Why is display/monitor market such a shite?

euskalzabe said:
Well, yeah. MicroLED is the goal, but that's 5-10 years out, easily. FALD and possibly MiniLED could be affordable in the next 3 years (but probably won't be).
Click to expand...

Sooner than that unless you're insisting on MicroLED for sub-pixels only, or non super premium prices. Innolux is working on a 32" 4k 144hz IPS display with a ~1,000,000 zone FALD backlight and HDR1000 certification. At ~8 pixels per dimming zone, unless it has major light bleeding issues between adjacent zones it should be close enough to pure emissive displays to not matter.

Assuming the price isn't utterly ridiculous or has a deal breaking flaw, I'll probably be buying one because 5k appears to be effectively dead (no one is working on new panels), and there's no indications of anyone thinking about 6k. While 8k doesn't have any activity in the consumer monitor space; and with diminishing returns from higher DPIs is serious overkill for sub 40" displays.

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/innolux-latest-panel-development-plans-june-2019/
 
Cost on OLED is certainly dropping, but you have to consider the cost of LCD monitors, which are very high relatively speaking. We have two very different markets running tangentially, and that's a problem, with LCD's generally offering very poor value for money at present. It's why you have so many PC users now considering switching to a 55" OLED TV which can be had for less than the price of a high end 27" LCD monitor!! It's crazy!! This creates a serious problem when it comes to integrating OLED monitors into the PC marketplace, but as mentioned, this isn't happening for the foreseeable future anyway, as no one is even talking about making OLED panels at smaller sizes, let alone doing it. For the time being, it's an entirely moot discussion really. HDMI 2.1 on GPUs in the future may force the issue somewhat, but the impracticality of 55" is always going to be an issue for most, and even the upcoming LG 48" doesn't solve that.

Besides, we will ALWAYS come back to the burn-in issue, and for people like myself who have their computers on 16+ hours, 7 days a week (as do many PC users, especially those who work from home), it's a SERIOUS risk, many orders of magnitude more so than with TVs. For casual use, occassional gaming etc. no problem for the most part, but this is why burn-in isn't covered under warranty by TV manufacturers... they don't consider it a fault under normal use, which is up to a few hours a day. As nice as it is, OLED simply isn't designed for the long term use that PC's endure. This hasn't even been sufficiently tested on the scale that it would be if they were widespread in monitors. The handful of people you see on forums who claim to have been running OLED for years without issue are as much anecdotal evidence as those who experience burn-in after just a few months. I don't believe it will occur on EVERY panel, and is probably down to individual panel characteristics (so you enter into that lottery when buying), but the point is that if it DOES occur (perhaps through no fault of the user), you won't even be covered under warranty! If this DOES become a prevalent issue, it will kill OLED pretty quick for the PC market (or at the very least keep prices sky high on such monitors), and manufacturers know this. This is assuming further advances can't be made to prevent/mitigate burn-in... it's better than it was years ago I believe, so who knows what they can do in the future?

The above mentioned Innolux panel, plus Asus' Mini LED due next year, and others in the pipeline with significantly higher dimming zones etc., hold more promise for actual PC use case scenarios (and are actual products in existence, unlike smaller OLED)... but of course these examples will be silly money at first. Still, the tech here should eventually trickle down. We have FAR from reached the pinnacle of what LCD can achieve, so I do find it amusing when I see people screaming for OLED as though LCD is dead in the water already. It really isn't, but manufacturers need to get their fingers out their backside, listen to the consumer and stop producing overpriced junk.

Ultimately though, that's where we are at an impasse... you can't have $4000 LCD monitors (as the Asus ProArt range is), and then undercut that with an OLED that does everything better. The disruption that would result from this would be too severe for the market to bear.
 
Last edited:
bananadude said:
Ultimately though, that's where we are at an impasse... you can't have $4000 LCD monitors (as the Asus ProArt range is), and then undercut that with an OLED that does everything better. The disruption that would result from this would be too severe for the market to bear.
Click to expand...

