While up to 75 - 80" a 4K resolution is perfectly adequate, at 100+" sizes, and most certainly at 132", 8K is required (unless you always sit 5+ meters away, assuming you have the space). The panel of this TV has just 33 PPI and a pixel pitch of 0.76 mm, which is poor to say the least. Perhaps microLEDs of that size are easier and cheaper to make? I would be personally fully content with a TV with a 70" large 4K microLED panel. Besides being much more .. manageable and a better fit for my home it would also have almost double the pixel density.
Heh, I was just thinking, at this density, you'd get 1080p on a screen just a hair larger than my 65" 4K set. And while I'd certainly agree that 1080p is too low for a 65"-class TV, I wonder how far the wide gamut, deep contrast, and fast response time would go to make up for it.
Then again, sitting five feet away from a screen with 33ppi would be the same as holding an iPhone 11 half a foot from your face...
What are you talking about? If you have 20/20 vision watching a 132 inch TV you have to sit closer than 8.6 feet / 262 cm to notice any 4K+ details. No mainstream movie is mastered at more than 4K and if they did 99%+ of cinemas wouldn't be able to show it nor is there a consumer format that does 8K. At best you get upscales from 4K BluRays and 4K streaming.
The big benefit of MicroLEDs is that they consist of panels so costs scale proportionally with area and you can make really huge TVs, like if a 50" TV costs $1000 then a 100" TV will be $4000, a 150" TV $9000 and 200" $16000 and the biggest TV will also have the highest resolution. MicroLED will be a rich man's playtoy with their 8K video wall, not for "small" TVs like today.
I can tell you that I can see the pixels on my 55" 1080p TV, 40.05 ppi, when the contrast is right from a distance greater than 8ft, with a 65" that would be even more pronounced. For that reason you would want an 8k resolution for a TV at 132".
I have a 134" stewart screen with a 1080p projector. it looks fantastic at the viewing distance of 14'. If i'm 5' or less from the screen you can see the pixel structure. 4k would improve things but improve on nits/contrast/color volume and all those types of things will make for a much better experience than 4k/8k. Good thing that all these displays are improving in these areas at the same time, some from the increase in resolution as a side effect. The brightness of a display does effect the perceived resolution as well. It's really noticeable when a bulb is at the end of its life span and you put a new one in the projector, it's like a brand new display!
Projectors have the advantage of being able adjust sharpness to make the pixels meet. I know if I make my 1080P projector too sharp, I can see the pixels on my 120" screen. Essentially, the projected pixels are bigger than the equivalent LED pixel in a flat panel display of the same size.
I realized this recently. Had LASIK and kept complaining about how blurry things were after the operation and how I could read much more clearly with my old glasses prior. Turns out, I had 20/20 with LASIK, but something like 20/15 with my glasses.
False, and you don't have 20/20 vision obviously. My vision is far worse and I can tell the difference with much smaller TVs. Right now I'm 4ft from a 27" 4k and I can tell when content isn't 4k.
Just because something is broadcast in 4K doesn't mean it's 4K resolution. Same goes for 1080P. I've seen 720P content that was significantly sharper than supposed 1080P. I even briefly (I returned it) had a thousand dollar 4K camcorder which barely had 1080P resolution when recording a B&W resolution chart. And yes.....I do have 20-20 vision and when I see true 4K content on my 65" OLED I can't believe the clarity.
Wow, And here I am planning a project using 1mm square RGB LEDs. Granted they wont be nearly as bright or as colour accurate, and I'm only using a few of them.
It's a teach preview... From 3 meters distance you wouldn't notice resolution (300 PPI @ 30 cm = 30 PPI @ 300 cm). Sit closer & you won't be able to have it in view point.
It's funny because in home theatre forums, pretty much everyone does not see much benefit in 4K (2160P) over 2K (1080P) despite the difference being fairly pronounced with the much larger screen size. At the least, many are fine with the 0.67" DLP Projectors that have a 1528P native resolution with pixel shifting to double the pixel count to 8.3MP.
I'd gladly take this microLED TV since it would easily best any projector. I always want higher resolution, so I'd definitely prefer having 8K. However, this is already a quite great technical achievement.
