all your wires, pick the next widest one. You want some room to work in.
This is the route I've taken. In-wall would be marginally cleaner looking, but many times the effort. There's already a great honking 65" TV plus soundbar stuck to the wall, and an entertainment center with a Switch and vinyl turntable exposed on top of it. 'Stealth install' wasn't exactly the goal here, I'm happy to land on 'no visible birds nest of wires'.
That, or get a television with a one-cable breakout box (Samsung does this, I'm sure other brands do too).
Yeah, when I was looking at TVs Samsung's One-Connect box or whatever they called it looked pretty slick. Even if I had a decent receiver with most things plugged into that instead of directly into the TV I think I'd be more motivated. Instead we have put a picture in the space above the TV.
That said, the entertainment unit puts the TV at pretty much eye level for us on our lounge so we are pretty happy.
Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
+1
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The OneConnect is Samsung only as far as I've seen. It's alright, having the box separate can be good if you're going to be unhooking things frequently since you don't have to squirrel around behind the TV. But those boxes are a bit prone to over-heating, especially the older models, so make sure they have some space around them. Also, the cable is stupid expensive, and since it's proprietary you can't just buy a third party/monoprice cable if you need to replace it.
Since we're posting pics (though mine are terrible quality photos)
Front
Side
Going into the TV I think I've got power, 3xHDMI cables (PS4 via PSVR, Switch, HTiB system), optical out and ethernet, as well as a portable HDD tucked in there.
In the unit I've got
[ Switch Accessories ] [Switch and PSVR] [Powerboard and wifi extender / access point]
[Wii U (packed up currently] [PS4 ] [HTiB receiver/blu ray player ]
I did have the Wii U set up in the top section left of the centre speaker, but loaned it to a friend for a while and don't have any spare plugs on the board to set it up again. Fortunately so far any streaming services we want are supported by the TV apps so haven't needed an apple TV or similar.
McFodder on
Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
That, or get a television with a one-cable breakout box (Samsung does this, I'm sure other brands do too).
Yeah, when I was looking at TVs Samsung's One-Connect box or whatever they called it looked pretty slick. Even if I had a decent receiver with most things plugged into that instead of directly into the TV I think I'd be more motivated. Instead we have put a picture in the space above the TV.
That said, the entertainment unit puts the TV at pretty much eye level for us on our lounge so we are pretty happy.
Yeah, my entertainment unit is nice enough looking that it compliments the television by proximity. The Samsung OneConnect box is slick, but in a ultra-critical analysis kind of way, it's an additional point of failure when LCDs boast about their relative reliability compared to OLEDs, etc.. I'm also a firm advocate of the notion that a television's purpose is the actual display functionality, and everything in service of that display, first and foremost, so I can't shake the notion that the relative premium is better spent on a bigger screen/better picture/more advanced television watching features.
For someone worried about their room's aesthetics, by all means.
0
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Hmmm...I'm liking the looks of the 900f. How's the input lag on games? My current reading suggest that the Q70 outperforms the Sony there, but if it's not too much more I'll take the more vibrant color and HDR performance, as I won't be doing any online fighting or rhythm games where I'd be looking to minimize lag.
Did you pull the trigger? I'm getting around to buying another tv as my kids are fighting over our current one.
I did just this week. Wound up going with the Q70 after scoping both of them in person and tweaking some settings on both in the show room and finding a couple of nice discounts. The Dolby Vision HDR sample I saw on the 900f was very pretty, but with some adjustments I found the Q70s implementation of HDR10 wasn't too much of a downgrade.
Although the 900f is definitely superior if you're needing a wide range of viewing angles.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Hmmm...I'm liking the looks of the 900f. How's the input lag on games? My current reading suggest that the Q70 outperforms the Sony there, but if it's not too much more I'll take the more vibrant color and HDR performance, as I won't be doing any online fighting or rhythm games where I'd be looking to minimize lag.
