It was and still is my original point: what is "cutting edge" today was affordable technology 15 years ago. Affordable as in viable to more than a niche market.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
OLED Computer Monitors?
- Thread starter TroyX
- Start date
I don't recall anyone claiming that there was one. But hey, way to knock the hell out of that straw man you keep setting up.
Incidentally, my favorite part of the thread so far is where the person whom you praised as being "well-read" and "informed" and "knowledgeable" (even as you misrepresented what he was saying) then went on to tell you point-blank how ignorant you are.
You're adorable.
CRTs are only dead because nine out of ten people aren't as picky as some of us are.
I loved my 53" CRT-based RPTV. I loved my various CRT monitors and clung to several FW900 CRTs long past when nearly everyone else was on LCDs.
Nearly everyone I know looks at me with a blank stare when I explain to them why I held out with our old TV so long. They're simply not interested in hearing how great their TV could look since they're happy with how it looks today. Even when I would show my wife our CRT-based TV next to an LCD, and pointed out the grayish blacks (etc.), she'd shrug.
Quite simply, the vast majority of people just don't give a shit about picture quality like we do. And that's why we don't have CRTs anymore. And that's why plasma eventually failed, FED and SED were stillborn, and OLED may never reach all segments of the market. . . because the consumer isn't picky enough to pay for a better technology when the ubiquitous technology already in front of their face is "good enough."
Yes, it's a shame. And it will be a shame if OLED eventually falls away too. But it's funny to me to see all this anger and angst towards the manufacturers who are just giving the vast majority of the consumers out there what they want. I blame the consumers who fetishize "thin" and "light" over picture quality. Not the manufacturers who merely give them what they want.
Simply put, hardly anybody looks at an LCD today and thinks: "That thing has terrible black levels." We do. But there just simply weren't enough of us around to save CRT. Let's just hope there's enough of us around to make something better than LCD worthwhile to manufacture. . . some day.
--H
We are just at the point of starting mass mnufacturing of OLEDs on big sheets of glass which is prerequisite for making "affordable" panels. This may lead to the production of smaller OLED panels in the future, at this point LG has no other choice than making big panels.
Going on year #11 for the mays and shoulds.
You could have said the same thing about large OLED TVs a year or two ago. Yet you can't now. That's sorta the whole point.
I'm curious about this eleven year figure you keep bandying about. Do you contend that we have been promised imminent OLED monitors since 2003? Why not lambast OLED for breaking promises since 1950 when the principle was first worked out? That would have just about as much intellectual consistency and relevancy as repeatedly stating that there won't be x because there hasn't been x.
Is there anything you can say that won't eventually be demonstrated to be overwrought hyperbole? I guess only time will tell.
No.
Frankly it's getting old being personally attacked and psychologically analyzed by a complete stranger, because of my correct claims about computer monitors. Would you please stop publicly embarrassing yourself and get a fucking life. First you put words in my mouth, than you make ridiculous straw man arguments, claims and conclusions based on your own intentional misreading.
I said, correctly, that we've been hearing mays and shoulds for 11+ years, such as the specific one I responded to: "This may lead to the production" of OLED panels "in the future". Yep, 11 years and counting on that one. We still have no affordable OLED computer monitors or plans from any manufacturer to produce any. Keep reading it over and over and tell me which of those two claims is incorrect.
Hooray for moved goalposts. You have been claiming that we will never see them. Only recently have you shifted your position to the nonsensical and obvious statement that we haven't seen them.
And it's just that kind of intellectual dishonesty that has led to all the rest that you decry above. But, of course, what you term "personal attacks" are merely me pointing out where you engage in circular reasoning and other logical fallacies, pretend to have insider industry knowledge you can't substantiate, and where you misrepresent possibilities as certainties when you aren't plain misrepresenting facts ("$11K 'fake OLED' TVs, etc.). Keep in mind as well that I wasn't the person who called you ignorant. That was the guy who you said was refreshingly well-informed and knowledgeable.
If you're tired of being "personally attacked" (you haven't been). . . stop posting absolute nonsense, faulty logic, and hostile hyperbole with an air of certainty where there can and should be none.
The End.
--H
P.S. I asked you a question. That's not putting words in your mouth. I'm still curious about that eleven year figure though. Exactly where do you start that particular stopwatch? From the first time you read something about OLED on engadget? (that's another question! I'm sure you'll characterize it as putting words in your mouth too). I just want to understand where and why you began this arbitrary countdown and what you would consider a more reasonable timeframe for the development of an all-new display technology. I've asked before. You never seem to answer. You just fly off the handle instead and then fall back on stating the obvious: There aren't any currently announced plans for an OLED monitor. And ignoring my point: There weren't any announced plans for large OLED TVs until recently either.