Based on common resolution charts and my own personal experience I would suggest that the actual ideal visual acuity seating distance should be about 8-1/2 feet for a 132" 4K screen (assuming true 3840 x 2160 resolution). This is based on a person with normal 20-20 vision, which I happen to have.
27" 4k Master Race here. IMO if I buy a 75" TV it better be 8K or I'm not buying it. I don't know why so many people are blind. I wear glasses and I can tell side by side 4k content and non 4k content, also 4k TVs/Monitors and non-4k TVs/Monitors apart pretty easily, even as low as 24".
There is a HUGE difference between lower res content upscaled and the lower res on a native mode display. The upscaling is almost ALWAYS worse and noticeable, but just because you can see the difference between 4K native content and 1080P content upscaled to 4K doesn't mean the same size display with a native 1080 resolution would look anything like that upscaled content. And as small as 24"? I call BS, try putting yourself through a double blind study and see if you csn really tell which 24" display is 4K and which is lower.
Depends on what kind of content you're talking about. There's a good case for upscaling full-bandwidth content, because pixels do a poor job of reconstructing a properly band-limited signal.
Guys, you realize that most movies at the movie theater are 2k. And most CGI is rendered at 2k. The SuperBowl was broadcast at 720p last year (0.9 megapixels), which I watched broadcast on a large screen. To suggest that you need 35X more resolution to enjoy watching it is simply ridiculous.
4k is fine at this resolution. Stop comparing pixel density with phones.
It just gets on my nerves, people talking about "4K @ 65 looks like shit" or whatever...
For one, get better content. I watch 480P scaled up to 1080P, play @ 4K scaled down to 1080P and everything in between.
Today I'm in glasses, my vision is only 20/20. Previously I wore contacts, my vision was 20/10 or better. Even with 20/10 the difference between 720P and 1080P on my 46 inch 1080P 6ns TV is minimal, depends on the content. Farcry 5 has jagged edges regardless of the resolution.
Fallout 4 barely has any jagged edges regardless of the resolution.
Honestly, a lot of games look better @ 4K render, 1080P display or 720P with massive AA than they do at 1080P. People ignore that though because they have to stroke their ego and justify newer, faster hardware for points on the Internet. Stargate SG1 looks just as good @ 480P as it does at 720P and you can't see an improvement at 1080P until season 9 or so, and that's mostly in CGI scenes...
If I'm so disturbed by a less than perfect 4K picture then either my game or my show sucks and I'd much rather enjoy the show at 720P than count pixels at 8K.
That's hilarious. That implies that you can discern details better than (almost) every human on the earth. The highest acuity measured so far by a human is about 20/10 (6/3 on metric scales). At 20/20 vision, at best you could consistently discern details at about 2.6 meters away. If you don't have measured better then 20/20, then you can't. Even then, the best ever recorded from an unaided person so far would only be able to see the differences at about 5.2m. So I call BS.
IIRC, the smaller you make the TV, the lower the resolution due to using "panels". I don't know if that was specific to Samsung, or applies to all Micro-LED TVs at this point.
"the lower the resolution due to using "panels" " I have no idea what that means. If you make TVs (of any kind) a certain percent smaller you can use an accordingly lower resolution to retain a constant pixel density. If you don't lower the resolution as you decrease the panel's size then you increase the pixel density. That applies to *all* panel technologies, there is nothing special about microLED based panels.
He is right about the panels. They use small panels made of microLEDs with a fixed pixel density, if they want to make a 4k tv, they connect as much panels as they can to reach 4k. If they want to make 1080p, they will connect lower number of panels.
He's mostly right. Different manufacturers have a variety of differently sized sub-panels with differing amounts of black space between LEDs (pitch). The size and native resolution of a MicroLED display will depend upon the pitch of each sub-panel, sub-panel size, and quantity of sub-panels.
FWIW, these demo/commercial displays are not necessarily what consumer displays will be like. As they improve yields and shrink the tech down (finer pitch), we will see fewer and fewer sub-panels per display. Maybe we'll eventually get the same variety of display sizes and resolutions as LCD has now.