Did you pull the trigger? I'm getting around to buying another tv as my kids are fighting over our current one.
I did just this week. Wound up going with the Q70 after scoping both of them in person and tweaking some settings on both in the show room and finding a couple of nice discounts. The Dolby Vision HDR sample I saw on the 900f was very pretty, but with some adjustments I found the Q70s implementation of HDR10 wasn't too much of a downgrade.
Although the 900f is definitely superior if you're needing a wide range of viewing angles.
Plus you need actual Dolby Vision HDR content--i.e. no video games.
I've had my Q70R for a couple weeks now. Very pleased with it, I imagine you will be too.
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Hmmm...I'm liking the looks of the 900f. How's the input lag on games? My current reading suggest that the Q70 outperforms the Sony there, but if it's not too much more I'll take the more vibrant color and HDR performance, as I won't be doing any online fighting or rhythm games where I'd be looking to minimize lag.
Did you pull the trigger? I'm getting around to buying another tv as my kids are fighting over our current one.
I did just this week. Wound up going with the Q70 after scoping both of them in person and tweaking some settings on both in the show room and finding a couple of nice discounts. The Dolby Vision HDR sample I saw on the 900f was very pretty, but with some adjustments I found the Q70s implementation of HDR10 wasn't too much of a downgrade.
Although the 900f is definitely superior if you're needing a wide range of viewing angles.
Plus you need actual Dolby Vision HDR content--i.e. no video games.
I've had my Q70R for a couple weeks now. Very pleased with it, I imagine you will be too.
I watch a lot of movies so for me the DV is important, but for gaming, yeah not so much.
Sony doesn't support 1440p resolutions so was eliminated as an option from the start for me. Been really happy with my Samsung Q70.
That's a bit surprising. Samsung does (in fact, you can do nifty stuff like 120hz at 1440p, as I recall, with the right setup), even though TV media boxes and video games pretty much entirely bypassed 1440p for UHD as an actual standard. But if you have to plug a PC into it (I also stream 1440p content from my Surface Pro occasionally).
Hmmmm so I'm having an odd issue I can't figure out and my google-fu is failing me.
I've got some movies I've ripped, and stored on my desktop
I've been testing with Blade Runner 2049 as it's pretty visually stunning and has been a good bench.
This is on a 65" LG C8
Scenario 1: Playing file on the computer and pushing video over HDMI
nVidia control panel is set to 4k, RGB 12bit at 30Hz. This is on a 2070 card
Playback is on VLC, I tried PotPlayer but i couldn't get set correctly
The picture is amazing, and it's true blacks, however I get some faint tearing and micro-stutter
Scenario 2: Files on computer, Playing directly from tv with native LG share or LG Plesk app
This gives the smoothest experience, no tearing and no micro-stutter
It's not trueblacks, so in a scene I can see where the top and bottom bars start
Audio quality seems to take a hit
Anyone had any experience with this?
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The WebOS Plex app, as I recall, is kind of crap. I don't believe it supports HDR decoding on its own, you need to have the file encoded a certain way. I'm not as familiar with Plex as I'd like to be. I do know that a lot of folks who use Plex bought a Shield TV because it does so well with the program, though.
Yeah I did a deep delve into the mad world of media players.
I read the same thing about shield. But unfortunate the hear the native apps kinda suck
I ended up with VLC playing from the desktop.
Had to make a bunch of changes but was the only one that would give me 100% true blacks and it was the 2nd beat for pixelation in light bloom areas.
Online it doesn’t seem well regarded because of stuttering issues. But there are a bunch of error safety options that seemed to cause that. Disabled them and it’s great.
I read tons of stuff of good stuff about wm classic with MadVr but I couldn’t get it to look good.
It's not quite as stupidly fragile and burn-in prone as rollable panels, on top of being cheaper!
God help you when you have to replace the bulbs though.
