OLED size correlation to brightness / OLED uniformity variances

[jorimt]

Interesting what you say, cuz I haven't noticed a raise in black level on my G4 in brighter room conditions (when my window is open or blinds not shut).

I'm sure it's subtle, you'd probably have to have a G4 and C4 right next to each other to notice. And again, it wouldn't actually raise the black levels of the panel, just reflect slightly more ambient light in brighter room settings, giving the appearance of it in comparison; it's all relative.

Since I hated the last unit of the G4 I had due to excessively visible green tint like I showed you on the picture, I rolled a dice once more and finally scored. The current unit has acceptable level of tinting, it's on a warmer side, much less distracting. This one's a keeper.

Luck of the draw with these where tinting and near-black uniformity are concerned, for sure, but they all have some level of it. lt just depends on what level you can personally find "acceptable."

I'm guessing the OLED uniformity thread on AVS forums consists of the same issues I presented in this thread? I do not follow AVS forums. Would you kindly care to elaborate?

I'd suggest you avoid that thread then if you want to retain your sanity

It's just a bunch of users going through multiple units trying to re-roll for something that can't be won.

Well, after my experiences with numerous units of high-end WOLED TVs, these words of yours are true indeed!

Anyway, since you read the AVS forums, did you ever see anyone claiming that they actually won the panel lottery? How many units were they willing to go through? I am already exhausted with the exchanges and happy with my new unit!

I've seen people "claim" they have, but they had gone through so many panels at that point, hard to tell if they really did find a keeper, or they were just too tired to nitpick any further and/or didn't want to risk getting banned from their outlet of choice for exchanging so many.

I've also seen where some try until they give up, quit and buy another TV entirely, it just depends.

Some people certainly "luck out" and get a unit of the same model that happens to be very clean, but I doubt the margin of difference between the units of these same models (discounting outright faulty units) exceeds 10-15% variance in defects, be it uniformity, etc.

[RealNC]

CRT TVs were very different from CRT monitors; they were much lower resolution and had more geometric uniformity issues (lines weren't always straight, etc), and thus were more suited to distant media viewing than close-up productivity work and web browsing. But that didn't stop some of us from trying.

Why would they try, it if it was objectively worse?

I tried that too back in early 2000. The size seems great at first, but text is borderline unreadable. TVs in Europe (PAL) were 576i resolution (720x576 interlaced,) 50Hz, absolutely horrible up close. Good for games though, which is what I was using it for on my PC.

In comparison, my CRT monitor could go up to 1200p (1600x1200,) and could still manage 85Hz at that res, and up to 180Hz at lower res.

CRT TVs were vastly different compared to CRT monitors. A CRT monitor could have a picture quality that is about the same as what you get with modern displays.

[thatoneguy]

TVs in Europe (PAL) were 576i resolution (720x576 interlaced,) 50Hz, absolutely horrible up close.

PAL here too.
People say this, but I remember watching TV pretty close to the screen on occasion as a youngin and not noticing any flicker any at all.
And yes it was a regular 50hz Panasonic set. I didn't watch it that way often because to me the image quality looked worse and I liked sitting on the couch but yeah. Knew plenty of kids whether it'd be friends or family members etc. that had 0 problems sitting close to the TV and never heard them complaining about flicker or that they had headaches or whatever. Of course our parents would always tell us not to sit too close to the screen because we might damage our eyesight but that's another thing.

I really think many TVs used different phosphors and mine might have had a slower phosphor because I don't recall any flicker, and I recall the TV being plenty bright but I don't remember being blown away by its motion clarity.

CRT TVs were vastly different compared to CRT monitors. A CRT monitor could have a picture quality that is about the same as what you get with modern displays.

Well there were HD CRT TVs which weren't that much worse than CRT Monitors. They were hulking beasts though and couldn't do higher than 50/60hz.
CRT Monitors aren't as sharp as modern displays though. They were limited by masks and couldn't even technically resolve 1080p.
CRT Projectors which had no mask were sharper but also they projected a much bigger image so they were worse PPI-wise.

[jorimt]

I tried that too back in early 2000. The size seems great at first, but text is borderline unreadable.

Yup.

Well there were HD CRT TVs which weren't that much worse than CRT Monitors.

There were only a handful of readily available (and affordable) widescreen consumer CRT models that could do 720p/1080i near the tail end of the CRT market here in the US, and someone I knew had one; it wasn't nearly as clear (or geometrically stable) as my cheap older consumer CRT monitor at the time.

I'm sure there were a couple of HD CRTs that could come close to the performance of a CRT monitor, but I'm just referencing my personal experience with the models I either owned or had experience with directly (none of which were very expensive).