The last time I checked this was hotukdeals website, not best product website, best deal around? - hot; can be had elsewhere cheaper? - not ..... Simples

lol? keeping it now anyway, gonna sell last years 1080p oled 930v. how much can u get them for then?.....fiver?

lol? where?

LOL, The BV can be had without any work incentives for £2279

Ha Ha, which ill-educated peeps voted this hot haven't got a Scooby about TVs.... 1st Gen TV with more problems than Jay-Z

:smirk:

Fact 1 - no, I'm not confused, neither am I incorrect
Fact 2 - no they don't - not on standard definition broadcast TV channels
Fact 3 - what I said was that OLED was only being PURSUED (IE developed, furthered) by LG - again, I am correct
Fact 4 - I haven't missed the point I was making.

Look, OLED is great. LG are great. But buying a 1080p screen for this sort of money is, in my view, a mistake.

I say this, having been an informed & experienced AV consumer for a long time. I bought my first "large screen" TV in 2003 when it cost me just short of £4,000 just for a 37" Panasonic Plasma Panel (IE no receiver, just the screen)

How would you know?

Went to my local John Lewis and they still have a few left in stock

Fact 1: This fact is incorrect, as you are confusing standard 4K (limited format) with the advent of Ultra-HD premium / DV (new standard for next generation tech). The point I was making is that price of the latter is significantly more than the price posted by the OP.

Fact 2: Again incorrect and further underlined by the fact that you are referring to showrooms as a reference. If correctly calibrated (there are several guides on how to achieve this online), then a 1080p OLED will produce a greater picture than a non-OLED 4K (again I'm referring to standard 4K here and not UHD/DV). You seem to be basing this on resolution, as there is more to picture quality than resolution alone.

Fact 3: Incorrect. Panasonic has made OLED sets although I would say that LG TVs are a lot more affordable/available.

Fact 4: This is the only fact that you've got correct but once again you've missed the entire point. The cost of an ultra-HD player + an Ultra HD certified TV (note not standard 4K) is significantly more money than the price of this 1080p OLED.

You can't afford an OLED Tv fact!

Sadly those who have replied to my comments remind me of those who confuse opinion with facts.
FACT 1 - 4K, like 1080p before it, IS a new standard growing in content and availability via the greatest growth in AV consumption - online streaming (Netflix, Amazon Prime et al)
FACT 2 - a whole lot of people still watch terrestrial broadcast TV on a variety of channels that are now, and always will be due to the nature of their content, SD. SD content is handled better by 4K TVs than OLED technology. Just go into any showroom you like and look. The evidence is right in front of your eyes.
FACT 3 - the only mainstream TV manufacturer pursuing OLED is LG
FACT 4 - with physical media sales taking a huge battering in favour of online streaming, the newer resolution of ultra HD Blu Ray will be heavily invested in in order to give purchasers a reason to continue to buy physical media.

All that said, I like OLED as a technology and if it were to be more widely developed and adopted and it handled SD broadcasts better, then I would buy it.

I stand by my view that this deal is spending £1000 on dead end tech that will prove disappointing.

Some else has said that HDMI 1 is the only connection that will passthrough 5.1 as it is ARC enabled which is correct. Think I confused myself with the amount of stuff hooked up to this TV. Amp is connected to this port hence why the PS4 wouldn't passthrough on HDMI 2 etc

There is no need for HDR on an OLED panel due to the contrast and colours able to be displayed. This is the main selling point for OLED.
4K is a neccesity for the bigger and bigger panels being produced but is now being used as a selling point/buzz word on smaller panels too which will create sales and help the technology to make a decent foothold. HDR to improve the picture quality of LCD displays which has not been too amazing upto now.

The future is Ultra/DV (or even decent-level 4k HDR) but that costs a lot more money than the price of this OLED. You cannot buy an Ultra HD Premium certified TV (or even decent-level 4K HDR set) for this sort of money. So conversely, I cannot see the sense in spending money on mediocre or entry-level 4K HDR sets (the image on this OLED will be superior to any similarly priced or cheaper 4K HDR set).