Last edited:
You know what, I'm done playing with you. Because now you're playing the victim card and it's just oh so f'ing lame. . .
I showed you where the LG technology you declare to be "vastly inferior" has actually been glowingly reviewed. Far from "washed out IQ", that technology has shown up in a product with the best picture quality ever seen in a display. I provided you links. I provided you quotes.
You dishonestly dodged that by saying that the review was of a TV. . . as though that's at all relevant when what you were bashing was the technology not its current form factor. Let me say that again, you were saying that the technology was vastly inferior and would result in "washed out IQ." When I pointed out to you that this was not the case, you dodged as already described immediately above. When I tried to reel you back in, you then went even further into outright dishonesty and illogical bullshit when you said that LG's technology not being used in a monitor today was the evidence you needed of its "vastly inferior" nature. As though you weren't talking about "washed out IQ" prior. Again, utter bullshit.
I tried to point all of this out to you calmly and in a friendly manner at first. But when someone responds to that with only dishonesty and dodging instead of just admitting that they were talking out of their ass. . . they quickly run out of goodwill on the part of those who actually do know what they're talking about (to some degree).
That is only one episode in your long run of being ridiculous in this thread. And though the facts above speak for themselves, fairness compells me to give you one last chance. . ..substantiate what you said or STFU. What "reading" informed you that the LG technology was a "scam" and "vastly inferior" with "washed out IQ?" And how in your bizarre little world does that technology being proven to be none of those things in a widely available and mass-produced television somehow not dissuade you that you might just be blatantly f'ing wrong about that technology? Saying "I have no interest in TV reviews" was just a blatant and obvious chicken-shit dodge. And a shameless one at that.
Again, I'm done playing with you. It's fun pointing out your inconsistencies, unsubstantiated (and refuted) claims, and how you can't string a cogent argument together. . . right up until you start playing the victim card.
--H
So, to pick one of your ridiculous claims at random, either substantiate the above or STFU.
I showed you where the LG technology you declare to be "vastly inferior" has actually been glowingly reviewed. Far from "washed out IQ", that technology has shown up in a product with the best picture quality ever seen in a display. I provided you links. I provided you quotes.
You dishonestly dodged that by saying that the review was of a TV. . . as though that's at all relevant when what you were bashing was the technology not its current form factor. Let me say that again, you were saying that the technology was vastly inferior and would result in "washed out IQ." When I pointed out to you that this was not the case, you dodged as already described immediately above. When I tried to reel you back in, you then went even further into outright dishonesty and illogical bullshit when you said that LG's technology not being used in a monitor today was the evidence you needed of its "vastly inferior" nature. As though you weren't talking about "washed out IQ" prior. Again, utter bullshit.
I tried to point all of this out to you calmly and in a friendly manner at first. But when someone responds to that with only dishonesty and dodging instead of just admitting that they were talking out of their ass. . . they quickly run out of goodwill on the part of those who actually do know what they're talking about (to some degree).
That is only one episode in your long run of being ridiculous in this thread. And though the facts above speak for themselves, fairness compells me to give you one last chance. . ..substantiate what you said or STFU. What "reading" informed you that the LG technology was a "scam" and "vastly inferior" with "washed out IQ?" And how in your bizarre little world does that technology being proven to be none of those things in a widely available and mass-produced television somehow not dissuade you that you might just be blatantly f'ing wrong about that technology? Saying "I have no interest in TV reviews" was just a blatant and obvious chicken-shit dodge. And a shameless one at that.
Again, I'm done playing with you. It's fun pointing out your inconsistencies, unsubstantiated (and refuted) claims, and how you can't string a cogent argument together. . . right up until you start playing the victim card.
--H
Last edited:
I stand by that claim. If you read my cite, China has technology almost as good as OLED and it's 1/20th the cost to produce. So if you can manage to rub those last two precious brain cells together, please tell us how many consumers you think will opt for OLED. It's already doomed according to the author and other informed opinions in the article. LG is now the last major player in the world for it, and it's a hack job. Also as mentioned, not even China is planning to use LG's WRGB panels with their new technology.
