These are back in-stock. Not the cheapest but still sell out quickly.
Only just got it home and haven't set it up yet.
New Firmware became available on 17/6/22. Version: F06
It's a stripped down version of the LG C1 48" which has been discounted as low as $1615 but stock is getting scarce.
I mean firstly, LG sell a 48" TV model, and this uses an LG.Display panel. Secondly, this isn't a TV, so if you wanted to watch terrestrial TV you'd probably want a set top box that directly supports coaxial aerial input, of which I only know of the Vodafone TV, which is an aging device.
bruh
Cuh
yea didnt realise LG still did the 48 not seen it available much in my searches the 55 seemed the smallest commonly available.
Seems same panel just no smart interface but thats easily solved with a fire stick etc
Cant say iv watched terrestrial TV in years (or even much commercial tv content)
Digital TV is terrestrial TV though, without that aerial signal you'd be stuck with whatever's available via apps.
That might change when the networks move to 8K, but that could be years, and is subject to video compression advancements. AV2 or H.266 might allow for traditional broadcast methods to continue which leaves you shit out of luck, but it might be a bridge too far for Australia's installations.
I guess my point is, don't cut the aerial cord just yet.
@jasswolf: You don't need an aerial? I haven't had my TV plugged into an aerial since 2016.
Everything IS on the apps
@gruffjaguar: At the very least, you're assuming people will pay for all the sports apps and packages, because AFAIK that's still not broadcast online via FTA apps because of licencing agreements.
It also tends to be in worse quality for the most part.
@jasswolf: Not sure what you mean. The AFL and the Tennis are definitely on the FTA apps and have been for many years. If what you're saying is true it doesn't effect the sport I watch
LG do a 42" now, almost perfect.
terrewhat? who watches FTA TV? lol
Most people with a television? I get that it's not the be all and end all, but it still has a lot of live broadcasting that people utilise.
@scuderiarmani: And get 720p30 broadcasting at 5000 bitrate with a crappy encoder preset? Why?
And you can't watch sport. Don't give buffoon blanket opinions that confuse people.
@jasswolf: I don't care what quality FTA is in. I havent watched it for MANY years.
You wanna watch dumb reality shows, good for you.
@jasswolf: Jazzwolf, what image quality do you think FTA Digital Television is at in Australia?
In Australia SDTV channels are 576i, while the HDTV channels are 1080i50, with many channels still using MPEG-2, though quite a few are using H.264/AVC.
Digital Video Broadcasting - Second Generation Terrestrial (DVB-T2) was trialed in Australia a couple of years ago, but still isn't in use yet. Considering DVB-T started in 2001 and wasn't completed until 2013, I don't think it will be here soon, and when it does, higher resolutions will be over apps too.
I want to point out that DVB-T2 is in 38 countries including Nepal, Afghanistan, and North Korea, but Australia is still in the trial phase. USA uses a different standard, ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 is 4K at 120fps, HDR, with Dolby AC-4. ATSC 3.0 is also used in South Korea and Jamaica.
I think it is fair Australians complain about FTA in Australia, it is crap when compared to apps and what the rest of the world offers.
@FabMan: Commercial networks are 1080i25 @ 7-8.5 MBit peak with a 384-480 KBit audio stream for HD channels, and the x264 preset would seemingly be above medium.
That still walks all over their online offerings, with the exception being Foxtel 4K broadcasting. Kayo offers 1080p50 at 8 MBit, but the preset is feeble and you resultantly gain artifacting along with frame rate.
They have zero financial incentive to bump that up until AV1 gear is plug and play for them.
From a future terrestrial perspective, we're a sparsely populated nation, so 4K is going to be a struggle at 24/25/30 fps without AV1 or VVC under the current paradigm, and stepping up beyond that would require the network being modified to offer 1.3-2.5x the bandwidth per UHD channel.