Let's not resort to arguing conspiracy theories keeping OLED out of the market. Markets get disrupted all the time. Expect the first OLED monitors to be Expensive and be in the ProArt range. In fact I linked one of those.
 
Snowdog said:
Let's not resort to arguing conspiracy theories keeping OLED out of the market. Markets get disrupted all the time. Expect the first OLED monitors to be Expensive and be in the ProArt range. In fact I linked one of those.
Click to expand...

It's hardly a conspiracy, you just need to LOOK at the state of the market. Yes it COULD be disrupted, but there is clearly zero interest in doing so yet. Alienware's obscenely priced 55" OLED is evidence of that. Value in the PC monitor market sector is the sole purview of crappy TN panels. A £30,000 OLED monitor shown two years doesn't really say very much, other than to indicate it's technically possible to make them this size (which is obvious)... but needless to say, no one is going to be buying OLED at even half this price. Of course, no one should be expecting them to be cheap, which is why conversation surrounding them in relation to the existing LCD market (ALREADY very expensive), is somewhat redundant. Few people are going to be able to afford these smaller OLEDs when they arrive, which will be years away anyway. People fed up with the state of the current monitor market (like the OP of this thread) just need to forget about OLED for now, because it ain't happening in a time frame that anyone wants. FALD and other advanced LCD tech will be sooner, but hardly affordable soon enough either. We're going to be in the state we're in now for quite some time yet.
 
bananadude said:
People fed up with the state of the current monitor market (like the OP of this thread) just need to forget about OLED for now, because it ain't happening in a time frame that anyone wants. FALD and other advanced LCD tech will be sooner, but hardly affordable soon enough either. We're going to be in the state we're in now for quite some time yet.
Click to expand...

"People" being an extreme tiny niche. They sell hundreds of millions of LCD monitors. ZERO of my RL friends complain about LCD monitors or LCD TVs.

Hence the problem trying to sell any more expensive technology, most people are already happy and unwilling to pay more than $200 for a monitor.

Which is why it is will be aimed at broadcaster or imaging professionals, like that professional £30,000 broadcast OLED, or that £4000 Asus Pro-Art OLED. So they already exist. You just don't like the price.
 
Snowdog said:
"People" being an extreme tiny niche. They sell hundreds of millions of LCD monitors. ZERO of my RL friends complain about LCD monitors or LCD TVs.

Hence the problem trying to sell any more expensive technology, most people are already happy and unwilling to pay more than $200 for a monitor.

Which is why it is will be aimed at broadcaster or imaging professionals, like that professional £30,000 broadcast OLED, or that £4000 Asus Pro-Art OLED. So they already exist. You just don't like the price.
Click to expand...


Of course, no one likes the price... but your original point stated "OLED monitors will be the real leap forward when they arrive for Desktops"... well yes, but this is nebulous, could be said of many technologies, and they quite simply aren't arriving in any realistic time frame that affects 99% of us. Pertaining to the OP's reason for starting this thread, OLED is entirely redundant... for now.
 
bananadude said:
Of course, no one likes the price... but your original point stated "OLED monitors will be the real leap forward when they arrive for Desktops"... well yes, but this is nebulous, could be said of many technologies, and they quite simply aren't arriving in any realistic time frame that affects 99% of us. Pertaining to the OP's reason for starting this thread, OLED is entirely redundant... for now.
Click to expand...

The OP is tiny niche, of a tiny niche, of a tiny niche. He is still using a CRT FFS!

When you are complaining about the market, and you represent less than 0.001% of that market. The problem isn't the market, the problem is you.
 
Snowdog said:
The OP is tiny niche, of a tiny niche, of a tiny niche. He is still using a CRT FFS!

When you are complaining about the market, and you represent less than 0.001% of that market. The problem isn't the market, the problem is you.
Click to expand...