As much as you've convinced yourself otherwise, I'm not against flatpanel technology or any other technology. What I'm against is having X taken from us, as a relatively affordable option, and for over a decade being presented only with Y as a replacement, that doesn't begin to equal X in usefulness, performance, capabilities or durability. Or IOW Sony's current chief is resolute in his delusion about the superiority of OLED out of one side of his mouth, while his company continues producing and selling Trinitrons for $23,000 apiece to Hollywood studios. So please remind me, why is CRT technology completely obsolete and inferior?
I'll skip your remaining emotionally disturbed personal swipes about intellectual dishonesty. Your Sony "guide" posted on this forum (from 2005) is as far as I needed to read, and thanks for yet another example of accusing others exactly of what you are guilty of. It's one of the most stunning examples of cluelessness I've ever read anywhere on CRT monitors, and one can only guess how many victims wound up with permanently overbright Sony F-series monitors because some airhead with 15 minutes of WinDAS experience told them to "first turn the brightness up to substantially higher than normal" (paraphrased) and THEN to run the monitor's one-way and irreversable (without a service cable and Sony's DAS) Image Restore function, which does little else except permanently bump G2 and give monitors a permanent red or white glow. What a fucking moron!
I read that article and it said TCL's QD TV was supposed to come out this November.
Also I don't know about the credence of this statement lol:
"Pretty much comparable", huh.
Here's hoping some lucky engineer comes up with a way to improve yields on those OLEDs. Otherwise we're going to be stuck with "pretty much comparable".
You mean that article you cited with all the "maybe" and "might" and "could" about quantum dot technology that itself has its own problems and drawbacks? That one? The one that you dishonestly portray here as being conclusive and certain when it is not. Jesus, even the headline has "may" in it. Pathetic.
Jesus, another f'ing straw man? When did I ever say that CRT was inferior? Or even obsolete? Can you argue honestly even for one moment?
You're referring to this?
Green Tinge?
If you notice a "green tinge" to greys and blacks, do the "Image Restore" procedure above. But first, raise the Brightness setting for your monitor appreciably above where you'd normally like it. Then, do the "Image Restore" operation.
Except I owned three FW900s and that advice (not mine, incidentally, but consolidated and passed on from others in that thread) never resulted in any such thing. It did not jack up my G2 setting (if it did, not substantially). I know this because I had a cable and WINDAS and could see the setting both before and after (and I meticulously kept track of the G2). Never happened. Across three monitors. Nor did anyone ever complain about blown out blacks (as would be expected with a substantially jacked up G2) after fixing their green tinge in this way (they were just happy to have the green tinge gone and their monitor looking great again, the horror!). But nice try. You also dishonestly fail to point out that I and many others advised this only in the case of those stuck with "green tint" (EDIT: Nevermind, re-reading more of thread, it's advised outside of green tint as well, my mistake and apologies) and thus, they were already having a problem with their display. But hey, it's nice to know that you're so obsessed with me that you're now doing opposition research and googling. Please tell me this isn't the case. . . apparently, you're so incapable of making a cogent case here that you're actually desperately scouring the internet for an instance where I might have been wrong, somewhere, anywhere. . . holy crap that's pathetic. And the best you could come up with was the above? Really!?!If you notice a "green tinge" to greys and blacks, do the "Image Restore" procedure above. But first, raise the Brightness setting for your monitor appreciably above where you'd normally like it. Then, do the "Image Restore" operation.
Also, I simply must ask: What does "appreciably" mean to you? You're hinging an awful lot of vitriol and responsibility on that word in that quote. Which doesn't seem wise. But then again, it's you we're dealing with. Careful parsing and use of language isn't exactly your strong suit.
Edit: Finally, on this pathetic side-topic you so desperately conjured out of thin air as a ridiculous distraction: You might want to actually direct this (albeit misdirected and trumped up) vitriol at Mathesar, the OP of that thread since I merely was acting as someone consolidating and summarizing several hundred pages of that thread for everyone which he then edited into his first post (Oh no! What a villain that makes me!). Here's where he made that suggestion (not me). As though any of this has any relevance to the multiple times you've been demonstrated to be confused, dishonest, or otherwise engaging in shenanigans in this thread.
And now. . .
Since you managed to go on for three paragraphs without swerving anywhere near it while obsessively checking decade-old posts to find something to distract everyone from your shenanigans. . .
