LG 42" OLED TVs in 2022

LAnthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 12:16

It looks like LG Display, the company that manufactures OLED panels for LG, Sony, Panasonic and most of the market is now making a smaller 42" OLED 4K panel.

HDTVTest is suggesting that LG Electronics, the manufacturer of LG televisions will likely announce the smaller sized OLEDs at CES 2022: https://youtu.be/FiuCLPYcOx8

This could be a bonus for those that wanted to get the 48" models for PC screens but found the PPI too low, and the smaller size should help drive down the cost of entry for OLED tvs.

Obviously it remains to be seen whether this will be worthwhile with Samsung likely releasing their QD-OLED TVs in the next year or two, but it's good to see we're finally getting more options in the market for self emissive tvs.

Thoughts?

Electrical & Electronics LG OLED TV

Comments

  • dust on 23/08/2021 - 12:19

    Size matters. 42" is too small.

    • pingMarky on 23/08/2021 - 12:58
      +3

      Sweet 42” is finally getting closer to being suitable for gaming/wfh battlestation. An 48 oled is simple to large at such short range. A tv for my desk chair basically.

    • Anthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 13:41

      It's all about choice, we have had bigger options for years. Nice to have more now imo.

      It would be too small for my place, but maybe for small apartments where people have a combination TV, PC setup it might be good.

    • Pittyh on 23/08/2021 - 16:17

      42" is perfect for a virtual pinball cabinet

  • Guybrush57 on 23/08/2021 - 13:28
    -2

    This could be a bonus for those that wanted to get the 48" models for PC screens but found the PPI too low

    If you find the PPI of 48" too low, 42" will only be worse.

    • Anthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 13:39
      +1

      No it won't. 3840x2160 over a screen size that's 6" smaller is better as the PPI is higher.
      48" at 3840x2160 is 91.79PPI
      42" at 3840x2160 is 104.9PPI
      That's a 14.28% increase in pixel density.
      Hardly groundbreaking, but better than a 24" 1080p pc monitor which is 91.79PPI

      • Guybrush57 on 23/08/2021 - 14:01
        +1

        Whoops. I thought he was referring to straining to see at 48" then 42" would be worse because the pixels are smaller.

      • netjock on 23/08/2021 - 14:01

        better than a 24" 1080p pc monitor which is 91.79PPI

        That is why you buy 21.5" 1080p monitor. 24" is false economy. More inches the better people thinks. But it is about density (PPI).

        I tried 42" 4K as a PC monitor. Just can't get my eye balls to each corner without straining. I guess eye ball size matters (joke).

        • Anthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 15:03

          21.5" looks awful to me, 24" is a pleasing minimum if you're running more than one task on screen at a time IMO.

          Obviously you do give up sharpness, but it's a matter of what you're using for. I'd think for games PPI isn't as important as for photo editing and simple word processing as you're not looking as much at the fine detail.

          If you were making that argument about 1080p 27" I'd be completely agreeing with you, but I think 91.79 is a good minimum PPI, and that anything extra is a great bonus which is definitely worthwhile if you have the budget.

          Anyway like I was saying, it'll be a TV too, so could be a good option for people who only have room for either a tv or monitor but not both.

          • netjock on 23/08/2021 - 15:15

            @Anthropomorphised:

            21.5" looks awful to me, 24" is a pleasing minimum if you're running more than one task on screen at a time IMO.

            Both 1080p so what is the difference?

            I've had 24" in triple display. Makes no difference 21.5" unless because you can't see that small and you need the windows a tiny bit wider but not full screen. Suggest that isn't a problem with a screen.

            • Anthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 15:24

              @netjock: The issue for me between 21.5 and 24 isn't really resolution. If it was I'd be getting a 1440p. It's more just that 21.5 feels cramped and I associate the size with the poor quality 21.5 screens my school used to have in the computer labs back in the day.

              I just like the extra size for when I'm running two apps side by side personally.

              Obviously if you want better value there's 21.5, I just don't enjoy it. Once I have a larger desk I'll probably move to a 21:9 if they still exist then, but till now I'll stick to my 24 with the 55" tv wall mounted above it for anything I want to blow up larger :)

              • netjock on 23/08/2021 - 15:27

                @Anthropomorphised: That is why I got 21.5" IPS screens. You can cheap out on size just don't cheap out on the display panel.

                I'd probably get 4x 21.5" IPS screens rather than a bad 4K 42".

                Some other people have a problem with bezel. I'd rather have better quality panel than a crap panel but no bezel.

                • Anthropomorphised on 23/08/2021 - 18:53

                  @netjock: A 4K OLED absolutely didn’t a bad panel dude, that doesn’t make any sense at all to say. Youre getting 120Hz vs 60 for most IPS, better response times on OLED even if they are both 120Hz, far better contrast, better colour volume, more inputs too. 42” 4K is the same PPI as a 21” 1080 anyway!

                  You also get the screen realestate of 4 21” screens without the need for a mounting arm or needing to deal with bezels.

                  Just because it doesn’t work for your use case doesn’t make it objectively bad, it’s just your preference. Your preference it valid but it’s not fact

  • nnolan on 26/08/2021 - 08:25

    Any idea if I could get a 48 Cx or c1 for around $1800? Wonder if good guys would honor that sale they had last month

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join