LG to focus on making Oled Gaming Monitors

Johnx64

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
8,777
Twisting the words for a headline eh?

Gotta get them clicks!!!

"The company will focus instead on OLED TV panels and the automotive market, and will aim to open up new markets for transparent and gaming OLEDs."
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,804
Does LG have LCD factories in China? Considering they make a whole bunch of IPS monitors at the moment and are supposed to come out with IPS panels with improved contrast ratio according to TFTCentral's panel roadmaps.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
26,073
LG display is not lg electronics. The TV arm will stop making ips etc TV's but the display arm will still produce ips panels.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308


9:15 he mentions that they are indeed preparing more sizes apart from 48 and 42 to diversify their gaming lineup. It's probably going to start with that 27 inch model that TFTC reported on.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
9:15 he mentions that they are indeed preparing more sizes apart from 48 and 42 to diversify their gaming lineup. It's probably going to start with that 27 inch model that TFTC reported on.
Looks like the golden age of gaming displays is starting. Has started with the 42C2 launch.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,783
I'm guessing any 27-30" OLED panels they make will be limited to 1440p, and 1080p for anything less than 27". The pixel aperture ratio probably gets too small for acceptable brightness/lifespan at higher PPI than that.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
I'm guessing any 27-30" OLED panels they make will be limited to 1440p, and 1080p for anything less than 27". The pixel aperture ratio probably gets too small for acceptable brightness/lifespan at higher PPI than that.

Now I'm no expert so I have no idea how any of this stuff works, but if the iPhone's can have high brightness with high PPI OLEDs then why not monitors? Is it because of AMOLED and being pentile subpixel?

1661370691296.png
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,783
Now I'm no expert so I have no idea how any of this stuff works, but if the iPhone's can have high brightness with high PPI OLEDs then why not monitors? Is it because of AMOLED and being pentile subpixel?

View attachment 503521

OLED displays used in phones can be designed for high brightness because the lifespan is expected to be much shorter, and running at high brightness will age the emitters much faster, which is what causes burn in. The average phone screen is on for less than 4 hours a day, whereas a desktop monitor can easily clock 2-3x that. Phones are also replaced much more frequently than monitors - around two years on average. If it takes, on average, 5,000 hours (~3.4 years at 4 hours a day) for burn in to start to become noticeable on a phone screen it's not really a big deal since the phone has probably already been replaced with a new one anyway. On a desktop monitor, however, you could easily hit that in 12-18 months. Maybe less. On top of that, it should last 5+ years. So in general a desktop display would need to be designed for a much longer lifespan than a phone display. That means balancing brightness and subpixel size, and employing mitigation techniques like ABSL.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
OLED displays used in phones can be designed for high brightness because the lifespan is expected to be much shorter, and running at high brightness will age the emitters much faster, which is what causes burn in. The average phone screen is on for less than 4 hours a day, whereas a desktop monitor can easily clock 2-3x that. Phones are also replaced much more frequently than monitors - around two years on average. If it takes, on average, 5,000 hours (~3.4 years at 4 hours a day) for burn in to start to become noticeable on a phone screen it's not really a big deal since the phone has probably already been replaced with a new one anyway. On a desktop monitor, however, you could easily hit that in 12-18 months. Maybe less. On top of that, it should last 5+ years. So in general a desktop display would need to be designed for a much longer lifespan than a phone display. That means balancing brightness and subpixel size, and employing mitigation techniques like ABSL.

So in other words it has nothing to do with the PPI but rather just about preserving lifespan? ;)
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,783
So in other words it has nothing to do with the PPI but rather just about preserving lifespan? ;)

Think about it like this: there's brightness, lifespan, and pixel density. If you increase any one, it reduces the other two. It's a balancing act.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
Think about it like this: there's brightness, lifespan, and pixel density. If you increase any one, it reduces the other two. It's a balancing act.

Right. But I was under the impression that high PPI was an actual physical limitation that hampers the brightness of OLEDs but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,783
Right. But I was under the impression that high PPI was an actual physical limitation that hampers the brightness of OLEDs but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Not that I know of. Although, all else being equal, smaller pixels need to be run harder to achieve equal brightness as larger ones, which increases power draw and heat output. So it may well be that a higher PPI panel would have more aggressive ABL.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
Eh I'd rather have 4K @ 120hz for now.

We've had 4K @ 120Hz for years already ever since the LG C9 and eventually we will get 4K @ 240Hz. In the mean time this is at least something new and different. Yes the PPI is on the low side but from a purely gaming standpoint (NOT talking about work/productivity just to be clear) I think it's fine since I've used a 55" OLED before 48" existed and the PPI did not bother me in games at all. Anyway I'm just excited that we are finally starting to get more options for OLED monitors like the Asus PG42UQ and seeing how this monitor/panel really just came outta nowhere I hope we can get more pleasant surprises at CES 2023 in the OLED monitor space.
 

Convicted

n00b
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
2
It's such a shame the resolution can't be a bit higher. It would be a perfect monitor then. I guess we're already saturating hdmi 2.1 and displayport 1.4 with that resolution 240hz 10 bit though. Do you think the PPI of the LG / Corsair would make it unusable for a setup where 90% is work (docs / spreadsheets / emails / zoom) and only 10% is gaming? I was about to pull the trigger on the 42 inch Asus to upgrade my 7 year old 40 inch Philips, but then saw this LG and now am really tempted to wait instead.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
It's such a shame the resolution can't be a bit higher. It would be a perfect monitor then. I guess we're already saturating hdmi 2.1 and displayport 1.4 with that resolution 240hz 10 bit though. Do you think the PPI of the LG / Corsair would make it unusable for a setup where 90% is work (docs / spreadsheets / emails / zoom) and only 10% is gaming? I was about to pull the trigger on the 42 inch Asus to upgrade my 7 year old 40 inch Philips, but then saw this LG and now am really tempted to wait instead.