+1
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited March 2020
My 65" LG C9 got delivered today. Upgrade from a 55" LG C7. Getting ready for the new consoles and video cards later this year that should support HDMI 2.1. In the mean time being able to play PC games 1440p/120 from the couch is a big win for me since I am very couch bound with some back issues right now. It's hard to appreciate how much bigger a 65" set is compared to a 55 until you see them side by side.
e: Updated the C9 to the latest firmware and viola G-Sync started working. Can't wait for HDMI 2.1 to proliferate later this year for that tasty 4K/120/VRR goodness. In the mean time I'll enjoy my 1440p/120/VRR appetizer.
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2020
Due to criminal level idiocy, that shall remain un-described for the moment, I might be getting a new TV in the next couple months. What is the best 65"-75" TV that a max limit of 5k can buy right now? I'm thinking one of this year's 75" Samsung 8K models to future proof.
"Best" is subjective, or at least depends on your usage.
If you want the BEST picture OOTB, no other concerns, get an OLED. The "best" is (arguably) Sony's A9G, but I don't think you can get the 77" for <$5k, whereas you CAN get the LG C9 77" for that, which makes the LG a no-brainer IMO.
If you have burn-in concerns or want ridiculously bright HDR, you'll have to forget the OLED and go with an LCD, in which the lines for "best" get really blurry.
What are you going to use it for, where is it going, and what are your priorities? Also, do you care about brands, or are you agnostic on that as long as the features/picture quality are there?
I'm surprised to hear the A9G is better? the RTINGS reviews indicate the C9 is still a better option over A9G.
Because it's almost always cheaper, and people don't generally like Android on TV. It's gotten very stable, though, and newer TVs run it fast. The picture quality is largely the same because they're the same panel, but Sony has a better processor and the best upscaling in the business (if that matters to you). You really can't go wrong with either one, but I bought the Sony for a reason.
Due to criminal level idiocy, that shall remain un-described for the moment, I might be getting a new TV in the next couple months. What is the best 65"-75" TV that a max limit of 5k can buy right now? I'm thinking one of this year's 75" Samsung 8K models to future proof.
Burn-in is still a thing, whether it's on phones or televisions. It's strange that the complaints about burn-in (not to be confused with image retention, which went away before coming back a few years ago) are almost the same as they were five years ago. Maybe the adoption of UHD as a television standard hasn't helped.
But I think whether this would affect your decision or not can be figured out pretty easily: how much would you use this to play video games (which are, in the end of the day, absolutely packed with static screen elements, from console and PC UIs to HUDs to every other goddamn thing). It might seem silly, but there are people on a video game forum who shop for televisions that they seldom or even never use to play video games on. If you're one of those people, I think the burn-in risk going to be substantially reduced. Not eliminated, probably, but to the point that when it's particularly noticeable you'll probably be thinking about replacing it anyway...though if you're spending up to $5,000US, that might not be as true.
If you're using it overwhelmingly to play video games, or primarily, don't get an OLED. You'll be counting to the days until the Playstation, Xbox, or Switch UI's rectangular icons are a permanent feature of your screen. On top of that, LCD panels like those from Samsung have better refresh rates and response times than more expensive OLED panels, and have already had Freesync for a couple years (something LG's working on with more-expensive G-sync and better response times). Even if burn-in wasn't a thing, I'd say get an LCD (like Samsung's "QLED" line) just because they're comprehensively better in feature set for the same price, or less. Even resolution wise: video game consoles are likely going to support 8K output, for example, before as easily accessible media streaming does (granted, it'll just be ultra-up-ressed video games, but it'll still be the start). The OLEDs will bridge the gap, but that's assuming Samsung doesn't keep adding gaming features like they've been happy to do, like controller support for consoles or better game mode detection.
