LG will show off an 88-inch 8K OLED screen at CES

At next week's CES show in Las Vegas, LG Display will be showing what it claims is the largest-ever OLED display. The new screen boasts an 88-inch diagonal and has a resolution of 7680×4320—better known as UHD 8K. That's four times the pixels of the most common "4K" display, and sixteen times the pixels of your typical 1920×1080 (or "1080p") monitor. Don't expect retina-class pixel density from those arrangements, though, as the 88-inch monster only rings in at 100 ppi.

Along with the announcement, LG does some proselytizing about the wonders of OLEDs. For those not yet in the know, organic light-emitting diodes are a completely different sort of display from your typical "LED monitor." Most of today's displays use a series of LEDs to shine light through a liquid-crystal display panel, creating the field of colors you see. OLEDs instead are "emissive" displays, meaning the panel itself is what is creating the light.

OLEDs can be controlled on a per-pixel basis, so the screen can actually turn off pixels that are not in use. In turn, that results in the deepest blacks and highest contrast possible. OLEDs also boast faster switching times than even the fastest LCDs, and that means fewer worries about panel response times for gamers.

Big fancy screens are one thing, but LG hasn't actually announced a product using this 88-inch panel yet. Instead, LG says the creation of the massive high-resolution OLED shows the fruits of its redoubled efforts toward developing a complete range of OLED screens to serve every market segment. The company doesn't explicitly say as much, but it's possible that LG has made a breakthrough in resolving some of the lingering issues that plague the best display tech around—or at least has a better handle on producing large numbers of OLED panels economically.

Gerbil-in-chief Jeff Kampan recently picked up an LG OLED TV, and he's been gushing over it to the rest of us here at TR ever since. He'll be in Vegas to see LG's new hotness next week, so perhaps we'll have more details about the display then.

Comments closed
    • the
    • 2 years ago

    Not bad given the technology and resolution. The main disappointment in that this is just a prototype.

    I wonder how this will compare to Samsung’s MicroLEDs which they will also be showing off at CES. The one thing that micro LEDs may have is a true borderless design which I have yet to see in OLED.

    • albundy
    • 2 years ago

    she’s got the hand on the screen to hide the burn-in.

    • odizzido
    • 2 years ago

    I would love to get an OLED monitor at some point.

    • Tristan
    • 2 years ago

    Will be as expensive as jewelry displayed on that screen

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    [i<]TL:DR We are bandwidth limited at both the internet streaming level and also the display connectivity level. Quadrupling the number of pixels just reduces the image quality by limiting colour bits and frequencies at the display connectivity level and creating more blockiness and blurring texture details at the stream-compression level. More pixels != better picture at all![/i<] I was just watching some 8K 60fps video on my 2560x1440 display earlier today and it reminded me how pointless all these high-resolutions really are: At 8K60 I was still constantly buffering on my 76Mbit/s connection and could make out compression artefacts, despite my GPU effectively supersampling it by a factor of 9! At 4K60 It looked to be using only around 35Mbit/s of bandwidth, and the compression artefacts were far more obvious, proving that even though the source material was significantly more than double the resoltion, the problem with the picture quality was still very obviously the lack of data bandwidth. At 1440p60, I was finally at the native resolution of my display using around 12Mbit/s of bandwidth, and again, the increase in compression artifacts was obvious. I can only assume that the heavily-compressed 8K60 stream needed around 100Mbit/s and the artifacts were still the dominant thing I noticed, even with the limited resolution of my display. Increasing the resolution is simply not the answer to improving picture quality. It is highly unlikely that anyone in the useful liketime of this 8K OLED television will have access to more than a tiny quantity of 8K, low-compression or zero-compression content to do it justice. I just wish that the effort spent on this stupid obsession to reach higher resolutions was instead spent on better black depth, colour format, colour accuracy and gamut, let alone higher-bandwidth display standards and connectivity! This TV is at least exempt from the black-level issues, being an OLED, but I also expect it to cost north of $30,000 too, since its merely 4K 77" predecessor is listed for $20K. What interface is going to deliver 8K content without dropping down to YCbCr 4:2:0 and ruining all those pixels anway? 4:4:4 should be a minimum for this sort of product; If they can't even manage that, or sRGB at these resolutions, how are they going to cope with the metadata of proper Rec.2020, DCI-P3 and HDR?!!

      • cpucrust
      • 2 years ago

      “It is highly unlikely that anyone in the useful [b<]liketime[/b<] of this 8K OLED television will have access to more than a tiny quantity of 8K, low-compression or zero-compression content to do it justice." My "liketime" was around one second until I thought about how much this would cost me if I was going to buy it.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        Hey, $30K is a [i<]conservative[/i<] estimate 😛

          • DancinJack
          • 2 years ago

          For sure. I’m guessing 40K MSRP to start (USD).

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 years ago

            I really want someone to plug a NES into it and play Super Mario at 256 x 240 resolution with black bars down the side.

    • Wilko
    • 2 years ago

    Is she touching the screen?

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      She is.

      Before you (justifiably) call her a <insert stream of profanity> my hunch that this was just an inert slab of mockup plastic for the show floor was proven accurate once I googled a higher-resolution image.

      [url=https://cdn1.cnet.com/img/BrYxWrBblvVvLk-E0YLVfAWMWSE=/2018/01/02/4b16d8b2-6e87-4068-83ec-1e88acdff6f0/lg-display-88-inch-8k-oled-display-2.jpg<]The photoshop is strong with this one[/url<].

        • Liron
        • 2 years ago

        Now we know whom not to take to the real product’s unveiling.