I'm also not sure HFR works well enough at typical bitrates yet - even with AV1 or VVC - but that will vary with content, and encoder settings.
@jasswolf: Just a bit of clear up, as it is interlaced, it is 1080i50, or you'd be getting a full screen update only 12.5 times a second if it was 1080i25, seeing as interlace updates half the screen every refresh. It is H.264 not x264, x264 is an open source software for encoding in H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.
I'm not sure about your bitrates, I can't find evidence to support it or disprove it. The benefit of switching to H.264 was being able to get higher resolutions at lower bitrates than before, channels actually converted to lower bitrates when moving to HD. When you look at bitrates for channels, make sure it isn't the 576i MPEG-2 SDTV as that uses a higher bitrate than 1080i50 H.264.
@FabMan: I'm listing H.264 bitrates that are collated and regularly collected online, but you're right that I confused x264 and AVC. Those are typical max bitrate ranges for HD H.264 content on DVB-T. And yes, apologies for confusing the 25 FPS final result with the nature of interlaced video.
The full bitrate per spectrum allocation is 22.9 MBit currently, which suggests a somewhat low spectral efficiency using 64-QAM (theoretical max for 7 MHz channel width is 27.7). Moving to DVB-T2 should double this if the tower distribution can support it, but if the goal is to have two 4K channels for each broadcaster and 4-6 FHD channels, it's going to be interesting to see how broadcasters handle the ramp in frame rate if they want 120 FPS broadcasts for live sport, especially for HEVC, because it would eat enormously into the spectrum allocation.
What's more, I'm yet to see convincing demo footage that highlights 120 FPS HFR performing well at a remotely efficient bitrate. VVC or AV2 might be an answer there, but AV1 adoption hasn't begun for DVB (though it is planned), meaning broadcasters have licencing fee structures to consider, and consumers need hardware updates.
Plenty of people have also kicked up a fuss when MPEG2 broadcasts have been retired, and Ch7 even reversed out of doing so last year.
With the way everything is heading, I wouldn't be shocked if things moved over to mobile broadcasting via 5G instead, and the hardware updates can then be consolidated to a set-top box. At that point you might start to see an even bigger split in how traditional TV networks push content.
@jasswolf: 120fps would be awesome for sport but I'd settle for 1080p @ 60fps though as 4K @ 120fps seems like a fantasy for FTA in Australia right now. We've discussed it already but as the 1080i50 means you'd get a full screen update 25 times a second, I think going to 1080p60 with an appropriate compression should be a noticeable increase in clarity and smoothness. I can't see why all networks can't move towards and offer 1080p @ 60fps with a decent bitrate over services such as Foxtel, Fetch, Smart TV apps, and mobile apps. The commercial channels could move towards 4K @ 120Hz using those services and wait for FTA technology to improve, or just get those to be killed off in 20 years and use your mentioned 5G instead.
I actually think the 5G network would be a better move, especially for the remote areas. Instead of trying to build 2 new types of infrastructures across Australia (5G and DVB-T2), making sure 5G was effective across those areas seems like a better use of resources. I'm not sure, but would each TV user need a unique 5G connection or could that be shared, kinda like how digital FTA TV signals are? Perhaps a handshake with the network and then just stream the 5G signal to the screen, I don't know if the 5G protocols require each 5G needs its own data stream though.
@FabMan: LTE broadcast is already a thing, Optus wanted to get it going for the last soccer World Cup, and their failure with that lead to them giving the service for free.
@jasswolf: Ahhh so that is why they did that. It didn't know it was a LTE broadcast, I thought it was typical data to tablet.
@FabMan: Was meant to alleviate network traffic for phone users. Telstra did the same with AFL Live for a stretch.
@Wombat cave: Buy Kayo like anyone else and stop living in the dark ages.
Id rather watch paint dry then watch the Crows.
@scuderiarmani: So no TV at all for anyone who doesn't want to pay both an ISP and Kayo. Nice. Who cares about poor people anyway.