What's the difference between the 2 models? Is there a 'better' one? Thanks

yes if you use HDM! 1 which has ARC

SD feeds wil look even worse on 4k screens
Reason is a 4k HDR OLED TV is going to be vey expensive so this is the best you can get right now at the price point.
OLED beats 4k & HDR

Can't see the sense in spending this money on a non-4K, non-HDR set.
The future is 4K / ultra blu ray
While a top class feed looks amazing on any OLED, put a SD broadcast channel on it and it is woeful

That said, I love LG for WebOS

​where did u get the refurbish one from mate ?

Would you have offered to pay more back to them if the price had gone up after 2 months ?

You were happy to pay £1299 2 months ago so why aren't you still happy !

Paid £1299 in April and rang up about them refunding me the £200 which they said they can't do. Bought another which I will return for the £200. It's a no brainer really as you get the 90 day returns and I would definitely do the same again if I had to. Out of this world TV though and the best I've ever owned, just annoyed me about the quick price drop. Over 12 months old and I'd have been fine with the price drop.

That's a shame. Im trying to streamline my setup to just TV, playbar and PS4 (from amp and 5.1 separates). I've seen that others with the 5.1 passthrough issue have got around it by buying a dedicated hdmi/optical switch but obviously not much use to you if you're already going through an amp.

That's correct, and in fact, year after year, there's less TV with 3D functionality. For example, I believe Samsung is completely dropping 3D from its entire 2016 range lineup.

In any case, only LG uses Passive 3D these days and the others are somewhat useless, first because no glasses are provided and the Active glasses are expensive, heavy, and typically the main cause of eye-strain. Passive was inferior in terms of quality (resolution) but that changes with 4K sets, as now it's better than active sets in every conceivable way.
I wonder if 3D is a waste of time, what does that make 4K? Waste of money perhaps?

3D is far superior to just 'adding more pixels'. I have an Acer X34 monitor which is 5 million pixels (4K is around 8 million), and I would much rather have 3D over the extra resolution, simply because 3D, especially for gaming, adds a great deal to immersion, which no amount of high resolution can provide.

I have said this many years ago and I am certain of it. 4K will catch on, simply because the majority are ignorant and think 'bigger number = better' so it's easy to convince consumers, but 3D would require people to go out of their way and do some setup for everything to work finely. Having said that, bad initial hardware, abysmal 3D converted movies, ridiculous price and the 'dork effect' of wearing the glasses certainly didn't help 3D early on.

Wait for VR to have a similar fate of 3D (in terms of long-term adoption-rate)... So many people (especially women!) are too self conscious about how they may appear wearing dorky headsets and goggles, they will write VR off after the early 'wow factor' wears off.
Agreed, and the zero ghosting / crosstalk is a big bonus on projector, except projectors are not really suitable for all kinds of rooms, plus the brightness and colour reproduction of OLED is light-years ahead of projectors, both in '2D' and (especially) 3D.

I couldn't get mine to with PS4 connected so have had to connect it to home cinema amp then through to TV. Would've preferred to directly connect to TV to cutdown on input lag but can't be doing with sacrificing sound. If anyone knows any other solutions it would be much appreciated as I believe they are meant to passthrough the sound. Built in apps such as netflix, prime etc and HD channels output 5.1 fine.

Fantastic tv by the way and completely happy with purchase. The older 930v is a much better looking TV aesthetically too.

I know Costco has an OLED demo with not only HDR but Dolby Vision (although it is one of those annoying split simulated-SDR vs HDR10/Dolby Vision demos). This was recent as well, as they weren't showing a DV demo a few weeks back when I last went. Chances are if Costco has a demo, then John Lewis will probably have as well.

Once again - agree with yourself on the HDR on LCDs with lack of full array local dimming. I spotted this on some of the demo footage at Costco.

Thanks for that. I had already seen (heard?) that AV Forums podcast. At least it appears that some Dolby premium content is on the way.

The cheapest 65" with Dolby Vision would be one of LGs own LCDs like this one at £2k.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/televisions/televisions/lg-65uh770v-smart-4k-ultra-hd-hdr-65-led-tv-10144767-pdt.html

However, none of the LG LCDs have achieved Ultra HD Premium certification. To do that a set needs to meet minimum criteria on black levels, peak brightness, colour gamut range and have a 10 bit panel. As LG use IPS LCDs panels it may not meet the black level or peak brightness requirements.