I pointed out in my post immediately above how absolutely 100% talking out of your ass you've been this entire thread. You declared LG's pixel technology to be a "scam" that is "vastly inferior" with "washed out IQ" and thus constitues"fake OLED." What "reading" did you do that brought you to this conclusion? And why on earth would you dismiss actual reviews of that pixel technology in action when they were brought to your attention? Your prior two attempts to deflect this question were ridiculous, illogical, obvious dodges. So, again, either admit that you were talking out of your ass and being dishonest in your dodges or STFU.
Jesus. . . how desperate are you going to get? You were caught talking out of your ass and instead of admit it with dignity, you've gone on for page after page just embarrassing yourself. And now you're bringing up something I wrote almost ten years ago on a totally unrelated topic, misrepresenting both what I said and its effects, and you have the temerity to call others "moron?"
Just utterly, utterly pathetic.
Last edited:
Related: Did I at some point make a claim to be a CRT technician? And if I did, what does that have to do with someone stating that LG's OLED version is "fake". . . "vastly inferior". . . a "scam". . . and will have "washed out IQ". . . and then dismisses reviews stating exactly the opposite because it's a TV review. . . as though they weren't crapping on the technology/technique itself regardless of its form factor.
More to the point, what does it say about someone who can't just admit they didn't know what they were talking about in that instance and instead needs to go back (and drag me back) almost a decade to take me to task for repeating the advice of someone else?
My goodness. What an odd thread. What an odd person.
More to the point, what does it say about someone who can't just admit they didn't know what they were talking about in that instance and instead needs to go back (and drag me back) almost a decade to take me to task for repeating the advice of someone else?
My goodness. What an odd thread. What an odd person.
Still waiting on those affordable OLED computer monitors. Here's a challenge: stop posting personal attacks and psychological analyses of fellow members until you hear of one. Just one. From any manufacturer.
Still waiting to hear what "reading" lead you to believe that LG's pixel technology was "vastly inferior" and "fake" with "washed out IQ" even in the face of glowing reviews stating that very same technology provided the best display ever reviewed.
Am also curious why you couldn't have just said "I stand corrected" (instead of the illogical/lame "that's a TV review") when the links and quotes were provided so that we could have moved on happily.
Am also curious why you're just now reading my posts from almost a decade ago. That's just odd.
P.S. You keep referring to "psychological analyses." I hope you are aware that the term "intellectually dishonest" and/or disingenuous have nothing to do with psychology. As for "personal attacks". . . I'm not dredging up decades-old posts, misrepresenting them, and then calling you a "moron" among other things as you have done. I admit the tone of this discussion has deteriorated rapidly. But it did so as a result of your anger at being called on your rhetorical bullshit and shenanigans. Repeatedly.
Last edited:
As one of the article quotes put it, the good is the enemy of the best. Personally I don't care what the underlying technology is, as long as monitor functionality, flexibility, performance and durability are restored to what they were 15 years ago. Otherwise I don't see how the case can be made that essential abandonment of CRT technology was necessary or made any sense. Again I'll remind everyone of the relentless stream of gimmicks in the last ten years from various manufacturers, often billed as making panels "CRT-like". Add G-Sync FreeSync et al to the proprietary cesspool. Absolute ridiculousness imo. We have the technology to avoid all of this bullshit and simply are choosing to ignore it.I read that article and it said TCL's QD TV was supposed to come out this November.
Also I don't know about the credence of this statement lol:
"Pretty much comparable", huh.
Here's hoping some lucky engineer comes up with a way to improve yields on those OLEDs. Otherwise we're going to be stuck with "pretty much comparable".
They abandoned it because there aren't enough people like you and me who prefer it. It's lamentable. But in the end, inevitable.
Sorta like the Free-to-Play/Microtransaction model in MMOs. I freakin' hate it. But I don't hate those deciding to implement it. They go where the money and the people are. Can't blame 'em.
CRTs died because people, on the whole, aren't very discriminating about their display quality. Nobody I know (IRL) actually cares about "black levels" like we do. Even when shown a superior CRT side-by-side with an LCD, they'll choose the LCD for what we consider ridiculous reasons.
Whatyagonnado? It sucks. But that's the way it is.
The only way we're going to get anything like CRT-quality back is if we find a viable technology that has the qualities we value and the qualities your average consumer values (thin, light, bleh) and then it's made affordable enough to overcome the "good is the enemy of the best" issue. Obviously, you've given up on OLED (since you "stand by" your assertion we'll never see monitors). But some of us still think OLED has a reasonable chance of being that technology. And we've presented good evidence for why that hope is reasonable.
