Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

LG Begins Rolling Out 2020 NanoCell TVs With AirPlay 2 and HomeKit, Pricing Starts at $599

EugW said:
BTW, regarding personal preferences: This is the one thing I hate the most about the iPads and iPad Pros, since I watch movies on them. I don't watch movies on my iPhone, so I'm less concerned about it on my iPhone.

I'm curious when the iPad Pro will get mini-LED, and how much it will improve contrast ratio.
Click to expand...

Same here. I don’t usually like to look at things from a glass half empty point of view, but man, I’m really underwhelmed with the current iPad Pro screens. I watch a lot of content with dark scenes (in the dark), like sci-fi and stuff, and the contrast is just terrible.

If we can’t have OLED, at least some form of local dimming would help... or even some extra layer that helps color and contrast like the QLED or the NanoCell stuff.
 
LG invented ATSC 3.0 or NextGen broadcast TV, first in Korea, and then in collaboration with American companies, in America. 4K might be very popular for rented and owned content, but it won't hit American broadcast TV until later this year or 2021. But more importantly, these NanoCell TVs do not appear to be ATSC 3.0 compatible, so that's a bummer. If you're going to buy a rather expensive TV, you'd kind of expect that LG might have included a technology that they invented largely. :(
 
Rychiar said:
wtf is a nanocell?
Click to expand...

LG sells (at least three) 4K TV lines.
The high-end line is the OLED line.
The high-end LCD line is the nanocell brand.
The low-end LCD line is the UHD brand.

So nanocell is just a brand meaning high-end LCD TV. Like trinitron back in the day. Or QLED.
If you want to ask why, essentially (as I understand it) the LED backlights are doped with quantum dots (aka nanocells) that allow the LED colors to be brighter and wider gamut, in turn giving a brighter higher gamut image.
BTW QLED is the same thing, just using very clever tricks with language to make you think it is fancy OLED rather than fancy LCD.

Which is better?
OLED is probably a better image. But it's still a less than robust technology that is amenable to burn in if you are not careful.
Fancy LCD is very good, not quite as fast response time (if you're a gamer and into that sort of thing) and likely to last longer.

Basically if buying a TV is a big financial decision for you, fancy LCD is where you want to be (~$1K for very good 65", should last ten years or more). If it's not a big financial decision, get an OLED (~$2K for an even better 65", quality may have decayed slightly in five years, but by then you'll buy an 8K and move this one to the guest room).
[automerge]1586462689[/automerge]


steggerwoof said:
$599 for a 55-inch...hmmmm
Click to expand...

Hell if you want cheap, an LG 4K UHD 55" is $350. And that's still a great TV. You pay more you get more. But if you can't afford more, it's astonishing the quality you can get at even the lowest end.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator, fbr$ and jpn
name99 said:
Which is better?
OLED is probably a better image. But it's still a less than robust technology that is amenable to burn in if you are not careful.
Click to expand...

Burn in is unlikely with OLED TVs these days for normal use. As long as the TV is still connected to power, they have routines that run with the individual pixels when the screen is powered off to compensate for issues that could potentially cause burn in over a long period of time.
 
Freida said:
No point to have 8K now. And by the time its needed those tvs will be super cheap. So yeah, this is just an exercise
Click to expand...
I'd argue there's not point in 8K TVs ever. Not unless you buy a wall-sized TV or use it as a computer monitor that you sit 18"-24" away from. We're to the point where the resolution is fine but we need to continue working on image quality. This happened with a lot of digital cameras a while back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freida
Freida said:
No point to have 8K now. And by the time its needed those tvs will be super cheap. So yeah, this is just an exercise
Click to expand...

Brien said:
They are already working on 16K. It’s like megapixels, it will never end...
Click to expand...
macduke said:
I'd argue there's not point in 8K TVs ever. Not unless you buy a wall-sized TV or use it as a computer monitor that you sit 18"-24" away from. We're to the point where the resolution is fine but we need to continue working on image quality. This happened with a lot of digital cameras a while back.
Click to expand...