      • Wirko
      • 2 years ago

      Yes, the screen is so black that one must leave a couple fingerprints on it to make sure it’s even real!

    • captaintrav
    • 2 years ago

    Isn’t there still issues with lifetime of specifically blue OLEDs? Or has this improved so the lifespan of such displays is “good enough” now? Not knocking the display at all, I’m anxiously awaiting new display tech. I’ve always been relatively reluctant to spend big dollars on LCDs that by their very nature are always going to have downsides (kind of like how both mechanical hard drives and NAND flash are a dead end in that they’ll always have some inherent shortcomings that can’t be helped due to the laws of physics, basically). There’s always some tradeoffs with TN vs IPS vs VA, and LCD shortcomings in general with dumb gimmicks like “dynamic contrast” to try and fix shortcomings.

      • Zizy
      • 2 years ago

      Yes, blue OLEDs still aren’t that good. Especially if you go towards deep blue. But it is slowly improving.
      LG OLED has white OLED + color filters (where white OLED = blue + phosphors). It isn’t as efficient as having it in different colors, but it ages evenly – red pixels lose brightness the same as blue ones. Aging is partially taken into account with increasing current for pixels throughout the life and uniformly decreasing brightness (to note, backlight of LCDs also ages – lower brightness and color shift, not sure if display logic combats this)

      As for is it long enough – yes, for the segment interested in this TV it definitely is enough. It isn’t long enough for midrange 10+ years TV. The thing is that you aren’t going to buy the best tech has to offer and then keep it for eternity until it gets obsolete – buying something midrange and replacing in 5 years will have better image quality on average at a lower price than buying the best and keeping it for 10 years.
      The old buying advice still holds now and in the near future: “Buy OLED if you mostly watch movies, preferably in dark. Buy LCD for bright living room or watching news.”

        • captaintrav
        • 2 years ago

        Thank you, very informative post. Although apparently you won’t be buying one any time soon, a 4K 77 inch OLED is $20,000 apparently, so if this thing even made it for sale it would be extremely expensive.

          • MrDweezil
          • 2 years ago

          $10,000 actually, a real bargain: [url<]https://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-SIGNATURE-OLED77G7P-77-Inch/dp/B06XRKD6B7[/url<]

    • leor
    • 2 years ago

    My question is whether they’ll bring 3D back. Seems silly to invalidate people’s blu-ray libraries when LG claimed there is no technological issue in including it.

      • VinnyC
      • 2 years ago

      Well since 3D isn’t included in the 4k blu-ray spec, I’m guessing it’d cost too much to go back and re-add it at this point. 3D doesn’t really work for me unless the screen encompasses my entire field of view anyway (IE a movie theater). Having it contained within a 40-70″ box on my wall results in a weird kind of look where everything is “smaller” than it looks without it being 3D. I’m no expert on this subject though.

        • leor
        • 2 years ago

        3D wasn’t originally a part of the 1080 spec, and the 3D movie is always on a separate disc anyway. Plus to really take advantage of 4k 3d without interlacing you’d need an 8k tv.

        I have a 65 inch LG OLED from 2016 and the 3d is amazing, but the idea that I might have no upgrade path is upsetting. On top of that, for some reason purchasing a movie in 4k or 3d often can’t be done in one package, it’s one or the other, which just smacks of greed to me. Before 4k, if I bought a 3D blu-ray I owned it in every format – digital, DVD, 1080p.

        Now if I I feel like seeing a movie in 4K and 3D at some point I have to buy it twice, with potentially no upgrade path to my current tv making the 3D discs coasters in the future.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 2 years ago

    My current 50″ plasma is too small for me to read the text from video games without my glasses so I would really like to upgrade just for that reason. I really want an OLED because they look so good. The issue for me is my TV is 12 feet from my couch. I can’t decide if I’d rather enjoy the colors of the 65″ TV or be happier with a Vizio E 80″/Vizio E 75″ size for the same price-ish. Even the 80″ is on the small size for being 12′ away but you can’t unsee the colors of an OLED. And this is why, unless I somehow become rich, I’m just going to sit in limbo.

      • Neutronbeam
      • 2 years ago

      For the low, low, LOW cost of nothing, I’ll reveal my personal secret of financial planning and the path to riches: lottery tickets.

      • MrDweezil
      • 2 years ago

      I was in that situation fairly recently. Just buy the big TV.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      Time to get a smaller room. Unfortunately my living room can only be arranged one way and we have no spare bedrooms, but a smaller bedroom as a TV room would fix it.

      • oldog
      • 2 years ago

      I have an LG OLED 65″er. It is a lovely TV, particularly for sports and to my mind worth the money. My wife however uses it much more than I do to watch reality shows.

      I would note that I spend my time staring at an old hp 27″ IPS monitor which is just passable.

      Go figure.

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]Don't expect retina-class pixel density from those arrangements, though, as the 88-inch monster only rings in at 100 ppi.[/quote<] "Retina" is defined as 300ppi from 10"-12" viewing distance. I'm just spit-balling here, but based on [url=https://designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/<]this retina calculator[/url<] that 88" 8K screen is "retina" when viewed from greater than 34" away. Assuming you'll want to sit about 10 feet away from an 88" screen, it's actually MORE than retina.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]Don't expect retina-class pixel density from those arrangements, though, as the 88-inch monster only rings in at 100 ppi.[/quote<] In my living room, the display would be around 11 feet from the couch. That's pretty darn dense from that distance.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      [url<]https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship[/url<] You’ll need to scoot up to about half that distance.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        It replaced a 43″ set. I think I’ll manage.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This