But if you don't play video games on it, you can ignore all of that. Picture wise, the one thing that comes to mind is that HDR peak brightness in Samsung's QLED line is easily superior to anything from Sony or LG OLED, and that's if you turned up those brightness settings well past "Hey, maybe keep it here to reduce the burn-in risk and just watch TV in a darker room." So I guess if really bright HDR capability, or watching your television in a really bright room matters, get an LCD. It's kind of like how average blacks are described as much better on OLEDs, HDR is much better on LCDs, even if you're not setting it to max brightness. Otherwise, the OLED options (at the higher price point) have the edge. If you need a much thinner television, for whatever reason, go with OLED. Granted, that pretty much excludes almost any 8K set that doesn't cost as much as a new car, or at least goes past your budget point.
On the subject of HDR, presently LG OLED's are nearly alone in offering support for Dolby Vision (the alternate to HDR10, which is license free), I think. So if that matters to you, you have your answer. Granted, no video game console uses Dolby Vision, and I believe Shadowfire is the only person in this thread who mentions owning UHD films with Dolby Vision support (I could be mistaken), so that's a lot more narrow of a case than "do you play video games on this?" probably.
I have an LG android phone with a ~1440p OLED screen that is far, far less bright then anyone non-insane person would set their home television too, and it still has burn-in from the time, date, and bottom buttons row. It's still a great phone, but it's not going to change the fact that it took less than two years for noticeable burn-in to appear. There's a reason barely any OLED monitors are sold more than a decade after OLED televisions appeared. Video game consoles are only becoming more and more like Windows PCs.
Hopefully, that helps you out. It's hard for me to weigh in, because your television budget is more than twice what mine was (for a 65", which is really as big as I could reasonably go).
Didn't realize it was android, that could be good though for additional support.
The reasons I read though were the input lag on c9 is better and it has the anti-tearing capabilities through HDMI VRR.
Some people say the SDR brightness is better but I think that is just panel variance of the particular model they tested.
It's surprising the difference you can get in panels. When I read through reddit some people really get freaking screwed.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I had my 55" C7 for two years, it's primary use case was video games and PC couch usage. It has no burn in. Just don't be stupid. Going afk? Turn the set off. Been playing the same game, with the same UI, for more than a couple of hours? Take a break and let the TV cool down a bit. Don't leave it just sitting there with no moving images on it for no reason.
When I was chatting with the guy at my local TV store when I bought my C9 he noted that the most common burn in they see isn't video games, it's cable news stations that a buyer leaves on literally all day.
Hopefully, that helps you out. It's hard for me to weigh in, because your television budget is more than twice what mine was (for a 65", which is really as big as I could reasonably go).
Also this. At the end of the day, I wound up with a $750 Vizio 65" M8 series, which I'm very happy with. The difference in picture quality from a TV with a 1:10,000 contrast ratio (M8 LCD) to a true infinite one (OLED) was perceptible, but not worth the price premium. To me, YMMV.
I'm really happy with my 75" Samsung Q70. Thing is great for gaming and 4k content looks amazing. And I got it for only 2k with the thanksgiving/xmas sale Samsung was doing.
I had my 55" C7 for two years, it's primary use case was video games and PC couch usage. It has no burn in. Just don't be stupid. Going afk? Turn the set off. Been playing the same game, with the same UI, for more than a couple of hours? Take a break and let the TV cool down a bit. Don't leave it just sitting there with no moving images on it for no reason.
When I was chatting with the guy at my local TV store when I bought my C9 he noted that the most common burn in they see isn't video games, it's cable news stations that a buyer leaves on literally all day.
I think you've pretty much hit on why I don't think I've ever seen an LG OLED in person without noticeable burn-in that wasn't being taken out of the box. "Don't play a video game for more than a few' hours." On top of every video game console since the Xbox 360 having automatic screen-dimming features for inactivity enabled by default.
Of course, you can live with burn-in. I do it with my phone every day. People learn to ignore it, just like I do with the image retention in my LG monitor.
Synthesis on
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited March 2020
I just can't imagine what people are doing to get all this burn in on their OLED's. Playing for 8 hours at a time? Leaving static images just sitting on a TV they aren't using? Never turning it off? I never thought about not burning in my C7, it just never happened because I don't sit on my couch 8 hours a day with the same game up? I guess if that's how someone plays video games than yeah, an OLED is not for you.