The argument I've heard for having 8K now is that it upscales content better than 4K due to the higher pixel density. I guess everything depends on screen size and viewing distance, though. Not to mention eyesight quality. :)
 
gnipgnop said:
Burn in is unlikely with OLED TVs these days for normal use. As long as the TV is still connected to power, they have routines that run with the individual pixels when the screen is powered off to compensate for issues that could potentially cause burn in over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

"normal use" is a vague term.
Some people like to have their TV
- on 24/7 (because starting it up takes time, and it just doesn't use much power)
- frozen at where they paused their current content

That's a problem for OLED.
Now of course if you DON'T do these, eg you use Apple TV's beautiful Aerial screen savers, it's much less of an issue.
But never assume that the entire world uses their TV (or anything else) the way you do. Some people don't like constantly shifting TV content. Some don't have an aTV. etc etc
 
macduke said:
I'd argue there's not point in 8K TVs ever. Not unless you buy a wall-sized TV or use it as a computer monitor that you sit 18"-24" away from. We're to the point where the resolution is fine but we need to continue working on image quality. This happened with a lot of digital cameras a while back.
Click to expand...

Of course that's part of what you are buying with an 8K TV -- a bundle of today's best available tech for improving the image. You're getting the best colors, the best latency, the best upscaling, the best audio, that's available from each company...
[automerge]1586464632[/automerge]
york2600 said:
An 8k 32in TV doesn't make any sense. Unless you're sitting a foot from your TV just get a 4k or even a 1080p
Click to expand...

Apple XDR display is 32" and 6K...

We heard this same complaint when Jobs introduced the 1st retina display, and the people making it never seem to learn. Better quality is NICER! It's not a sin to have a nicer image. There isn't a limited quantity of niceness in the world, so that by improving display quality we are compromising somewhere else.
 
I think thats nice in theory but terrible in reality. 4K is still lagging behind and it will take a while to have everything in 4K so pushing 8K now is like someone here said: the megapixels race or Ghz race. Its just bloody pointless.
8K will make sense eventually but thats probably 10 years away (if not longer) so why care now?
It literally is just an exercise


name99 said:
Different folks...
I expect 80% of those 8K sets are sold to "industry" in the sense that they are sold to commercial entities that will use them to test their various 8K wares (games, entertainment content, UI's, ...) going forward.
Or the flip side of "industry" namely sports bars and similar, where again the job of the TV is to make money and a better TV will earn its way by attracting customers. Even if all you're using is better upscaling to a larger screen, that's not nothing!
(Of course who knows when places like that will get back to ordering TVs...)

Anyone know for a fact how the market breaks out? (There appear to be multiple reports available detailing this info --- but all very expensive.)
Click to expand...
 
name99 said:
Of course that's part of what you are buying with an 8K TV -- a bundle of today's best available tech for improving the image. You're getting the best colors, the best latency, the best upscaling, the best audio, that's available from each company...
[automerge]1586464632[/automerge]


Apple XDR display is 32" and 6K...

We heard this same complaint when Jobs introduced the 1st retina display, and the people making it never seem to learn. Better quality is NICER! It's not a sin to have a nicer image. There isn't a limited quantity of niceness in the world, so that by improving display quality we are compromising somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Other than VR we’re nearing a point of severely diminished returns on PPI.
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
Nothing on Sony TV's? Figures...
Click to expand...
I bought a 65" NanoCell8 last holiday season, set it up and within 5 minutes, I knew that's not what I wanted. Was going to go with the NanoCell9 series since it had array backlighting and the sales guy told me I wouldn't be happy with it either, turned me on to the Sony X900F and couldn't be happier. But I don't know why Sony is dragging their feet with giving it Airplay/ATV. I'd love to put my ATV somewhere else and gain an HDMI port on the TV.
 
name99 said:
Of course that's part of what you are buying with an 8K TV -- a bundle of today's best available tech for improving the image. You're getting the best colors, the best latency, the best upscaling, the best audio, that's available from each company...
[automerge]1586464632[/automerge]


Apple XDR display is 32" and 6K...