Absolutely not. As I've said before the PPI is about the same as 1080p monitor @ 27 inches. It isn't going to be the crispest and clearest looking display out there, but it is by no means unusable. Hell, people have been using the 55 inch LG C9 as their monitor before the CX came out and introduced the 48 inch size and 4K at 55 inches is about the same PPI as this and still has WOLED subpixel text issues. And don't forget there's people on this very forum who used to use a Westinghouse 37 inch 1080p display as monitor for a while too. People have simply gotten spoiled by higher PPI and I understand that looks really nice when you have super clear and crisp text, I really do. But at the same time, as someone who uses both "high" and "low" PPI screens on a daily basis ranging from my 12.9" iPad Pro to a 48" LG CX, I don't find lower PPI to completely "unusable". To me, going from a high to low PPI is nowhere near as big of a change as going from 144Hz to 60Hz.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,804
Absolutely not. As I've said before the PPI is about the same as 1080p monitor @ 27 inches. It isn't going to be the crispest and clearest looking display out there, but it is by no means unusable. Hell, people have been using the 55 inch LG C9 as their monitor before the CX came out and introduced the 48 inch size and 4K at 55 inches is about the same PPI as this and still has WOLED subpixel text issues. And don't forget there's people on this very forum who used to use a Westinghouse 37 inch 1080p display as monitor for a while too. People have simply gotten spoiled by higher PPI and I understand that looks really nice when you have super clear and crisp text, I really do. But at the same time, as someone who uses both "high" and "low" PPI screens on a daily basis ranging from my 12.9" iPad Pro to a 48" LG CX, I don't find lower PPI to completely "unusable". To me, going from a high to low PPI is nowhere near as big of a change as going from 144Hz to 60Hz.
I'd say the difference is in intended usage. 55+ inch TVs are fine with low PPI when the intended usage is sitting several meters away and due to their large size, that's pretty much what you need to do.

The LG 45" is not VESA mountable and is intended to go on a desk, where the low PPI will be a real issue if you want to use it for anything but media and games. I just don't understand why they decided on this size/resolution combo instead of going for say 3840x1600 which would have given it a similar PPI to the LG CX 48".
 

cvinh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
2,003
I'm guessing they really wanted to hit that "240 hz gaming speed" and couldn't do it at a higher res. Whatever is going to make them more money by advertising certain features to the masses.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
I'd say the difference is in intended usage. 55+ inch TVs are fine with low PPI when the intended usage is sitting several meters away and due to their large size, that's pretty much what you need to do.

The LG 45" is not VESA mountable and is intended to go on a desk, where the low PPI will be a real issue if you want to use it for anything but media and games. I just don't understand why they decided on this size/resolution combo instead of going for say 3840x1600 which would have given it a similar PPI to the LG CX 48".

Where did you read it's not VESA mountable? I know the Corsair one isn't but I didn't see confirmation for the LG. And media/gaming is really what this monitor is all about. With a non adjustable 800R curve I'm pretty sure this is going to be a hard pass for many when it comes to productivity.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,804
Where did you read it's not VESA mountable? I know the Corsair one isn't but I didn't see confirmation for the LG. And media/gaming is really what this monitor is all about. With a non adjustable 800R curve I'm pretty sure this is going to be a hard pass for many when it comes to productivity.
The LG actually might be, I was just thinking of the Corsair. At this size IMO the curve is pretty much a must. Productivity comes in many forms and for me at least as a programmer curved displays are not a problem.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,088
PPI thing is pretty subjective. I use a 91 PPI 32" 1440p side monitor and consider anything lower a deal breaker. I imagine that on this LG, pixels will be pretty easily visible just like they were back when I used a 55" TV as a monitor. Add to this that it's probably WRGB which already doesn't have clean text and IMO it's a gaming display first and foremost.

I'm just really over 1440p.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,804
PPI thing is pretty subjective. I use a 91 PPI 32" 1440p side monitor and consider anything lower a deal breaker. I imagine that on this LG, pixels will be pretty easily visible just like they were back when I used a 55" TV as a monitor. Add to this that it's probably WRGB which already doesn't have clean text and IMO it's a gaming display first and foremost.

I'm just really over 1440p.
Agreed. On a past work project the client gave me a 27" 1080p display to use which is the equivalent of the PPI on the 45" OLED. I hated it so much, you could easily see the pixel grid even at some distance. Thankfully the project lasted only about a month as I was just fixing and improving one of their internal systems.

I don't mind 1440p at 27" size but would not go any larger than that for 16:9.

At the same time I don't really want separate gaming vs work displays especially if they are large. If I have to do that I'd rather use a TV in the living room for gaming.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,308
Another issue with this LG is the fact that the curve is going to limit how far you can optimally sit from it. You don't hear people complaining about "low PPI" when they game on a giant 77" 4K TV because they can sit far away enough for it to not be a problem. This LG having such an aggressive curve means you will need to sit a bit closer unlike the Corsair and then PPI may become an issue for games as well.
 
Top