If you play for a couple of hours here, a couple of hours there, even a few hours at night once the fam is calmed down for bed time, I can't imagine you will burn in your OLED. That was my usage pattern with my C7 and after daily use for two years, zero burn in.
Posts
Burn-in and bending issues? For only the cost of a small home? Where can I sign up?
Seriously, though, it's a technological marvel. I'd probably be afraid to get one for free.
Cosmetics was what discouraged it in my apartment when I got my first UHD television.
I have a lot of cables running to that thing, even if the Kinect were sitting beneath it, using all five HDMI ports and the S/PDIF and component. The entertainment unit and sound bar are the exact right height to hide all of them. Mounting it? Nope, not unless you do it comically low. I stuck with that after I replaced it.
So I put a lighting strip behind it (not that you couldn't do that if mounted, it just works better if not). Maybe next place I live though.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Cables go in the wall. Buy some decent in-wall rated cables. They don't need to be the $100 ones, anything with a CL2 or 3 rating will do fine. High Speed HDMI is all the same spec wise. This widget will get your power behind the TV as well and is pretty easy to install. It's the one I bought. If you find one you like that's a bit cheaper go for it, but make sure it's UL rated and that it's as easy to install with enough room for running all your cables. Some of the less expensive ones only give enough room in the brush plate for a couple HDMI cables to pass through. In the end you'll have a spot behind the TV that looks like this.
Edit: this was from when we were moving in. That's not an LG TV, but I took the box from work after an install to move.
Having seen practical applications in person (among people I know who own their homes, but this being a college town, had various reasons not to go further with their walls), I've seen bad examples of that, but there are good ones out there.
Definitely not for me personally (changing the molding would be more trouble than it's worth if you're doing it more than once a month), but it's an option.
EDIT: The way to have done it for those who need to that flexibility would've been to run "permanent" cables, and then attach the devices to those in turn. That, or get a television with a one-cable breakout box (Samsung does this, I'm sure other brands do too). Still, my entertainment unit is too perfectly sized for the stand feet on 65" televisions now. :biggrin:
Yeah, when I was looking at TVs Samsung's One-Connect box or whatever they called it looked pretty slick. Even if I had a decent receiver with most things plugged into that instead of directly into the TV I think I'd be more motivated. Instead we have put a picture in the space above the TV.
That said, the entertainment unit puts the TV at pretty much eye level for us on our lounge so we are pretty happy.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Front
Going into the TV I think I've got power, 3xHDMI cables (PS4 via PSVR, Switch, HTiB system), optical out and ethernet, as well as a portable HDD tucked in there.
In the unit I've got
[ Switch Accessories ] [Switch and PSVR] [Powerboard and wifi extender / access point]
[Wii U (packed up currently] [PS4 ] [HTiB receiver/blu ray player ]
I did have the Wii U set up in the top section left of the centre speaker, but loaned it to a friend for a while and don't have any spare plugs on the board to set it up again. Fortunately so far any streaming services we want are supported by the TV apps so haven't needed an apple TV or similar.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Yeah, my entertainment unit is nice enough looking that it compliments the television by proximity. The Samsung OneConnect box is slick, but in a ultra-critical analysis kind of way, it's an additional point of failure when LCDs boast about their relative reliability compared to OLEDs, etc.. I'm also a firm advocate of the notion that a television's purpose is the actual display functionality, and everything in service of that display, first and foremost, so I can't shake the notion that the relative premium is better spent on a bigger screen/better picture/more advanced television watching features.
For someone worried about their room's aesthetics, by all means.
I did just this week. Wound up going with the Q70 after scoping both of them in person and tweaking some settings on both in the show room and finding a couple of nice discounts. The Dolby Vision HDR sample I saw on the 900f was very pretty, but with some adjustments I found the Q70s implementation of HDR10 wasn't too much of a downgrade.