@mortymorty: So let me get this right, poor people are looking at 48" OLED Monitors for their desk?
Seems to me, poor people should get priorities right if they can't afford a Kayo subscription (which can be shared) yet can afford such a luxury item like this.
Whether you like it or not you'll have no choice but to pay up to watch AFL soon. Deal with it.
And most people pay for Internet Access, be it at home or mobile…. that's about as standard as Water Bills….
I use a 4K Fetch TV box, fantastic, all my downgraded pc monitors become my 4k bedroom TV's
Ah true, I forgot about the Fetch TV lineup, but I personally prefer Android TV OS.
Whoops
The biggest difference is the HDR is nowhere near as bright on this.
The panel seems to be driven differently to optimise for SDR desktop use rather than HDR video viewing.
Funnily enough the ABL behaviour makes it even worse for desktop usage than the C1
Probably has a poor passive cooling design compared to the LG.
Not really, they're basically the same in SDR sustained which is what applies for desktop use.
@cheng2008: No they're not, the Aorus has a lower SDR sustained brightness at around 120nits vs 150nits on the C1
@cille745: Sure, either way I don’t think it’s a huge difference, if one’s fine in your room the other will most likely be also. What i will say is that being able to turn TPC/ASBL off is probably a bigger deal for productivity.
They lake the image sharpness,and rapid colour transition of the premium LG oleds
how these usually work is,they might have not passed every quality check,but are fine for daily use,so LG then onsells them on to 2nd ary customers
The HDr tone mapping is also not the same as the traditional lg 48
The tv is designed for daily driving in SDR and has been built that way
it's not bad,but it's really only good because it's got OLED panel in it,but the firmware driving it's dogshit
Got a source for that? Usually LG passes the leftover panels that don’t pass their checks to no name Korean manufacturers who sell them for cheap, but they are full of problems like dead pixels or stuck pixels. They are sold expressly with the possibility of flaws in mind. Even so afaik none of those panels were sold with flaws of that magnitude like reduced sharpness or slower colour transition. This was sold as a premium product, with no mention of lower sharpness or slower response time.
Yes the firmware is not as good as the LG but for the most part it does the job, certainly at this price it can’t be beat.
C1 48" is like 2.x grand. For gaming this might be a great alternative.
yea crazy difference in price, if the difference was smaller you would easily go the C1 for the features but half price…
They use the same panel iirc
It's actually the CX panel I think? I could be wrong
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/product/lg-oled48c1ptb
$1600 and dropping if we're going to compare clearance sales.
qd oled>>>>
I agree but from what I've googled the cheapest QD-OLED is the Samsung 55" for $3k and that's speculative as it hasn't released here yet.
I was contemplating the Alienware 34" QD-OLED Ultrawide for $1700 back when that deal was going but it's a first iteration and will wait for other competition.
Hey Simon,
Does the monitor come with a remote control? Thinking of getting one for the bedroom.
No way, the far more expensive tech is better, that's crazy.
… No QD OLED this size or smaller… The ultrawide doesn't count, since if you're looking at this, you probably want 16:9. (Plus that QD-OLED has a few issues that make it not great it would seem..)
This seems crazy cheap to me. What am I missing?
Your not missing anything but it's missing a TV tuner, Dolby Vision/ATMOS and people say it doesn't get as bright.
Planning on plugging a Chromecast with Google TV into it to test how it'll go as a TV temporarily.
Gets a good review on Rtings. Good find mate.
There's also image processing to consider for video content.
Who needs Dolby/Atmos when you have "Spaaaaace Audio"?
Just plug in Firestick 4K Max and you will get Dolby Atmos and Vision off the bat. To be honest I got a proper 85" LG TV for 2 years now and it's not even connected to an antenna. I have never tuned a single channel on it. I just use apps to stream live TV if I want to.
