Showing 1 of 37 conversations about:
DEAVERtheBEAVER
2
Oct 3, 2016
bookmark_border
Can anyone confirm if this TV has the "fuzzy math" as mentioned above, I really want true 4k
Huhnthis
30
Oct 4, 2016
bookmark_border
Hi,
First off, excuse my English, it's not my native tongue.
I work as a in-store promotional employee in the television department of a big electronics store. I've been doing it for about 2,5 years now and have gotten a pretty good eye for comparing tv's. In case I might not be taken seriously I shall not disclose which brand I represent, but will admit it's not LG. ;)
I treat all brands and their television with the respect they deserve, but do have a very strong opinion on which televisions can be considered "good" or "decent". This "Fuzzy math" thing is something I have noticed mostly some competitors spread around as some sort of smack-talk. But it has decent ground for it. This is indeed a Panel that features a white-subpixel structure. Though some may deny it, the "officials" do count these pixels as stand-alone pixels and count them towards their total resolution. LG themselves mailed the store debunking these stories about "not being officialy 4K". Now my opinion: These models, tho undeniably looking way sharper than a Full-HD 1080P screen, do not compare strongly to a "proper" 4K display. It's easily spotted when you move close to it and inspect the pixels with the naked eye. Where a normal 4K display would seems to have it's pixels aligned vertically and horizontally, this one seems ( SEEMS! A closeup with a camera reveals otherwise) to be aligned slightly diagonally, almost in a cross-hatch pattern. This does make it look like the "Fuzzy math" discussed above. Another thing, it mentions having 120 Hz Tru-motion or something. This is the BANE of television-land. Most displays of the last few years have featured 60/120 Hz (50/100 Hz for europe) panels. This is the true refresh rate of the pixel itself. This Tru-motion (or PQI for samsung, or MotionFlowHz for Sony, etc) are software algorithms that interpolate frames in between the suplied frames. Brands handle these completely differently. When you want to game on these tv's you enter game-mode which effectively disables nearly all of this software. Showing, in effect, a 60 (or 50, again, Europe) Hz picture.
Now I don't know how much these american models compare to the european ones, but it seems these are all out of their 6-series UH class. I've tested a few of these myself, but practically all online tests show the same. It features the lower 60Hz panel with the "Fuzzy Math"/"White sub-pixel" problem. This television performs well enough for everyday TV-watching and casual viewing. It's also decent enough for some console-gaming (when in game-mode). But it's a rather basic-model to boot. Colour-performance is low. White always seems to lean more towards a blue/purple-ish hue, and the motion interpolating suffers from some strange artefacts when lot's of detail is involved ( Think splashing water or blowing dust seeming a bit "Plastic"y). Tho a proper deal for this TV
Personally I'd go for a more decent Full-HD model. If for gaming, definitely check out some Sony Bravia W7 and W8 series which feature a VERY low input-lag (not as strong as dedicated monitors) of around 10-20 ms. For 4K gaming televisions, tho not my personal favourite (colours and contrast always seems a bit too bloomy), the Samsungs feature a similar input-lag. Do look for the 7-series and up tho.
I hope this helps some of you. I know it's a lot to read, but I love sharing what I know out of personal experience.
I work as a in-store promotional employee in the television department of a big electronics store. I've been doing it for about 2,5 years now and have gotten a pretty good eye for comparing tv's. In case I might not be taken seriously I shall not disclose which brand I represent, but will admit it's not LG. ;)
I treat all brands and their television with the respect they deserve, but do have a very strong opinion on which televisions can be considered "good" or "decent". This "Fuzzy math" thing is something I have noticed mostly some competitors spread around as some sort of smack-talk. But it has decent ground for it. This is indeed a Panel that features a white-subpixel structure. Though some may deny it, the "officials" do count these pixels as stand-alone pixels and count them towards their total resolution. LG themselves mailed the store debunking these stories about "not being officialy 4K". Now my opinion: These models, tho undeniably looking way sharper than a Full-HD 1080P screen, do not compare strongly to a "proper" 4K display. It's easily spotted when you move close to it and inspect the pixels with the naked eye. Where a normal 4K display would seems to have it's pixels aligned vertically and horizontally, this one seems ( SEEMS! A closeup with a camera reveals otherwise) to be aligned slightly diagonally, almost in a cross-hatch pattern. This does make it look like the "Fuzzy math" discussed above. Another thing, it mentions having 120 Hz Tru-motion or something. This is the BANE of television-land. Most displays of the last few years have featured 60/120 Hz (50/100 Hz for europe) panels. This is the true refresh rate of the pixel itself. This Tru-motion (or PQI for samsung, or MotionFlowHz for Sony, etc) are software algorithms that interpolate frames in between the suplied frames. Brands handle these completely differently. When you want to game on these tv's you enter game-mode which effectively disables nearly all of this software. Showing, in effect, a 60 (or 50, again, Europe) Hz picture.