Personally I have not been that impressed with HDR on LCDs that do not have full array local dimming. I have a 65" Sony that supports HDR and like other LCDs from Samsung it only manages to meet the peak brightness requirement by whacking up the backlight setting. This has a big impact on making any backlight issues much more prominent. I have yet to see HDR on an OLED.

Hi guys

Budget of £1.8K

This , or the 4k version (1.7k)

OR

the samsung non OLED Ultra HD Premium (1.6k)
http://www.johnlewis.com/samsung-ue55ks7500-curved-suhd-hdr-1-000-4k-ultra-hd-quantum-dot-smart-tv-55-with-freeview-hd-playstation-now-branch-feet-design-uhd-premium/p2611362

I have read your post. Taken time to decipher it. And agree with everything that you've just said. I did notice pre-Ultra HD Premium sets released last year with HDR.

The Dolby Vision / LG partnership is interesting. Once you get a moment, take a listen to this interview:
https://www.avforums.com/threads/avforums-podcast-13th-june-2016.2034507/

From Stephen Auld (from Dolby UK), who talks about Dolby Vision and future plans. After listening to the interview, we may have a while to wait...

Anyway, going off topic here! My main point was that I don't think it is worth shelling out extra for a bog-standard 4K, considering the marginal benefits. If money were no object, I would love the latest LG E-series but at £5,000 for the 65"... think I'll wait...

You do realise that a set doesn't have to have the UHD Premium label to have HDR? Many 2015 and 2016 sets support HDR without having the UHD Premium logo. Also some manufacturers, e.g. Sony, don't want to support the UHD Premium initiative so none of their sets will be labelled UHD Premium despite their top of the range sets, e.g. 75xd9405, being some of the best around.

If future proofing is a concern then having Dolby Vision support would be my main concern. There are two different types of HDR - HDR 10 and Dolby Vision. HDR 10 is the standard HDR and is included on all HDR TV sets and HDR UHD blurays. Dolby Vision can be regarded as a premium optional extra. At the moment the only DV enabled TVs are made by LG. The first DV enabled content comes from streaming services. There is an interesting comparison of DV and HDR-10 here:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/dolby-hdr-201606214303.htm

I would have to disagree with the both of you on this one. Standard 4K is not really future-proofing (if anything, it's doing the opposite). I believe that standard 4K is a redundant and soon to be dead format, limited to a few streaming options. Remember when High Definition TVs came out and consumers could either buy a 720p or 1080i/1080p model? Standard 4K is the modern day equivalent of 720p. To properly future proof, you'd need to buy a TV with the "Ultra HD Premium" sticker (which includes HDR). Given the level of manufacturer and studio support (Link), there will be a huge drive to increase the level of 4K-HDR content, phasing out the (already limited) standard 4K content. Seeing as Ultra HD Premium TVs are mega expensive (plus it'd be advisable to also buy an Ultra HD Blu-Ray player as well), if consumers cannot afford them then I would rather get the best 1080p TV (i.e. this one) that money can buy.

Having seen OLED, the picture quality of an OLED 1080p is better than the picture quality of an average (non-OLED) 4K - in my opinion.

Now before I get shot down for this, there is more to picture quality than just resolution alone. The retailers have fooled the public into thinking more pixels = better image, and people have fallen for it, buying mediocre/cheap 4K sets. My AV obsessed friend has two LG TVs side-by-side in his living room; one 65" at 1080p and the other 55" at standard 4K. In real world scenarios (once you factor in room size and sitting distance), I could not notice a difference between the two images (one showing 1080p, the other showing a 4K stream of the same show from Netflix). Both were just as sharp from where I was sitting. I actually preferred the 1080p image, as it was marginally bigger. Now I acknowledge that 4K is technically sharper but from me to have benefited from the increased resolution, I would've had to have sat significantly closer to notice any difference.

I've spoken to several home cinema installers and they all say the same thing. Standard 4K is a waste of time and money with a limited shelf life. Either get a decent 1080p set (like this one) or go big (if you've ££££ to spare) with Ultra HD Premium.

This is why the OP gets a huge HEAT from me. Cracking find.

Very slow OS - WebOS is pants.

Pink hue to white colours on display.

Still excellent though.

JL have removed the 910v from the site altogether. 930 still available.

Totally Agree, active sucks.