Of course. And there's no "Stop" control for videos - to switch to another film you have to abort back to the home screen and re-navigate through all the source etc menus.
Too much Van Gogh and Rembrandt (the cynic in me suspects because their paintings are in the public domain..). By the way, this how the Rembrandt painting at 0:44, called "The Night Watch", actually looks like : https://www.dw.com/image/45910106_403.jpg TCL didn't just amplify the painting's red channel a little bit when they processed the image for their presentation. They blew it up to kingdom come and then some! Even objects and faces that are not red at all in the original look like they are on fire in TCL's version. Come on guys, seriously?
If only there were something decent to watch. With Netflix online collection being full of their own branded sht and almost nothing else and Netflix DVD/BR collection and service quality dwindling, and with Hollywood in full-preach ultra-SJW mode, there is nothing worth of our limited time to watch on displays of this quality...
@Papaspud , it's not that I disagree with you on the quality of many (most?) Netflix shows... but you know that one show/series/movie you really love and think it's great? Yeah, that one. Well it's an absolute piece of garbage that's not worthy of being set on fire and you should be ashamed of thinking about it, let alone watching it and even liking it. Yeah... Absolute (objective) truths at their best, eh?
Currently you have 4K in a smartphone, you don't need 75" for 8k, however that's Pentile...come to think of it nobody said this MicroLED is RGB stripe!
All OLED TVs are WOLED, this issue comes with the color filter not the backlight, so yeah "While OLEDs tend to offer superior contrast ratio when compared to LCDs, they have a number of trade-offs, including off-axis color shifting, ghosting, burn-in, etc. WOLED has mitigated some of these issues, but it has also introduced others due to the inherient limitations of using color filters." is incorrect, off-axis color shifting is what WOLED introduces, not mitigates.
You have to look at the Rtings charts to see the full picture. Rtings rates color shift when hue deviates by 3%. LG C8 hits this point at 28 degrees (which is barely perceptible). Even at 70 degrees the color shift barely hits 10%. The contrast loss (where OLED is king) is much more bothersome to most people.
I have an LG C7 and there is a very slight color shift when moving away from straight on viewing. It is insignificant compared to LCD panels and you really have to look for it. The contrast level remains more or less constant which is much more apparent compared to washed out LCD TV's. Even IPS panels fare poorly when compared to OLED's.
The main (only?) customers for these are, at this time, people with way too much money on hand, and people editing 8K video. If it covers the entire color space for 8K, it would be great for editing.
Well, if you're specifically concerned just about editing, then people have long edited at a lower resolution, just because it's easier to work with. Then, once the edit list is finalized, apply it to the full-res footage.
The only credible thing is to do tech demo illustrations, not post random images subjected to grotesque extremes of information loss masquerading as improvement.
Reposting these blown-out overprocessed images is embarrassing. It takes a few seconds with the Curves tool and the Saturation tool to get the same ugly results, on even a monitor with 50% of sRGB.
Companies peddling the latest gimmickry, like 8K, must really think we're stupid because they give us a bunch of heavily-processed images and brag about how everything looks "painted on". That nonsense happened something like two years ago already. In reality, unless the person looking at the images has an 8K set, the images are completely worthless.
In exactly the same way, none of the images in this article have any real-world relevance since we don't have the Micro LED set to look at them on.
Tech sites like this one, Techpowerup, and others lose credibility when they post press releases as if they're news and especially when they post intentionally misleading images.
I am reminded of the odious practice of having herds of female models to post with things like motherboards, too — as if even one woman in the entire world who looks like they do and dresses like they do has even the slightest interest in any of those kinds of products.
"Oh, yes... I just love the color scheme on that motherboard!"
I'll take an Asian booth babe or cosplay model showing off a smartphone, motherboard, TV or whatever, over photos of how great this TV's color and brightness is. Photos I'm currently viewing on a deteriorating 768p display.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
Back to Article
guidryp - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Sure, at only 5 cents/pixel. ;)Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
While up to 75 - 80" a 4K resolution is perfectly adequate, at 100+" sizes, and most certainly at 132", 8K is required (unless you always sit 5+ meters away, assuming you have the space). The panel of this TV has just 33 PPI and a pixel pitch of 0.76 mm, which is poor to say the least. Perhaps microLEDs of that size are easier and cheaper to make?I would be personally fully content with a TV with a 70" large 4K microLED panel. Besides being much more .. manageable and a better fit for my home it would also have almost double the pixel density.
Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
p.s. Sorry guidryp, I accidentally clicked "reply" to your comment rather than "Post a comment". When I require sleep I get very absent-minded...Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Heh, I was just thinking, at this density, you'd get 1080p on a screen just a hair larger than my 65" 4K set. And while I'd certainly agree that 1080p is too low for a 65"-class TV, I wonder how far the wide gamut, deep contrast, and fast response time would go to make up for it.Then again, sitting five feet away from a screen with 33ppi would be the same as holding an iPhone 11 half a foot from your face...
Kjella - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
What are you talking about? If you have 20/20 vision watching a 132 inch TV you have to sit closer than 8.6 feet / 262 cm to notice any 4K+ details. No mainstream movie is mastered at more than 4K and if they did 99%+ of cinemas wouldn't be able to show it nor is there a consumer format that does 8K. At best you get upscales from 4K BluRays and 4K streaming.The big benefit of MicroLEDs is that they consist of panels so costs scale proportionally with area and you can make really huge TVs, like if a 50" TV costs $1000 then a 100" TV will be $4000, a 150" TV $9000 and 200" $16000 and the biggest TV will also have the highest resolution. MicroLED will be a rich man's playtoy with their 8K video wall, not for "small" TVs like today.
schujj07 - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
I can tell you that I can see the pixels on my 55" 1080p TV, 40.05 ppi, when the contrast is right from a distance greater than 8ft, with a 65" that would be even more pronounced. For that reason you would want an 8k resolution for a TV at 132".buttabean - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
I have a 134" stewart screen with a 1080p projector. it looks fantastic at the viewing distance of 14'. If i'm 5' or less from the screen you can see the pixel structure. 4k would improve things but improve on nits/contrast/color volume and all those types of things will make for a much better experience than 4k/8k. Good thing that all these displays are improving in these areas at the same time, some from the increase in resolution as a side effect. The brightness of a display does effect the perceived resolution as well. It's really noticeable when a bulb is at the end of its life span and you put a new one in the projector, it's like a brand new display!llamas - Friday, October 4, 2019 - link
Projectors have the advantage of being able adjust sharpness to make the pixels meet. I know if I make my 1080P projector too sharp, I can see the pixels on my 120" screen. Essentially, the projected pixels are bigger than the equivalent LED pixel in a flat panel display of the same size.PixyMisa - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Yeah, but 20/20 vision is actually kind of bad. Good vision is more like 20/12.bigboxes - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link
DerpJedi2155 - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I realized this recently. Had LASIK and kept complaining about how blurry things were after the operation and how I could read much more clearly with my old glasses prior. Turns out, I had 20/20 with LASIK, but something like 20/15 with my glasses.nikaldro - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Lol? A 132" 4K screen has the same pixel density as a 66" 1080p one, and a 33" 720p onenikaldro - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
*44" 720peek2121 - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
False, and you don't have 20/20 vision obviously. My vision is far worse and I can tell the difference with much smaller TVs. Right now I'm 4ft from a 27" 4k and I can tell when content isn't 4k.Bazzie - Sunday, September 15, 2019 - link
Just because something is broadcast in 4K doesn't mean it's 4K resolution. Same goes for 1080P. I've seen 720P content that was significantly sharper than supposed 1080P. I even briefly (I returned it) had a thousand dollar 4K camcorder which barely had 1080P resolution when recording a B&W resolution chart. And yes.....I do have 20-20 vision and when I see true 4K content on my 65" OLED I can't believe the clarity.r4tch3t - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Wow, And here I am planning a project using 1mm square RGB LEDs. Granted they wont be nearly as bright or as colour accurate, and I'm only using a few of them.https://nz.rs-online.com/web/p/leds/1847279/
ZolaIII - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
It's a teach preview... From 3 meters distance you wouldn't notice resolution (300 PPI @ 30 cm = 30 PPI @ 300 cm). Sit closer & you won't be able to have it in view point.aenews - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
It's funny because in home theatre forums, pretty much everyone does not see much benefit in 4K (2160P) over 2K (1080P) despite the difference being fairly pronounced with the much larger screen size. At the least, many are fine with the 0.67" DLP Projectors that have a 1528P native resolution with pixel shifting to double the pixel count to 8.3MP.I'd gladly take this microLED TV since it would easily best any projector. I always want higher resolution, so I'd definitely prefer having 8K. However, this is already a quite great technical achievement.