Now I don't know how much these american models compare to the european ones, but it seems these are all out of their 6-series UH class. I've tested a few of these myself, but practically all online tests show the same. It features the lower 60Hz panel with the "Fuzzy Math"/"White sub-pixel" problem. This television performs well enough for everyday TV-watching and casual viewing. It's also decent enough for some console-gaming (when in game-mode). But it's a rather basic-model to boot. Colour-performance is low. White always seems to lean more towards a blue/purple-ish hue, and the motion interpolating suffers from some strange artefacts when lot's of detail is involved ( Think splashing water or blowing dust seeming a bit "Plastic"y). Tho a proper deal for this TV
Personally I'd go for a more decent Full-HD model. If for gaming, definitely check out some Sony Bravia W7 and W8 series which feature a VERY low input-lag (not as strong as dedicated monitors) of around 10-20 ms. For 4K gaming televisions, tho not my personal favourite (colours and contrast always seems a bit too bloomy), the Samsungs feature a similar input-lag. Do look for the 7-series and up tho.
I hope this helps some of you. I know it's a lot to read, but I love sharing what I know out of personal experience.
Zixxer10r
3
Nov 6, 2016
bookmark_border
If you "evaluate" TV's well at a big box store, then you'll know that every set on the floor is pushing every color setting to the max to compete with the bright lighting on the sales floor, and consequently know that is the WORST way to judge a set's actual picture quality.
Unless you you have a showroom where every tv you're judging is in a dark room, and color-calibrated after at least 1000 hours of use, your reviews are going to be pretty skewed.
Unless you you have a showroom where every tv you're judging is in a dark room, and color-calibrated after at least 1000 hours of use, your reviews are going to be pretty skewed.
Sherwood
92
Nov 6, 2016
bookmark_border
He didn't say much in terms of subjective analysis on which TVs "looked" better at his showroom, he offered technical comparisons between brands. Clearly part of his evaluation process has to do with understanding the underlying tech in these monitors.
We're better off for his contributions, and you're being needlessly snippy.
We're better off for his contributions, and you're being needlessly snippy.
LevelSteam
2487
Nov 7, 2016
bookmark_border
What? He's not talking about opinions of overall picture quality/color accuracy here, he's talking about technical aspects of the TV like refresh rate and pixel layout. Neither of which will be affected by any form of software calibration.
Huhnthis
30
Nov 7, 2016
bookmark_border
Hello,
I thought I'd chime in again to clarify my process a bit.
Yes, I have to evaluate lots of these televisions in the store. These are indeed always set to "Vivid" or "Dynamic" picture settings for the customers because they do have to compensate for the over-the-top lighting in our store. But of course I switch them back to a somewhat calibrated setting. On most tv's this is called "Cinema Home/Pro" or "ISF expert" or anything like that. This makes the TV's look dim in the bright store lighting but gives a more honest idea of the picture quality. I wouldn't compare 2 televisions unless I've done some basic calibration on the TV's in question. After 2,5 years of doing this I surely know that this "vivid" setting is just for catching the eye. But, even then, since "vivid" pushes each panel to (or even past) it's limits it does show the shortcomings or strengths of certain panels, even if they don't represent the correct at-home setting.
And yes, after those 2,5 years I've gained some understanding of the tech in televisions. Most brands always throw terms at you that are essentially the same thing with a different execution. Take extended colour panels. Samsung "Nano-crystal colour technology", Sony's "Triluminos", LG's "Colour prime". They all mean they use an extended colour space but they differ slightly in execution. I could go in depth on this, but just know that (apart from slight differences) these are essentially the same. This is all technical jargon that's used to impress a potential buyer.