Although the 900f is definitely superior if you're needing a wide range of viewing angles.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Plus you need actual Dolby Vision HDR content--i.e. no video games.
I've had my Q70R for a couple weeks now. Very pleased with it, I imagine you will be too.
I watch a lot of movies so for me the DV is important, but for gaming, yeah not so much.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
That's a bit surprising. Samsung does (in fact, you can do nifty stuff like 120hz at 1440p, as I recall, with the right setup), even though TV media boxes and video games pretty much entirely bypassed 1440p for UHD as an actual standard. But if you have to plug a PC into it (I also stream 1440p content from my Surface Pro occasionally).
I've got some movies I've ripped, and stored on my desktop
I've been testing with Blade Runner 2049 as it's pretty visually stunning and has been a good bench.
This is on a 65" LG C8
Scenario 1: Playing file on the computer and pushing video over HDMI
nVidia control panel is set to 4k, RGB 12bit at 30Hz. This is on a 2070 card
Playback is on VLC, I tried PotPlayer but i couldn't get set correctly
The picture is amazing, and it's true blacks, however I get some faint tearing and micro-stutter
Scenario 2: Files on computer, Playing directly from tv with native LG share or LG Plesk app
This gives the smoothest experience, no tearing and no micro-stutter
It's not trueblacks, so in a scene I can see where the top and bottom bars start
Audio quality seems to take a hit
Anyone had any experience with this?
I read the same thing about shield. But unfortunate the hear the native apps kinda suck
I ended up with VLC playing from the desktop.
Had to make a bunch of changes but was the only one that would give me 100% true blacks and it was the 2nd beat for pixelation in light bloom areas.
Online it doesn’t seem well regarded because of stuttering issues. But there are a bunch of error safety options that seemed to cause that. Disabled them and it’s great.
I read tons of stuff of good stuff about wm classic with MadVr but I couldn’t get it to look good.
EDIT: Watching 2001, and it’s amazing.
not that i have a space big enough to want a 100+" screen but
https://www.amazon.com/VAVA-Theatre-Projector-Lumens-Android/dp/B07XGM6YGQ/
pair that with that non reflective rollup screen and thats pretty rad
God help you when you have to replace the bulbs though.
e: Updated the C9 to the latest firmware and viola G-Sync started working. Can't wait for HDMI 2.1 to proliferate later this year for that tasty 4K/120/VRR goodness. In the mean time I'll enjoy my 1440p/120/VRR appetizer.
If you want the BEST picture OOTB, no other concerns, get an OLED. The "best" is (arguably) Sony's A9G, but I don't think you can get the 77" for <$5k, whereas you CAN get the LG C9 77" for that, which makes the LG a no-brainer IMO.
If you have burn-in concerns or want ridiculously bright HDR, you'll have to forget the OLED and go with an LCD, in which the lines for "best" get really blurry.
What are you going to use it for, where is it going, and what are your priorities? Also, do you care about brands, or are you agnostic on that as long as the features/picture quality are there?
I'm surprised to hear the A9G is better? the RTINGS reviews indicate the C9 is still a better option over A9G.
Because it's almost always cheaper, and people don't generally like Android on TV. It's gotten very stable, though, and newer TVs run it fast. The picture quality is largely the same because they're the same panel, but Sony has a better processor and the best upscaling in the business (if that matters to you). You really can't go wrong with either one, but I bought the Sony for a reason.
Burn-in is still a thing, whether it's on phones or televisions. It's strange that the complaints about burn-in (not to be confused with image retention, which went away before coming back a few years ago) are almost the same as they were five years ago. Maybe the adoption of UHD as a television standard hasn't helped.