Sorta like the Free-to-Play/Microtransaction model in MMOs. I freakin' hate it. But I don't hate those deciding to implement it. They go where the money and the people are. Can't blame 'em.
CRTs died because people, on the whole, aren't very discriminating about their display quality. Nobody I know (IRL) actually cares about "black levels" like we do. Even when shown a superior CRT side-by-side with an LCD, they'll choose the LCD for what we consider ridiculous reasons.
Whatyagonnado? It sucks. But that's the way it is.
The only way we're going to get anything like CRT-quality back is if we find a viable technology that has the qualities we value and the qualities your average consumer values (thin, light, bleh) and then it's made affordable enough to overcome the "good is the enemy of the best" issue. Obviously, you've given up on OLED (since you "stand by" your assertion we'll never see monitors). But some of us still think OLED has a reasonable chance of being that technology. And we've presented good evidence for why that hope is reasonable.
For TV's. For the 28th time it's got squat to do with the title of this discussion or the OP's question. Would you please at least attempt an honest answer to it instead of parroting the same nebulous marketing horseshit we've gotten for 10+ years about what may be coming sometime in a future that never, ever seems to actually get here.
Carrot. Stick.
Well it's good to see you never became bitter about it!
But seriously, laptops. Enough said. The only choice was to focus on lcd tech because that was the only game in town. Also, people preferred thinner displays over better quality screens.
As for the lg oled hatred, can someone explain the pros and cons of lgs white oled approach vs samsungs rgb approach? Does the latter produce better color? Better contrast? Better what? Efficiency? If it is mostly something like the latter, then that is a non issue in the home display market since the devices are hooked up to a wall.
For the 29th time, you were clearly shitting upon the manufacturing technique/technology (WRGB) as a whole. So whether the review was about TVs or monitors is 100% irrelevant. You simply said the WRGB OLED in general was a "scam" that was "vastly inferior". . . "fake OLED". . . and would result in "washed out IQ." So, a review of that very same technology being used in a television today is 100% relevant to disprove your baseless assertions.
Anyone can see that. Except you, apparently. Because if you did, you'd have to admit just how badly you've been talking out of your ass.
Now, quick! Quote just that last sentence, reply to it with another statement of the obvious (there are no OLED monitors) and then pretend all the rest didn't happen!
--H
From the LG OLED TV review:
"There's also more than one type of OLED display. Traditional emissive TVs like Samsung's KN55S9C OLED and most plasmas use three subpixels, one each for RGB (red, green, and blue), to create each actual pixel. LG's WRGB OLED TV system, on the other hand, uses OLED material of all three colors sandwiched together, in combination with four filters (clear [or white], red, green, and blue) for each pixel. The additional white subpixel in the LG design is said to add brightness, helping power efficiency."
Others have said that this technique has dramatically improved their yields and is the reason we'll see larger mass-produced TVs next year from LG.
What isn't in dispute (despite claims to the contrary by Jeff who bizarrely won't retract them because "it's a TV") is that WRGB OLED is neither "fake" nor "vastly inferior" based upon the glowing reviews of that TV using the tech. It delivers exactly what OLED has always promised to deliver. Infinite contrast, etc.
JeffDC, do you stand by this or not?
I tire of playing with you. The above has been proven demonstrably wrong. One can only speculate about why you wrote it, but having staked your original arguments on poor OLED yields prior, it seems likely that you just weren't willing to concede that LG's yield increase was legit. So you just made shit up out of whole cloth to discredit it in order to save face. Since you can't back up what you wrote and refuse to cite your "reading". . . just admit it and salvage what is left of your dignity.
Last edited:
That is not true. It takes current G2 (i.e. the current setting, NOT the number saved in the monitor's non-volatile memory, which btw is why Hurin's directions easily could and no doubt did cause overbrightness problems for some or many people) and bumps it up not down, thereby "restoring" the monitor to "original" quality. The only way to increase brightness and contrast is to raise G2 not lower it. See here for more details if interested.
Long story short, LG realized like everyone else that RGB OLED isn't viable for large panels, so they had to either abandon it entirely or come up with a kludge. It is impossible even in theory for WRGB to provide the same gamut range and purity as RGB, the white pixels serve as little more than pixel-sized backlights.
The larger issue and the one relevant to the OP's question is that LG have no plans to use or adapt WRGB technology for computer monitors, and none of the few existing OLED monitor manufacturers have plans to produce affordable OLED models. For the last time, these claims are either true or they are not.