We heard this same complaint when Jobs introduced the 1st retina display, and the people making it never seem to learn. Better quality is NICER! It's not a sin to have a nicer image. There isn't a limited quantity of niceness in the world, so that by improving display quality we are compromising somewhere else.
Click to expand...

If you watch any broadcast TV, sure there is. Currently, most are broadcasting sub-1080p quality with sketchy frame rates at times with sub-channels so you're getting nothing extra in quality from 4K let alone 8K.
This rule never changes. You'll never have better quality than your source and for broadcast TV, that won't change until NextGen TV starts rolling out in over 90 cities this year and next. Only about 3-4 TV markets in America yet have ATSC 3.0 and most Americans have no clue even what it is yet.
 
name99 said:
LG sells (at least three) 4K TV lines.
The high-end line is the OLED line.
The high-end LCD line is the nanocell brand.
The low-end LCD line is the UHD brand.

So nanocell is just a brand meaning high-end LCD TV. Like trinitron back in the day. Or QLED.
If you want to ask why, essentially (as I understand it) the LED backlights are doped with quantum dots (aka nanocells) that allow the LED colors to be brighter and wider gamut, in turn giving a brighter higher gamut image.
BTW QLED is the same thing, just using very clever tricks with language to make you think it is fancy OLED rather than fancy LCD.

Which is better?
OLED is probably a better image. But it's still a less than robust technology that is amenable to burn in if you are not careful.
Fancy LCD is very good, not quite as fast response time (if you're a gamer and into that sort of thing) and likely to last longer.

Basically if buying a TV is a big financial decision for you, fancy LCD is where you want to be (~$1K for very good 65", should last ten years or more). If it's not a big financial decision, get an OLED (~$2K for an even better 65", quality may have decayed slightly in five years, but by then you'll buy an 8K and move this one to the guest room).
[automerge]1586462689[/automerge]




Hell if you want cheap, an LG 4K UHD 55" is $350. And that's still a great TV. You pay more you get more. But if you can't afford more, it's astonishing the quality you can get at even the lowest end.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


thanks for this great info post. it helped to understand it all better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator
thejadedmonkey said:
How is LG when it comes to data collection of its smart TVs? Can you disable the smarts (mic, watching habbits, data collection, etc), but keep the HomeKit/Airplay integration?
Click to expand...

Plug in an Apple TV and never let the TV connect to the internet. No one should ever use the "smart" features of a smart TV.
 
BGM said:
not read the article, but can i get it 32", why can i not buy any "good" small TVs 😢
Click to expand...
There is no 4K TV in that size, so if you’re after is 4K and HDR then get yourself a monitor. You might need some kind of box to go with it.
 
Last edited:
Detnator said:
Not if you’re looking at it up close. I have mine on an extended reach monitor arm hanging over my bed. 32” is perfect size. 😊
[automerge]1586448695[/automerge]


I keep hearing about this but can’t ever seem to find it. Any chance you know of a link to the actual purchase-able product (as opposed to a vaporware news announcement)?
Click to expand...
It’s 48 inches not 43
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator
jayducharme said:
If more manufacturers adopt AirPlay, HomeKit and ATV support, I wonder how that will affect the sales of the ATV over time. If devices already have that functionality built into them, why buy a separate box?
Click to expand...

I've got an LG that - when purchased - didn't have airplay. I had an ATV3 hooked up to provide that functionality. I was also considering an ATV4 as a better streaming device as the LG doesn't have a great collection of apps and the region cannot be changed to enabled access to apps in different regions. After an automatic update, Airplay was supported on the TV, so I ended up buying a cheap androidtv box for the streaming device.

I think having airplay in the TV will stop some petiole buying an ATV if all they're after is airplay support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back