Zoolook - Sunday, September 15, 2019 - link
You can't really compare reflected vs projected light.Bazzie - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Based on common resolution charts and my own personal experience I would suggest that the actual ideal visual acuity seating distance should be about 8-1/2 feet for a 132" 4K screen (assuming true 3840 x 2160 resolution). This is based on a person with normal 20-20 vision, which I happen to have.eek2121 - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
27" 4k Master Race here. IMO if I buy a 75" TV it better be 8K or I'm not buying it. I don't know why so many people are blind. I wear glasses and I can tell side by side 4k content and non 4k content, also 4k TVs/Monitors and non-4k TVs/Monitors apart pretty easily, even as low as 24".rrinker - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link
There is a HUGE difference between lower res content upscaled and the lower res on a native mode display. The upscaling is almost ALWAYS worse and noticeable, but just because you can see the difference between 4K native content and 1080P content upscaled to 4K doesn't mean the same size display with a native 1080 resolution would look anything like that upscaled content. And as small as 24"? I call BS, try putting yourself through a double blind study and see if you csn really tell which 24" display is 4K and which is lower.mode_13h - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Depends on what kind of content you're talking about. There's a good case for upscaling full-bandwidth content, because pixels do a poor job of reconstructing a properly band-limited signal.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shan...
twtech - Sunday, September 15, 2019 - link
While I think 8k might find a use at that resolution, I also think it would be perfectly fine at 4k - just like 1080p is fine at 80".mckirkus - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link
"and most certainly at 132", 8K is required"Guys, you realize that most movies at the movie theater are 2k. And most CGI is rendered at 2k. The SuperBowl was broadcast at 720p last year (0.9 megapixels), which I watched broadcast on a large screen. To suggest that you need 35X more resolution to enjoy watching it is simply ridiculous.
4k is fine at this resolution. Stop comparing pixel density with phones.
0ldman79 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Thank you.It just gets on my nerves, people talking about "4K @ 65 looks like shit" or whatever...
For one, get better content. I watch 480P scaled up to 1080P, play @ 4K scaled down to 1080P and everything in between.
Today I'm in glasses, my vision is only 20/20. Previously I wore contacts, my vision was 20/10 or better. Even with 20/10 the difference between 720P and 1080P on my 46 inch 1080P 6ns TV is minimal, depends on the content.
Farcry 5 has jagged edges regardless of the resolution.
Fallout 4 barely has any jagged edges regardless of the resolution.
0ldman79 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Honestly, a lot of games look better @ 4K render, 1080P display or 720P with massive AA than they do at 1080P. People ignore that though because they have to stroke their ego and justify newer, faster hardware for points on the Internet. Stargate SG1 looks just as good @ 480P as it does at 720P and you can't see an improvement at 1080P until season 9 or so, and that's mostly in CGI scenes...0ldman79 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
If I'm so disturbed by a less than perfect 4K picture then either my game or my show sucks and I'd much rather enjoy the show at 720P than count pixels at 8K.0ldman79 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
broken into multiple messages because the damn forum censor decided my post was spam and wouldn't take it all in one comment.That was frustrating as hell...
mode_13h - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
> Guys, you realize that most movies at the movie theater are 2k. And most CGI is rendered at 2k.Perhaps a couple decades ago, but certainly not today. Related:
https://4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/
Probably not all of the discs mastered in 2k for home video release were done so for digital cinema distribution.