Wow. . . you should rush over to the FW900 thread and let everyone know! After all, a lot of people have been fixing their green tint problems and not complaining of any overbrightness issues over there. And as I said, this was hardly "my tip" but was instead the OP's tip and that of many others. I merely consolidated information from the thread which the OP then edited into the top.
But congrats on successfully distracting at least one person from the fact that you are talking out of your ass via a ten year-old post that is entirely irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure I've gotten things wrong in posts about CPUs and SSDs too. Feel free to go looking for those too! Of course, you'll also find that when I got something wrong, I was mature about it and just admitted it. You should try that some time.
Let's review what is actually relevant to this discussion.
- You claimed that OLED would never be viable because yields were so low.
- When it was pointed out that yields aren't as low as you claimed, rather than admit your error, you just asserted that they only fixed their yields via a manufacturing technique that is "vastly inferior" and will lead to "fake OLED" with "washed out IQ."
- Seeming to be unaware that WRGB panels are already out and in use, I posted a review where no such drawbacks to WRGB are evident. Indeed, the review positively gushes over the perfect contrast and states it's the best TV ever reviewed.
- Now, again instead of admitting you were wrong, you asserted that TV reviews aren't relevant here. Which is just, pardon me, fucking stupid given that you were criticizing (without evidence) the WRGB process.
- When I explained to you why ignoring a TV review was blatantly, fucking stupid (I used nicer terms back then), you then said that you could prove WRGB was inferior because it hadn't yet been used in a monitor. Which, is not only fucking stupid but demonstrates a total lack of understanding of logic and critical thinking (at which point I tried to educate you, but alas, failed).
You said OLED was doomed because of yields. That was wrong. You said the only way they fixed yields was via "fake OLED" that ruins IQ. That too was wrong. So then you just started spouting even more nonsense until you finally had to just start bringing up unrelated posts I made ten years ago to try to distract from your ass-talking.
There, everyone's up to speed now. You speak of what you do not know and allude to authorities and "reading" that you never, ever cite (the only link you have provided regarding quantum dot tech does not address or substantiate your yields or WRGB assertions, and indeed appears to be presented only to distract). So now, in your newest post, we're to just take your word that it's a "kluge" over the glowing reviews of that technology in action. Well done.
Last edited:
IMO (not just mine in the household) you need psychological help. Now we need to find out how the ignore function works on this site.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDC View Post
So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices."
Yep, answer this.
Originally Posted by JeffDC View Post
So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices."
Yep, answer this.
Incidentally, as you tend to do, you have posted a link to an entire thread that, upon someone taking the time to read it (because you didn't link any specific post), doesn't actually say what you claim it says. Nowhere does it say that G2 is increased relative to the OSD brightness setting. And, I would also point out that one of the experts over there is the same person who began the FW900 thread here, and is the very same person who first recommended the very tip you now assert is "moronic." FYI, for you, that's another "oops!"
But, I did go ahead and post a note to the FW900 thread alerting them to your concerns (though I didn't mention you by name). There is already doubt being expressed that your concern is valid and that OSD brightness will have the effect you allege when running Image Restore. But since you don't actually seem concerned enough to bring it to their attention, I felt a responsibility to do so.
--H
Time will tell who's right, I based the comments on simple logic (white pixels = kludge, even according to LG). Did they or did they not say they were getting 10% yields on their RGB OLED panels? Why am I on the defensive for a claim that LG themselves have already admitted. If psychologically you're better able to deal with it, replace the word fake in my term with kludged. Any better? Are you less angry? Good. We'll put away the feel wheel.
Bottom line imo: let's see where LG's WRGB is one year from now. And then two. Between the alternate (and 95% less expensive) also-kludged technologies from China and the upcoming IPS panels with X-sync gimmicks, imo OLED in is already dead and simply awaits final burial.
No. This is dodging and obfuscation again. You said that WRGB is vastly inferior as a reason to dismiss LG's increased yields. You said that it will have "washed out IR." This is not a claim by you subject to a "wait and see" approach. The technology is in use today and a review was presented to you. And you simply refuse to admit that it destroys your baseless assertions about that technology and the nature of LG's increased yields.
More succinctly, you still pretend that you were only talking about whether WRGB would eventually work in monitors. But you were clearly stating that WRGB was crap and therefore LG's increased yields were illegitimate. That's entirely different. And we don't need to wait to see that your assertions about WRGB in real-world performance scenarios is utter horseshit.