On a screen that's not up to the job, I totally agree. On my Fuji W3's lecticular screen however, is perfect and amazing. I look at other tourists taking shots on there crappy iphones and think, "Your so end naughties," even though my Fuji is older than there iphones.

For 3D, you will need the 4K TV's as the extra pixels allow FHD for both eyes. The 910 will give you 3D, but at only half resolution for each eye.

I think it's more like we're so far along that they've finally given up on 3D (again).

As for the TV, have some heat. I can't afford this currently but can't wait to go to oled, my plasma packed in, & whilst my current lcd tv is good, I want proper blacks & truly high contrast again.

3d is ace on a projector on a huge screen.

I never use 3d on the TV, bit regularly use it on my projector. Depth & immersion are needed for 3d & you only get that with a big big screen. Fwiw active 3d on a modern home cinema projector is way better than passive in the cinema.

Can't believe we are still talking about 3D, it's a waste of time.

I was impressed viewing the OLED Tvs in John Lewis, but if you are investing this kind of money in a TV you need to stretch to 4k. I had to buy a new TV earlier this year because my old one broke down. Settled on a 49" refurbished sony 4k @ £329. I can really notice a big difference between 1080p and 4k feeds, stunning picture. Not an entry level and no hdr, but I think UHD has a few years to evolve with 8k hdr becoming the normal. I will live with the limitations of my current tv, and buy an expensive model in a few years time

My Samsung TV is active 3D and watching a film gave me eyestrain and a thumping headache, yet when I watched some short 3D cartoons on a passive 3D computer monitor I didn't struggle at all. So I think passive 3D is a feature I'd look for on any future TV.

Back to this unit, what are the issues with LG OLED? I thought it was supposed to be the best picture quality since high-end Pioneer plasma.

I bought an LG 3D TV years ago during the first round of 3d. Are we so far along 3d that it's not mentioned anymore in descriptions? Not being rude, serious question. Also I'm a huge fan of passive vs active.

My bad, thought they were referring to the EC930

Nah, the EG910 has always been an extra £400-500. Newer OLED panel.

910 version now out of stock.

This is the better version of the two as it has WebOS apparently whereas the other version is older OS

Where the hell did you guys buy it? I bought it in November from JL and it's always hovered around the £1200 price mark

FYI JL have a very long return period so if you bought at higher price and they won't match, just return and rebut

scud..... if you can afford it go for the 4k to future proof your purchase! there is not a great deal of 4k content at the moment but I am sure this will increase rapidly. unless of course you can afford to change your TV in a couple of years and if you can go for the cheaper!!!!

Argument between this and 4k? Who cares this is a great TV and have loved every second of it since January. 4k still isn't widely available and at a certain distance... quality of picture is negligible. The blacks are blacker than iv ever seen on a TV and definitely made the choice when I was out for a TV. When choosing 4k or OLED.. Question that needs to be answered is.. Is your content or source all or mostly in 4k and can you really tell or need the difference in resolution?

Have the 910 and it is a fabulous TV!! I believe that the internet side of the TV is second generation than the 930 and is far superior..... unless of course someone else says different? price is now incredible and worth every penny. Bought mine in January and still comment every single day on his good the picture is, especially the black's. Makes the film Gravity very very good!!!

Great TV bought about 4 months back when JL price matched marks electric,paid just under 1200 so getting cheaper now,I swapped a Samsung 4k model for this due to lack of content ,picture quality is great but wouldn't say it can match 4k quality ,looks stunning even when switched off !!!

Great TV, and I personally don't care too much about 4K, but the butchered resolution of the Stereoscopic 3D of these non-4K passive TVs are a big turn-off to me. :disappointed:

What is the difference between both models ?

what are the downsides of this oled tv? other than not 4k which im not bothered about due to lack of contents

HDR ?

Damn. Paid £1699 for this in February! Emailed them to see if they're willing to do a partial refund :smiley:

Can't believe it's this price. Had mine three months and cost me £1600 lol.

Do this have less than 6ms input lag? I am thinking of becoming a star wars pod racer.

Do the LG OLEDs passthrough DD 5.1?

Passive 3D, yes.

Heat.

Nearly at my price point, good find OP.

Great spot, heat added. Thanks for posting.

repost