As far as I'm aware Dolby Vision straight up won't work unless the display itself supports it and has been certified for it. Dolby Atmos should work with the right cabling setup that supports it, since that doesn't require the display to support it if using external speakers/soundbar
Dolby Vision is not supported on this display.
missing the hype, generally people don't understand why oled is superior, and they have problems accepting a 48" monitor
reminds me of the iphones can't go above 4" crowd
I find it hilarious ppl will pay 1k+ for a uuuuuuwhd IPS monitor when a 4k oled is staring them in the face for cheaper
I mean 48' 16:9 monitor is normally too big for usual desk setup. At least with ultrawide 49' you don't break your neck while looking at the screen. And many people would rather have a multi-monitor setup rather than one big ass screen.
reminds me of this discussion
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12230296/redir
would ppl rather break necks instead of moving the monitor back a little in the age of vesa mounts like idk…
@abctoz: Many people who live at home or have flatmates will have their PC in bedrooms where there's isn't that much space for a deep desk.
Might want to confirm VESA mount compatibility based on someone else's experience as well. If I go by this guide it's 9kg without the stand and the dimensions of it may also impact how stable the arm would be in various positions.
@RedSky: what kind of room are you living in where you don't have an extra 50cm
they're not going to put a vesa mount on something that can't be mounted, this isn't rocket science guys.. or wait is it?
@abctoz: Consider yourself lucky. New builds are 3m x 3m. Once you put a bed in there, there isn't much room left
@abctoz: Basic rudimentary imagination to understand situations that are not your own, ie the concept of people sleeping in beds bigger than a single, and most people have more things in a room than jsut a bed. AKA a tall boy or wardrobe, side table/s. To name just a couple things. ON top of the fact, that if you are in a relationship. Both sides of the bed need to be accessible. You're not actually this dense are you?
@ONEMariachi: well if you're a 4m guy stuck in a 3x3 room then I can't help you
for starters i wouldnt recommend this product if you're in a relationship in a 3x3 room as you can only properly serve one master at a time
but if you are and living in a 3x3m room, but still wish to acquire this i suggest first looking for a bigger room
of course there is also the third option of breaking the relationship in pursuance of a 48" oled, viable but personally wouldn't recommend
@abctoz: It really would have been easier to actually have said, "yes, I am that dense".
Please do better.
@ONEMariachi: are you saying you can't fit a 48" oled inside a 3x3m room i'm having a hard time understanding
@RedSky: It has a 300x300 VESA mount. Here's a guy who has it on an arm using a VESA adapter: https://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/comments/povv0v/stan…
Can easily treat it as 2x2 FHD array for multitasking purposes, you just don't use Windows scaling and sit closer. When you want to run fullscreen gaming, you can just specify custom resolutions and stop it from auto-scaling, all configurable with GPU driver software. ABL is the concern for desktop use.
It's not my personal choice, but it is usable.
Ultrawide 49" 32:9 = 47.17"x13.27"
This 48" 16:9 = 41.85"x23.51"
The Ultrawide is actually wider than this monitor. It's almost identical to two 27" 16:9 monitors next to each other.
Personally I'd rather a big 48" 16:9 than that.
It's flexible, if you feel like ultrawide you can simulate a 43" 32:9 with black bars on the top and bottom on the fo48u.
But then if you're playing a game or watching a movie it's a massive 48" 16:9 display.
My desk has a limited width but the monitor could go to the ceiling.
I'm mostly reading webpages, I want more vertical space than a 27" monitor which I consider too small.
If my neck's going to break, it breaks just as much from looking so far left and right as looking up and down. :-P
@mortymorty: I know the Ultrawide is wider than this one. But my point is actually different from you, I would rather move my neck left-right only with the ultrawide rather up-down AND left-right with the 48' 16:9. I do agree that in terms of space saving then the 16:9 would be better than ultrawide in most of the case, but I just talk about comfortability here.