I was mostly referring to your comment, which itself was replying to someone bemoaning expensive LCD monitors. My singular point is that OLEDs aren't arriving for desktop as you stated (not for many years yet), and you yourself have agreed they aren't going to be remotely affordable when they do. It's almost like you're arguing against yourself.
 
bananadude said:
I was mostly referring to your comment, which itself was replying to someone bemoaning expensive LCD monitors. My singular point is that OLEDs aren't arriving for desktop as you stated (not for many years yet), and you yourself have agreed they aren't going to be remotely affordable when they do. It's almost like you're arguing against yourself.
Click to expand...

We don't know when a more mainstream OLED will arrive on the desktop (by more mainstream, I mean under $5000). It could be next year. Just because it isnt' pre-announced, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Pretty much NOTHING other than LCD is available now. Low zone FALD desktops are both expensive and inadequate for monitor usage.

Foreseeable future options include OLED, very high (>1000) zone FALD, and Dual Layer LCD. All have unknown arrival dates, and all will come with very high prices.

Of those OLED will have the best picture quality.
 
Snowdog said:
We don't know when a more mainstream OLED will arrive on the desktop (by more mainstream, I mean under $5000). It could be next year. Just because it isnt' pre-announced, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Pretty much NOTHING other than LCD is available now. Low zone FALD desktops are both expensive and inadequate for monitor usage.

Foreseeable future options include OLED, very high (>1000) zone FALD, and Dual Layer LCD. All have unknown arrival dates, and all will come with very high prices.

Of those OLED will have the best picture quality.
Click to expand...


No, I guarantee that mainstream OLED will not be arriving next year lol! We would have heard about it already. Categorically 100% not next year, I will put money on that. Road maps and panel production plans are known LONG in advance, and something like OLED coming to mainstream monitor market at smaller sizes is not a secret that could be kept. The LG 48" was known about long ago, and that's not arriving until next year.

OLED has best picture quality but as previously mentioned, the burn-in issues cannot simply be ignored... and you can bet the manufacturers are aware of this potential issue.

We know (expensive) monitors with FALD, dual layer, more dimming zone, Mini-LED etc... all LCD variants... are on the horizon. This is known, discussed and some even announced. This cannot be said regards OLED, not at all.
 
Last edited:
bananadude said:
We know (expensive) monitors with FALD, dual layer, more dimming zone, Mini-LED etc... all LCD variants... are on the horizon. This is known, discussed and some even announced. This cannot be said regards OLED, not at all.
Click to expand...

Dual Layer consumer monitors? Where?
 
viivo said:
Because dumb people care more about super high refresh rates than quality displays. There's no reason 1920x1080 monitors should still be produced, .
Click to expand...
Why not? LCD do not scale well at all. and one might have a lot of stuff in 1080p so having a 1080p monitor would be more ideal, on top of that 1080p for gamer means not having to have such a costly video card and not everyone wants to shell out for a high res monitor
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
And we have seen more than prototypes of OLED, we have actual products of nearly every size.
Click to expand...

This is completely besides the point... there is ZERO moderately sized OLED product heading for the mainstream desktop market. Absolutely none, not even industry talk of it. Your original comment was directed at someone who was moaning about LCD's being expensive. I have no idea what your point is other than OLED might one day arrive in PC monitors, but when it does it will be crazy expensive... on this I agree with you.
 
bananadude said:
This is completely besides the point... there is ZERO moderately sized OLED product heading for the mainstream desktop market. Absolutely none, not even industry talk of it. Your original comment was directed at someone who was moaning about LCD's being expensive. I have no idea what your point is other than OLED might one day arrive in PC monitors, but when it does it will be crazy expensive... on this I agree with you.
Click to expand...

My comments were aimed at all technologies,and originally someone hoping for MicroLED which is MUCH farther from market than OLED, which is actually here.

In comparison to MicroLED, OLED is a near term reality. MicroLED is a far flung future possibility.
 
Snowdog said:
My comments were aimed at all technologies,and originally someone hoping for MicroLED which is MUCH farther from market than OLED, which is actually here.