The refresh-rate of the panel, the colour-space, contrast-ratio. These all amount to the purely technical aspect of the television, the "specs". But more often than not, I see a television that boasts slightly lesser specs than another TV while still looking better than a more highly-specced model. These brands all include their software for image enhancement, and a lot of these are merely used for the "Vivid" setting, quite a lot of them actually DO ENHANCE the image past it's original content. The way Samsung saturates their colours, the almost unrivalled up-scaling of Sony or the sweeping motion enhancement on the newer LG oled models. (But once again, all of these enhancements are turned off in "Game" mode.)
And that's how I evaluate TV's. Sure, I do look at their specs to get the general idea. But then I also use my own eyes to see the effect of this. I can take any customer that walks in, explain the white-sub-pixel in less than a minute. And even some technology illiterate people will then be able to pick these panels out of the bunch. I do not discourage them to buy these, I merely show them the effect of these and let them find the other TV's. Where a salesman just looks at the model with highest specs and highest profit for the store, I tend to take my customers through a comprehensive crash-course and let them find their own TV.
In the end each person has their own preferences for image-quality. Just as there is no definitive "Best headphones" or "Best speakers". They offer, even if in a smaller degree, a personal preference. I'm just here to share my experience with this particular model. It's one the least popular models in our store but that doesn't mean it's immediately a bad television. Just a very budget-oriented choice that is rarely picked up for it's image quality.
I hope this clears up some things. If there's any further questions I'm always excited to share my experiences or answer any questions, so ask away if needed.
Yes, I have to evaluate lots of these televisions in the store. These are indeed always set to "Vivid" or "Dynamic" picture settings for the customers because they do have to compensate for the over-the-top lighting in our store. But of course I switch them back to a somewhat calibrated setting. On most tv's this is called "Cinema Home/Pro" or "ISF expert" or anything like that. This makes the TV's look dim in the bright store lighting but gives a more honest idea of the picture quality. I wouldn't compare 2 televisions unless I've done some basic calibration on the TV's in question. After 2,5 years of doing this I surely know that this "vivid" setting is just for catching the eye. But, even then, since "vivid" pushes each panel to (or even past) it's limits it does show the shortcomings or strengths of certain panels, even if they don't represent the correct at-home setting.
And yes, after those 2,5 years I've gained some understanding of the tech in televisions. Most brands always throw terms at you that are essentially the same thing with a different execution. Take extended colour panels. Samsung "Nano-crystal colour technology", Sony's "Triluminos", LG's "Colour prime". They all mean they use an extended colour space but they differ slightly in execution. I could go in depth on this, but just know that (apart from slight differences) these are essentially the same. This is all technical jargon that's used to impress a potential buyer.
The refresh-rate of the panel, the colour-space, contrast-ratio. These all amount to the purely technical aspect of the television, the "specs". But more often than not, I see a television that boasts slightly lesser specs than another TV while still looking better than a more highly-specced model. These brands all include their software for image enhancement, and a lot of these are merely used for the "Vivid" setting, quite a lot of them actually DO ENHANCE the image past it's original content. The way Samsung saturates their colours, the almost unrivalled up-scaling of Sony or the sweeping motion enhancement on the newer LG oled models. (But once again, all of these enhancements are turned off in "Game" mode.)
And that's how I evaluate TV's. Sure, I do look at their specs to get the general idea. But then I also use my own eyes to see the effect of this. I can take any customer that walks in, explain the white-sub-pixel in less than a minute. And even some technology illiterate people will then be able to pick these panels out of the bunch. I do not discourage them to buy these, I merely show them the effect of these and let them find the other TV's. Where a salesman just looks at the model with highest specs and highest profit for the store, I tend to take my customers through a comprehensive crash-course and let them find their own TV.
In the end each person has their own preferences for image-quality. Just as there is no definitive "Best headphones" or "Best speakers". They offer, even if in a smaller degree, a personal preference. I'm just here to share my experience with this particular model. It's one the least popular models in our store but that doesn't mean it's immediately a bad television. Just a very budget-oriented choice that is rarely picked up for it's image quality.
I hope this clears up some things. If there's any further questions I'm always excited to share my experiences or answer any questions, so ask away if needed.
Related Products
