Congratulations with your purchase, Erik!

Puncher wrote:

 

When I was young I was sold off for medical experiments so that the rest of our family could have a B&O TV.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good...😁

Just a general comment, outside of 4k, no one has yet, to me, made a compelling argument that OLED, at least as defined by LG's technology, is as good as the last generation of high end plasmas. The idea that you can get better color purity out of a white OLED behind a color filter as opposed to a pixel in a plasma that emits the exact color of light directly is not intuitively going to be better. Samsung's approach, with red, green, and blue OLED emitters is much more like plasma, but sadly the longevity of the blue OLED killed off Samsung's approach as the white LG OLED is supposed to have a long life. Once again it may well be that an inferior technology/design wins out for reasons having little to do with performance, as in the VHS/Beta wars.

Jeff wrote:

Just a general comment, outside of 4k, no one has yet, to me, made a compelling argument that OLED, at least as defined by LG's technology, is as good as the last generation of high end plasmas.

The biggest difference, coming from the old plasma tv's, is not 4K.

Its HDR (High Dynamic Range).

The difference between non-HDR and HDR is much bigger than the difference between HD and 4K.

But then you also get the benefit of a larger colour space, with the abillity to display more colours.

I would also say you lack the plasma grain on OLED. I.e. the noise in green.

Finally you get a brand new display. Plasma ages, and the picture quality now is not what it was years back when it shipped from factory.

  /Lars

Lars Ladingkaer wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Just a general comment, outside of 4k, no one has yet, to me, made a compelling argument that OLED, at least as defined by LG's technology, is as good as the last generation of high end plasmas.

The biggest difference, coming from the old plasma tv's, is not 4K. Its HDR (High Dynamic Range).

Sorry, but not convinced. The plasma panel on my BV12-65 is still stunning and LED panels, even OLED, offer a very bright and sharp visual experience. It's very different from the smooth, deep and elegant picture you find on the BV12-65. Blacks are black, whites are sharp. Colours rich. Everything HDR offers for an LCD.

I'm sure some people on here are hired by B&O as paid evangelists. And all located in Denmark.

And is there anti-reflection screen coating option?

i don't think there is.

moxxey wrote:

Blacks are black, whites are sharp. Colours rich. Everything HDR offers for an LCD.

You may think this is the case, but no, you don't get HDR-like pictures on an old HD plasma. It just not technically possible.

  /Lars

Have to agree with Moxxey.

My 12-65 is 3 years old, and nothing has changed - its still extremely strong and sharp - no degradation of colour palette or sharpness, or anything really.

That said, given how much i dislike LED/LCD's, and how flawed an image technology they are, i welcome OLEDs - anything that consigns LCD's to the dustbin is good. And yes, i don't deny that the combination of OLED + HDR can be truly excellent -  though outside of Marvel + action movies, the content remains sparse, so i don't care just yet. 

And so long as my 12-65 keeps its current performance, i'm not even sure i will care about HDR for quite a long time.

Bit like the new iPhone X - sure many will buy it, but there may well be many traditionally used to having the "latest top specs" who just decide that they don't actually need it now, and in contrast to the past, are happy just waiting till it all becomes a bit more commonplace and cheaper....becasue what they have is still excellent....but thats another discussion.

But congratulations to those who buy the Eclipse, despite my ambivalence, they'll be very happy with it (no sarcasm intended)

I agree with that - and agree that HDR is a step up.

The question is more whether people are that bothered by HDR - some will be if their starting point is something pretty old. But for some of those with still high end screens, upgrading to HDR capable TV's may be not that compelling. Of course HDR TV sales will increase, but much beyond usual upgrade cycles ? - not convinced.

And there is the qualitative issue - for SDR content, still the overwhelming bulk of viewing, is the picture on an OLED (SDR) much improvement on a high end plasma like the 12-65? I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the LG E6 and E7 - broadcast HD looks no better on those than on my 12-65.

So i can't argue that HDR can be highly impressive (whether its very lifelike is another question, and subjective) - but on the above comparison (SDR content), i see no reason to rush out and buy an OLED, even if it is HDR capable.

Most modern tv specs (at least on paper) are far, far in advance of available content to play on them - how much 4K tv do you actually watch? By the time many of these things become available, let alone common place, chances are we're 2 TVs down the line. 

In the UK its still mainly SD with a decent number of HD channels, I wonder how well the LG handles good old SD!

I do know that my sadly expired 7 year old Panasonic plasma was still streets ahead of the 4K Panasonic that replaced it at both SD and HD, both had (alledgedly) certified THX settings that got you to a great picture without fiddling but the plasma really shone. So why was the latest TV with the latest specs not the best? As always theres more to it than the numbers!

A lot of tv marketing now is about how many acronyms you can stick on the screen to entice the gulable - just because it says it can do it doesn't mean it does it well, hence other manufacturers manage to tice a better picture than the actual panel manufacturer from the same panel, (LG Oled included).

Anyhoo, it is what it is, if it's enough for you then go for it! Is it the best all round TV - only if you aren't bothered about having the absolute best picture at the point of purchase (afterall, it wont be the best after the next wave of TVs are announced in January anyhow)!

From the little I've seen of HDR so far it's a "feature" in search of a reason for existing. This may well be because the demos featuring it are like the original stereo or quad demos, so over processed and overdone to make sure you notice that they detract rather than add to the experience.

But, I have to keep coming back to the fact that the original target for high quality displays was not an exaggerated video looking image but to be able to reproduce fully the effect of film, which has a limited dynamic range itself. The last generation plasmas excelled in that, smooth, no motion irregularities, rich color palettes, etc. The mention of Marvel movies, stuffed with digital effects and nowhere near a real image of a real place, is not encouraging that HDR will be more than hype, similar to 3D. Oh, 3D is the next new thing, you must have it, until it went away because no one cared.

What good is the latest and greatest in tech if it doesn't give you thins that are actual improvements? Until I see a decent demo of a film with and without HDR, a "real" film not shot on digital and hyped with effects, I remain unconvinced by the marketing speak about it.