In comparison to MicroLED, OLED is a near term reality. MicroLED is a far flung future possibility.
Click to expand...


Yes forget MicroLED, so far away it's not even worth thinking about. OLED is certainly further along that journey, but still isn't 'here'... not in the sense that we want it to be. 55" as a desktop monitor obviously doesn't work. Even 40" would be too much for most people, although plenty would buy it I'm sure (in spite of potential burn-in issues). 32" would be ideal of course, the sweet spot for 4K at a typical desk set-up when your eyes are 70-80cm from the screen. Any single indicator that this will happen? Nope. Yes, there's a 30" OLED, which has seemingly risen 25% in price in the past two years and now costs £40K... amazing progress!!

Looking at the existing OLED options and getting excited about OLED coming to desktop makes about as much sense as looking at that real life rocket man dude and getting all giddy at the prospect of our own affordable jet propulsion transport systems that we'll soon be zipping around the skies wearing! :ROFLMAO:
 
Snowdog said:
In comparison to MicroLED, OLED is a near term reality. MicroLED is a far flung future possibility.
Click to expand...

Not really. MicroLED is a decade away easily for the consumer market. OLED is not feasible because those taskbars will be burn into your display in about 4 months of 10h+ daily regular use.

MiniLED, however, is already here. A 1000 zone display wouldn't be too terrible, yet provide a tangible benefit compared to edge-lit. It just needs to not cost $1500+. If anyone releases a 32" 4K DCIP3 1000 zone display for $700, I'll buy it on day 1. So basically, I'm asking half cost of what they're priced at now (with the exception of when they're targeted for the pro market, where the cost is artificially bumped to $2500+).

Don't think my wish will be granted until 2022-3 at least. Certainly not because it's not economically feasible, but because of market stagnation. Manufacturers don't need to stop selling $200 monitors. They do, however, need to stop selling the garbage $700-1000 1440p/4K monitors with crap contrast LCDs they're selling. LCD is now the 200-400 territory. It's no longer any sort of good value at $500 and above, period.
 
euskalzabe said:
Not really. MicroLED is a decade away easily for the consumer market. OLED is not feasible because those taskbars will be burn into your display in about 4 months of 10h+ daily regular use.

MiniLED, however, is already here. A 1000 zone display wouldn't be too terrible, yet provide a tangible benefit compared to edge-lit. It just needs to not cost $1500+. If anyone releases a 32" 4K DCIP3 1000 zone display for $700, I'll buy it on day 1. So basically, I'm asking half cost of what they're priced at now (with the exception of when they're targeted for the pro market, where the cost is artificially bumped to $2500+).

Don't think my wish will be granted until 2022-3 at least. Certainly not because it's not economically feasible, but because of market stagnation. Manufacturers don't need to stop selling $200 monitors. They do, however, need to stop selling the garbage $700-1000 1440p/4K monitors with crap contrast LCDs they're selling. LCD is now the 200-400 territory. It's no longer any sort of good value at $500 and above, period.
Click to expand...

I mean, we've had the ability to hide the Windows taskbar for... how many years now? ;)

Point being, there are easy fixes for avoiding burn in on the desktop. Hide the taskbar. Get rid of folders on your desktop (something I've always done, regardless of display). Grab some gorgeous 4K wallpapers and set them to slideshow so they change every 10 minutes. That and, one does not buy an OLED for just spreadsheet or browser work. If that's your intended use, then an OLED display just isn't for you.
 
euskalzabe said:
Not really. MicroLED is a decade away easily for the consumer market. OLED is not feasible because those taskbars will be burn into your display in about 4 months of 10h+ daily regular use.
Click to expand...

By that logic CRTs were never feasible. They burn in as well. I have seen a lot of CRTs with burn in.

They aren't going to replace all LCDs everywhere, but they are perfectly feasible for home monitors used for basic computing and gaming, for savvy users, who understand their nature and are willing to make adjustments to gain that higher performance.