erple2 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
That's hilarious. That implies that you can discern details better than (almost) every human on the earth. The highest acuity measured so far by a human is about 20/10 (6/3 on metric scales). At 20/20 vision, at best you could consistently discern details at about 2.6 meters away. If you don't have measured better then 20/20, then you can't. Even then, the best ever recorded from an unaided person so far would only be able to see the differences at about 5.2m. So I call BS.DigitalFreak - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
IIRC, the smaller you make the TV, the lower the resolution due to using "panels". I don't know if that was specific to Samsung, or applies to all Micro-LED TVs at this point.Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
"the lower the resolution due to using "panels" "I have no idea what that means. If you make TVs (of any kind) a certain percent smaller you can use an accordingly lower resolution to retain a constant pixel density. If you don't lower the resolution as you decrease the panel's size then you increase the pixel density. That applies to *all* panel technologies, there is nothing special about microLED based panels.
Atarief - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
He is right about the panels. They use small panels made of microLEDs with a fixed pixel density, if they want to make a 4k tv, they connect as much panels as they can to reach 4k. If they want to make 1080p, they will connect lower number of panels.nathanddrews - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
He's mostly right. Different manufacturers have a variety of differently sized sub-panels with differing amounts of black space between LEDs (pitch). The size and native resolution of a MicroLED display will depend upon the pitch of each sub-panel, sub-panel size, and quantity of sub-panels.FWIW, these demo/commercial displays are not necessarily what consumer displays will be like. As they improve yields and shrink the tech down (finer pitch), we will see fewer and fewer sub-panels per display. Maybe we'll eventually get the same variety of display sizes and resolutions as LCD has now.
Arbie - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
I wonder if it will have a volume control too - unlike my TCL TV. Not the kind of thing you check before you buy...JeffFlanagan - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Have you checked your remote? TVs generally have volume controls on the remote.Arbie - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Of course. And there's no "Stop" control for videos - to switch to another film you have to abort back to the home screen and re-navigate through all the source etc menus.QinX - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
All I see is oversaturated images. Where's the TV?quantumshadow44 - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
same shit...https://youtu.be/sn5zCNY9-yE
Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Too much Van Gogh and Rembrandt (the cynic in me suspects because their paintings are in the public domain..). By the way, this how the Rembrandt painting at 0:44, called "The Night Watch", actually looks like : https://www.dw.com/image/45910106_403.jpgTCL didn't just amplify the painting's red channel a little bit when they processed the image for their presentation. They blew it up to kingdom come and then some! Even objects and faces that are not red at all in the original look like they are on fire in TCL's version. Come on guys, seriously?
mode_13h - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Eh, without knowing how the camera was white-balanced, you can't be certain that was a display issue.s.yu - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Yeah, it's impossible to judge display quality through a video feed anyhow.nandnandnand - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
It has new invisible bezel technology.peevee - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
If only there were something decent to watch. With Netflix online collection being full of their own branded sht and almost nothing else and Netflix DVD/BR collection and service quality dwindling, and with Hollywood in full-preach ultra-SJW mode, there is nothing worth of our limited time to watch on displays of this quality...JeffFlanagan - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Sounds like a personal problem. When you feel well enough to not say "SJW" unironically, a lot of things will look better.Papaspud - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Maybe ultra- woke would be more to your liking? And no, the stuff they are self producing is in general cringe worthy.close - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link
@Papaspud , it's not that I disagree with you on the quality of many (most?) Netflix shows... but you know that one show/series/movie you really love and think it's great? Yeah, that one. Well it's an absolute piece of garbage that's not worthy of being set on fire and you should be ashamed of thinking about it, let alone watching it and even liking it. Yeah... Absolute (objective) truths at their best, eh?peevee - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
I feel well enough about most of things, but not the current sorry state of Hollyweird's propaganda.nandnandnand - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Try BitTorrent. Find some niche 70s exploitation movies.defaultluser - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Theyt's slightly higher DPI than Samsung's The Wall, so slow progress is being made.In another decade, you might be able to buy this in 75 inches! Of course by then, OLED will be packing 8k into the same size.