@Masticccc: Hi is the ultra wide 4K also?, wouldnt have a weblink for her?, so the ultra wide is shorter in height but obviously wider, trying to picture an ultra wide and can see your point with less head movement with up and down though would the monitor feel more cramped not having the height as this standard 48 inchesless real-estate for icons, I definitely prefer the real-estate and don't care about moving my head around, usually I'll center a program I'm using to center of screen anyway especially if program is concerned reading fonts, well I've moved from 4k 27inch (now my 4k bedroom tv) to a 4k 32inch monitor and want to go bigger well still annoyed on my 4K 32incher font is still to small
Edit: whoops out of stock lolz
But my point is actually different from you, I would rather move my neck left-right only with the ultrawide rather up-down AND left-right with the 48' 16:9.
That wasn't what you said though. In your original post you said a 48" is too big for a normal desk and prefer a 49" ultrawide.
mortymorty pointed out that a 49" ultrawide takes up more space than a 48".
Now you're saying you were only talking about comfort. You are missing his point - a 48" 16:9 gives you the option of only using the middle of the screen just like an ultrawide, or using the extra top and bottom screen area to place less-frequently-used apps like Spotify, email, CCTV feed, or your Adobe toolbars for quick access. You can also kick back and watch a video fullscreen which would be much larger than an ultrawide showing 16:9 video.
@eug: "That wasn't what you said though. In your original post you said a 48" is too big for a normal desk and prefer a 49" ultrawide.
mortymorty pointed out that a 49" ultrawide takes up more space than a 48".
Well my sentence is a bit unclear in the original post. What I mean is actually like this: "48 inch is too big for a normal desk, but if I have to choose a big screen like that then I would rather choose the 49 inch ultrawide". So normally I won't choose either of them, but if I have to then I will choose the ultrawide due to comfortability, which I elaborate further in the reply above.
"Now you're saying you were only talking about comfort. You are missing his point - a 48" 16:9 gives you the option of only using the middle of the screen just like an ultrawide, or using the extra top and bottom screen area to place less-frequently-used apps like Spotify, email, CCTV feed, or your Adobe toolbars for quick access. You can also kick back and watch a video fullscreen which would be much larger than an ultrawide showing 16:9 video."
Yes I understand all the stuffs u said about what 48' 16:9 can do but the 49' ultrawide cannot. But then again, I'm just talking about the comfort. Assuming u have the same viewing distance to 2 monitors (same desk setup), for the ultrawide u only move your head left and right, no up-down needed because the screen height is just like a normal one. But with the 48' 16:9 is nearly twice the height, so u have to move your head up-down a lot more while still need to move it left-right often (the width is 85% of the ultrawide, which is still big). Ofc as you said, we can set up the screen only the middle part, but I usually want to use full of my screen.
That's why with my setup, I choose neither of them but a multi-monitor set up instead. Have bigger screen area than an ultrawide, better ergonomic than the 48' since I can tilt/angle each small screen, and total cost is cheapest.
hmm a little too big for monitor, I will wait for LG C2 42 inch
Yeah more than double the price
Yeah so waiting for a drop in price. Otherwise, I can see myself having a neck problem here even if my desk depth is 80cm.
For reference c1 stands above $1700 after 2 years, maybe as well wait for the "Gigabyte" version of C2, but considering FO48U is hard to be called a successful product, that's why it's heavily discounted, so I am skeptical on this one.
I don't understand the problem. You could just not use that part of the screen if you don't want to, but it's there if you want it. Also OLED FTW.
Not going to be as bright as the rest of the line due to technical limitations. But I'm on the same page as you.
42" C2 looks like it won't be much chop for the purpose, especially without 120Hz BFI.
All it has going for it is panel density.
I ordered one on MWave, but waiting for them to ship it to me for a couple of days. I am a little worried that 48" might be too big to use it as a monitor on a desk. Anyone who has been using it as a normal monitor, is it too big? I am thinking I should wait for the price of 43" C2 to drop.