But I think whether this would affect your decision or not can be figured out pretty easily: how much would you use this to play video games (which are, in the end of the day, absolutely packed with static screen elements, from console and PC UIs to HUDs to every other goddamn thing). It might seem silly, but there are people on a video game forum who shop for televisions that they seldom or even never use to play video games on. If you're one of those people, I think the burn-in risk going to be substantially reduced. Not eliminated, probably, but to the point that when it's particularly noticeable you'll probably be thinking about replacing it anyway...though if you're spending up to $5,000US, that might not be as true.
If you're using it overwhelmingly to play video games, or primarily, don't get an OLED. You'll be counting to the days until the Playstation, Xbox, or Switch UI's rectangular icons are a permanent feature of your screen. On top of that, LCD panels like those from Samsung have better refresh rates and response times than more expensive OLED panels, and have already had Freesync for a couple years (something LG's working on with more-expensive G-sync and better response times). Even if burn-in wasn't a thing, I'd say get an LCD (like Samsung's "QLED" line) just because they're comprehensively better in feature set for the same price, or less. Even resolution wise: video game consoles are likely going to support 8K output, for example, before as easily accessible media streaming does (granted, it'll just be ultra-up-ressed video games, but it'll still be the start). The OLEDs will bridge the gap, but that's assuming Samsung doesn't keep adding gaming features like they've been happy to do, like controller support for consoles or better game mode detection.
But if you don't play video games on it, you can ignore all of that. Picture wise, the one thing that comes to mind is that HDR peak brightness in Samsung's QLED line is easily superior to anything from Sony or LG OLED, and that's if you turned up those brightness settings well past "Hey, maybe keep it here to reduce the burn-in risk and just watch TV in a darker room." So I guess if really bright HDR capability, or watching your television in a really bright room matters, get an LCD. It's kind of like how average blacks are described as much better on OLEDs, HDR is much better on LCDs, even if you're not setting it to max brightness. Otherwise, the OLED options (at the higher price point) have the edge. If you need a much thinner television, for whatever reason, go with OLED. Granted, that pretty much excludes almost any 8K set that doesn't cost as much as a new car, or at least goes past your budget point.
On the subject of HDR, presently LG OLED's are nearly alone in offering support for Dolby Vision (the alternate to HDR10, which is license free), I think. So if that matters to you, you have your answer. Granted, no video game console uses Dolby Vision, and I believe Shadowfire is the only person in this thread who mentions owning UHD films with Dolby Vision support (I could be mistaken), so that's a lot more narrow of a case than "do you play video games on this?" probably.
I have an LG android phone with a ~1440p OLED screen that is far, far less bright then anyone non-insane person would set their home television too, and it still has burn-in from the time, date, and bottom buttons row. It's still a great phone, but it's not going to change the fact that it took less than two years for noticeable burn-in to appear. There's a reason barely any OLED monitors are sold more than a decade after OLED televisions appeared. Video game consoles are only becoming more and more like Windows PCs.
Hopefully, that helps you out. It's hard for me to weigh in, because your television budget is more than twice what mine was (for a 65", which is really as big as I could reasonably go).
The reasons I read though were the input lag on c9 is better and it has the anti-tearing capabilities through HDMI VRR.
Some people say the SDR brightness is better but I think that is just panel variance of the particular model they tested.
It's surprising the difference you can get in panels. When I read through reddit some people really get freaking screwed.
When I was chatting with the guy at my local TV store when I bought my C9 he noted that the most common burn in they see isn't video games, it's cable news stations that a buyer leaves on literally all day.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
I think you've pretty much hit on why I don't think I've ever seen an LG OLED in person without noticeable burn-in that wasn't being taken out of the box. "Don't play a video game for more than a few' hours." On top of every video game console since the Xbox 360 having automatic screen-dimming features for inactivity enabled by default.
Of course, you can live with burn-in. I do it with my phone every day. People learn to ignore it, just like I do with the image retention in my LG monitor.
If you play for a couple of hours here, a couple of hours there, even a few hours at night once the fam is calmed down for bed time, I can't imagine you will burn in your OLED. That was my usage pattern with my C7 and after daily use for two years, zero burn in.