s.yu - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Currently you have 4K in a smartphone, you don't need 75" for 8k, however that's Pentile...come to think of it nobody said this MicroLED is RGB stripe!techguymaxc - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
"While OLEDs tend to offer superior contrast ratio when compared to LCDs, they have a number of trade-offs, including off-axis color shifting"You have this backwards. Off-axis color shifting is a downside of LCD panels. OLEDs absolutely do not suffer from this problem.
dullard - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Sort by color shift: OLEDs are in the middle of the pack. So, yes, they do suffer from color shift.https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/7777
s.yu - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
All OLED TVs are WOLED, this issue comes with the color filter not the backlight, so yeah "While OLEDs tend to offer superior contrast ratio when compared to LCDs, they have a number of trade-offs, including off-axis color shifting, ghosting, burn-in, etc. WOLED has mitigated some of these issues, but it has also introduced others due to the inherient limitations of using color filters." is incorrect, off-axis color shifting is what WOLED introduces, not mitigates.Bazzie - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
You have to look at the Rtings charts to see the full picture. Rtings rates color shift when hue deviates by 3%. LG C8 hits this point at 28 degrees (which is barely perceptible). Even at 70 degrees the color shift barely hits 10%. The contrast loss (where OLED is king) is much more bothersome to most people.Bazzie - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
I have an LG C7 and there is a very slight color shift when moving away from straight on viewing. It is insignificant compared to LCD panels and you really have to look for it. The contrast level remains more or less constant which is much more apparent compared to washed out LCD TV's. Even IPS panels fare poorly when compared to OLED's.eastcoast_pete - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
The main (only?) customers for these are, at this time, people with way too much money on hand, and people editing 8K video. If it covers the entire color space for 8K, it would be great for editing.nandnandnand - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
You want to use a 4K TV to edit 8K video?mode_13h - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Well, if you're specifically concerned just about editing, then people have long edited at a lower resolution, just because it's easier to work with. Then, once the edit list is finalized, apply it to the full-res footage.rpg1966 - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
"If it covers the entire color space for 8K..."What?
vFunct - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
There aren't really "micro" LED's. They're more regular, direct-view LEDs.I expect actual micro-LEDs to be arranged via lithography, instead of assembled.
boozed - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
What are a bunch of overexposed photos supposed to show?mode_13h - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Um, that it's really friggin' bright?A better way to show off HDR would be to have a full-frame picture that's normally-exposed + some zoomed-in shots that show the shadow detail.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
The only credible thing is to do tech demo illustrations, not post random images subjected to grotesque extremes of information loss masquerading as improvement.boozed - Sunday, September 15, 2019 - link
Problem is that without knowing the exposure settings, we don't even know that!Oxford Guy - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
A) That the people who made them are amateurs.B) That they think we're really stupid.
C) Combination of the two.
mode_13h - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
What I want to know is where the other 883,200 pixels went.mode_13h - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link
Err... subpixels, rather.aenews - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
They can't math =)Oxford Guy - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Reposting these blown-out overprocessed images is embarrassing. It takes a few seconds with the Curves tool and the Saturation tool to get the same ugly results, on even a monitor with 50% of sRGB.Companies peddling the latest gimmickry, like 8K, must really think we're stupid because they give us a bunch of heavily-processed images and brag about how everything looks "painted on". That nonsense happened something like two years ago already. In reality, unless the person looking at the images has an 8K set, the images are completely worthless.
In exactly the same way, none of the images in this article have any real-world relevance since we don't have the Micro LED set to look at them on.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
Tech sites like this one, Techpowerup, and others lose credibility when they post press releases as if they're news and especially when they post intentionally misleading images.Oxford Guy - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link
I am reminded of the odious practice of having herds of female models to post with things like motherboards, too — as if even one woman in the entire world who looks like they do and dresses like they do has even the slightest interest in any of those kinds of products."Oh, yes... I just love the color scheme on that motherboard!"
nandnandnand - Sunday, September 15, 2019 - link
I'll take an Asian booth babe or cosplay model showing off a smartphone, motherboard, TV or whatever, over photos of how great this TV's color and brightness is. Photos I'm currently viewing on a deteriorating 768p display.