Where exactly did LG admit that their WRGB technology is "inferior" or even a "kluge?" If this isn't another one of your outright fabrications, I have to assume it's at least a dramatic exaggeration (to which you've also been prone).
Well, if our happiness is your concern, I think both he and I would feel better if you would just say: "I didn't know about the performance of that WRGB OLED TV when I wrote that WRGB was "fake" and "vastly inferior." Now that I've read it, I may have judged it too harshly."
Instead, you say ridiculously stupid things to avoid just admitting that you were wrong.
That's fine. You can believe that. But your assertions about yields were proven to be false. And then the basis for your dismissal of those new yield numbes ("fake OLED") was likewise demonstrated to be false. So you can keep believing what you believe despite the reasons you specified being dismantled handily. Nobody can stop you. But you can't keep pretending that what you said stands up to any scrutiny.
OLED may in fact not succeed in the monitor segment. But just not for any of the BS, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false reasons you specified.
Nobody other than Sony engineers know the internal workings of their image restore feature, but AFAIK (and read, e.g. Irontic's longrunning discussion on this topic is excellent imo) the two possible results are that G2 is either bumped up or it is not. It is never decreased. What I do know for sure is that your specific instructions (yes I was a victim too) did something to my F500R that I was able to undo only with six weeks of research into building a service cable and finding/installing/using Sony's DAS. You horse's ass.
Also I've read at least three dozen reports over the years of other F-series monitors made permanently overbright by your procedure, so while nobody can be sure I'm fairly certain the function actually looks at the monitor's current brightness and contrast settings.LOL. I just simply call bullshit. Such detail only now? And your own personal story only now no less? Where are these other people? Links please. Where do they say they raised brightness and then ran Image Restore according to "my" instructions? Put up or STFU.Nobody other than Sony engineers know the internal workings of their image restore feature, but AFAIK (and read, e.g. Irontic's longrunning discussion on this topic is excellent imo) the two possible results are that G2 is either bumped up or it is not. It is never decreased. What I do know for sure is that your specific instructions (yes I was a victim too) did something to my F500R that I was able to undo only with six weeks of research into building a service cable and finding/installing/using Sony's DAS. You horse's ass.
I love the "only Sony knows" and ending with "nobody can be sure". . . but in between is your own harrowing tale, only brought up now, and vague references to the vast suffering of others. Jesus, man. Just stop.
And, it's downright priceless that you demean me as a "moron" merely for consolidating a page of tips, and yet then suddenly drop your own affectation of expertise to declare that "my" dastardly tip sucked you in and hurt your monitor. Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows? Not that you did. Because, based upon all the dishonesty you've spouted in this thread as well as the shifting narrative right here, I just simply don't believe you.
If any of that were true. If you did indeed read that tip, increase your brightness, run Image Restore, and then find your monitor's G2 level harmed. . . and actually suspected that tip in and of itself to be the culprit. . . why on earth didn't you post anything to that thread over the last several years alerting everyone to the potential harm?!? Are you so selfish that you spotted a problem, fixed it for yourself, and then just left others to suffer the same fate?!?
Congrats though, a successful distraction from your other ridiculous posts is obviously underway!
--H
I've seen LG's, Samsungs Sonys and Panasonics OLED TVs, presentation wise, Panasonic and Sony were vastly superior to Samsung and LG, simply for being put in a dark Area at IFA 2013, so comparison is difficult.
I found LGs offering adequate, as stated before, the only thing hindering their use as Monitors is a lack of smaller models well below 50". Power consumption with 100 watts is decent, too, and considering the advantages over LCD as of now there really is not much of a reason to not go for LG OLEDs if you are willing to pay extra.
WRGB has the advantage that you have no issue with color shift due to different aging speeds of Red Blue and Green OLEDs. Instead of trying and failing to synchronize three colors over time you merely put color filters before them and have the same color balance over time as all WLEDs age about the same.
The Filters do lessen the Luminance of the filtered colors, just like in LCDs. Which is why they use a clear Filter to make up for the loss.
The reason why newer LCD got less power consumption is largely due to better more transparent color filters, apart from energy efficient LED backlighting replacing CCFL bulbs.
I haven't really cared much for the intricacies of LGs OLED tech for now due to the pricetag, but seeing they become affordable that will change. But even from my limited on hand experience and understanding of their tech at this time I see no reason not to get a OLED of theirs if it fits my needs.
Without a 20-28" OLED however I highly doubt i will ever make the full switch to a OLED monitor config,
using my plasma as a monitor isn't all that great, it is simply too large to be comfortable, apart from not being 4k of course.