It’s massive. But beautiful.
I have a 43" Phillips on a pretty big desk (1.8 x 0.85m) and honestly its too big. I have to move my head a lot. I think 35-38" is probably the sweet spot.
I have a 43" Phillips on a pretty big desk (1.8 x 0.85m) and honestly its too big. I have to move my head a lot. I think 35-38" is probably the sweet spot.
I have a 43" Philips on a small desk alongside two 27" and a 29" wide and find it great - but only because it gives me the option to go fullscreen when needed. Most of the time I run apps in a smaller window so I don't have to look around all the time. I scatter the windows around the monitor which lets me see more things at one time, with the main thing I'm working on right in the centre.
When it comes to apps like Lightroom where the less frequently-used UI elements are at the top, it's perfect as the image window is nice and large. With Photoshop and Premiere you can place your toolbars and other windows all around the border out of the way of the timeline and main windows.
A 35-38" would definitely work fine for a single app, but I wouldn't be able to place windows around the desktop that I might want to refer to while working on something.
I have a 43" on my desk and it's perfect size. I would like 2 x 43" ideally but couldn't fit it on my desk so I have 43" and 32" currently.
I've just bought one of these 48" for the oled magic, I think I'll enjoy the size. It's great to lean back and not have to be so close to the monitor.
There's Fancyzones too to arrange windows.
I just don't see the downside to having more usable screen area. People buy 34" ultrawides but that's literally less than half the screen area of these 48".
34" uw = 31.37 x 13.12" = 411.62 square inches.
48" 16:9 = 41.84 x 23.53" = 984.43 square inches.
It's an absolute no-brainer for me after finding a desktop arm that will hold it (hopefully). I wrote in another comment the arm and adapter I bought…
Are you using an arm for 43"?
I am wondering which one.
@SickDmith: Not currently but I actually bought two Brateck LDT23-C012, one for the fo48u and one for my existing 43". I'm a bit nervous about the whole thing but according to the specs they should hold them.
My 43" is "only" 9kg so it should hold that easily.
@SickDmith: Monitor and arms have arrived, it's a very good solution for both the FO48U and my 43".
Here's what I bought:
two Brateck LDT-C012 arms.
Finish Line Fibre Grip 50g Tube - For the tilt mount of the arms, they were clearly designed not to hold such heavy monitors, even though the gas lift mechanism is very sturdy and can hold the weight fine. This stuff is basically the opposite of grease and makes more friction, it's for carbon fiber bikes so you can put it on the seatpost tube or handlebars and then it will hold without having to put so much torque on the bolts which would crack the carbon fiber. I disassembled the tilt mechanism and put this on the mating parts. Now it holds really tight without having to crank that bolt so much (you still have to crank it but not so much that you feel like you're about to strip the threads).
two M8 washers from Bunnings. I put a washer in the bolts for the tilt mechanisms, because I don't trust them without one.
VIVO Steel Vesa Tv and Monitor Mount Adapter Plate Bracket for Screens 23 to 42 Inches, Conversion Kit for Vesa Up to 200X200mm (Mount-Ad2X2) - for my 43" which has 200x100 VESA mount.
VIVO Steel Vesa LCD Led TV Mount Adapter Plate Brackets for Screens 32 to 55 Inches, Conversion Kit for Vesa Up to 400X400mm (Mount-Ad400B) - for the FO48U which has 300x300 VESA mount.
Also bought a long DP and HDMI cables because the ones that come with the FO48U aren't that long.
Very impressed with the quality of everything actually, I don't feel like this beautiful OLED monitor is going to crash to the floor.
@mortymorty: Thank you so much for writing it.
Have you assembled it?
Is it holding?
I think I am going to order the same arm (and anti-greese :), thanks for the tip).
how do these compare to the LG/Sony OLEDs other than being smaller? thinking it would make a good bedroom tv