If Samsung can make 10" OLED tablets, they sure as hell could go and make 20" 1080p Computer screens, but they are not.
My guess, there is no money in it. At least not until the industry starts to fab up, until then it is far more efficient to just run the same old LCD fabs and make money without spending much.
LG is fabbing up and likely at some point may consider OLED monitors,
you can make 4 25"~ 1080p panels out of a 50~" 4k, so we may start seeing monitor sized OLEDs,
but not in the next few years.
I found LGs offering adequate, as stated before, the only thing hindering their use as Monitors is a lack of smaller models well below 50". Power consumption with 100 watts is decent, too, and considering the advantages over LCD as of now there really is not much of a reason to not go for LG OLEDs if you are willing to pay extra.
WRGB has the advantage that you have no issue with color shift due to different aging speeds of Red Blue and Green OLEDs. Instead of trying and failing to synchronize three colors over time you merely put color filters before them and have the same color balance over time as all WLEDs age about the same.
The Filters do lessen the Luminance of the filtered colors, just like in LCDs. Which is why they use a clear Filter to make up for the loss.
The reason why newer LCD got less power consumption is largely due to better more transparent color filters, apart from energy efficient LED backlighting replacing CCFL bulbs.
I haven't really cared much for the intricacies of LGs OLED tech for now due to the pricetag, but seeing they become affordable that will change. But even from my limited on hand experience and understanding of their tech at this time I see no reason not to get a OLED of theirs if it fits my needs.
Without a 20-28" OLED however I highly doubt i will ever make the full switch to a OLED monitor config,
using my plasma as a monitor isn't all that great, it is simply too large to be comfortable, apart from not being 4k of course.
If Samsung can make 10" OLED tablets, they sure as hell could go and make 20" 1080p Computer screens, but they are not.
My guess, there is no money in it. At least not until the industry starts to fab up, until then it is far more efficient to just run the same old LCD fabs and make money without spending much.
LG is fabbing up and likely at some point may consider OLED monitors,
you can make 4 25"~ 1080p panels out of a 50~" 4k, so we may start seeing monitor sized OLEDs,
but not in the next few years.
Look at my length of account here a little closer. Not sure how far back the archives go but we got the problem sorted also thanks to this site. No grudges because it was a blessing in disguise. I was so impressed with the capabilities of Sony's DAS I drilled a hole in the back of the monitor (it still sits 1.5 feet away as I type this) for the service cable.
Will do on that one. It's based on anecdotal memory, and I know you were simply reposting somebody else's instructions because I've seen it posted elsewhere over the years. The simple fact is that nobody knows what effects cranking the brightness has on Sony's image restore function, despite claims of knowledge made in the procedure, and the other simple fact is that the procedure, followed to the letter, screwed up our own monitor.
Randomoneh
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2012
- Messages
- 44
Aging of the white element could cause a color shift.You take for granted that aging of the white element causes only a decrease in luminance while color temperature of the white element might change as well.
Yet prior. . .
I appreciate the suddenly changed tone. Yet can you please explain it?
Please also note that prior you stated with absolute certainty that "It takes current G2 (i.e. the current setting, NOT the number saved in the monitor's non-volatile memory. . . and bumps it up not down." Now you at least admit that "nobody knows what effects cranking the brightness has on Sony's image restore function."
Look, I'm tired. Aren't you? I actually do appreciate that you moderated what otherwise was a rather unfair attack. And my pointing out the change above will be the last "shot" I take at you.
Why don't we just both leave it now. I'm worn out. I have only taken it this far because you originally came into this thread with a (perceived by me at least) tone that essentially said: "If you still believe in this tech, you're a fucking moron". . . and that grates on people when that tone is accompanied by questionable evidence and/or logic.
I feel I have amply demonstrated where that evidence and logic was lacking. I assume you still disagree. I'm happy to leave it there if you like. And I will even apologize for the more heated and flabbergasted rhetoric I have used up until this point. That's unfortunately how I get when I feel I have someone pinned but they just won't say "uncle" so we can part friends.
The shame of it all is that we fundamentally agree about CRT superiority and the market forces that forced them out. . . and I think we both lament current display technology.
If you're willing to let bygones be bygones, let the merits of our respective positions lay where they are, and accept my apology for just being one of those people who can't just "let shit go". . . we can wrap this up?
Sorry that it went this far. I leave the floor to you.
--H
/thread