MiniLED, however, is already here. A 1000 zone display wouldn't be too terrible, yet provide a tangible benefit compared to edge-lit. It just needs to not cost $1500+. If anyone releases a 32" 4K DCIP3 1000 zone display for $700, I'll buy it on day 1. So basically, I'm asking half cost of what they're priced at now (with the exception of when they're targeted for the pro market, where the cost is artificially bumped to $2500+).
Click to expand...

LOL! Dream on. They simply have ZERO incentive to sell expensive 1000 zone monitors cheaply, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. These are niche products that cost more to produce, and sell in lower volumes, so they have more up front costs to amortize/depreciate, making them even more expensive.

Whichever high end technology becomes available (OLED, Dual Layer, High Zone FALD) , you are pretty much always going to pay a huge premium for it. These are always going to be premium niche, with premium pricing.
 
Snowdog said:
LOL! Dream on. They simply have ZERO incentive to sell expensive 1000 zone monitors cheaply, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

And THAT is precisely my point. It is not that it's unfeasible. Or difficult to make. Or that people wouldn't buy it. Or that scale wouldn't deal with the cost.

It's that manufacturers have zero incentive to do this. We're not talking about selling it cheap. We're talking about not selling it at an obscenely overpriced range. They've been comfortably stagnant at 1080p/1440 60 for so long, they're not really trying to improve anymore. 4K60 took a while to go down in price, much later than TVs had already made 4K cheap as chips. It'll take TVs moving largely to 120hz for that to also become baseline in monitors, years too late. TVs have for a while now been doing FALD, so I guess as usual, 3/4/5 years too late, we'll get the same technology, implemented worse, and costing more money.

It's not that it can't be done. It's that they don't give a sh*t.
 
Nobody cares about the PC market maybe if the stuff was made in the USA it would be better off. It's all about the mobile market today it's easier to be a consumer than make a LCD factory like they are doing here in WI.
 
euskalzabe said:
And THAT is precisely my point. It is not that it's unfeasible. Or difficult to make. Or that people wouldn't buy it. Or that scale wouldn't deal with the cost.

It's that manufacturers have zero incentive to do this. We're not talking about selling it cheap. We're talking about not selling it at an obscenely overpriced range. They've been comfortably stagnant at 1080p/1440 60 for so long, they're not really trying to improve anymore. 4K60 took a while to go down in price, much later than TVs had already made 4K cheap as chips. It'll take TVs moving largely to 120hz for that to also become baseline in monitors, years too late. TVs have for a while now been doing FALD, so I guess as usual, 3/4/5 years too late, we'll get the same technology, implemented worse, and costing more money.

It's not that it can't be done. It's that they don't give a sh*t.
Click to expand...

It's unfeasible from a business case perspective. It's a niche product that costs more to build. It has to sell from MUCH higher price to compensate for both the higher manufacturing cost, and the costs associated with lower volume.

Not just cost more in relation to input costs either. You need a much higher margin as well, since you aren't making it up on volume.

Also you get feature creep. Since it's going to be expensive, it needs to tick all the boxes, with wider gamut, HDR certification, factory calibration, etc... driving more input costs, and more end user costs.

There is simply no way such a panel gets under $1000 in the foreseeable future.

On top of that, FALD is really poorly suited to desktop monitors (and is even overrated on TVs) until you hit massive amount of zones (making that much more expensive again). I doubt even 1000 zones will really be good. You end paying more for spec sheet benefits, than usability benefits.

The problem with FALD is that it doesn't really deliver the inky blacks, because of the way light from adjacent cells propagates a cross an LCD. Here a review of >$2000 FALD monitor:
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/acer/predator-x27

The FALD is fairly useless. Negatives here are poor dark room performance. IOW, the blacks still suck.
 
Last edited:
Basically it's a product on Amazon and people throw money at it. All of the monitors have bad reviews from bad user experiences except for Dell. ALIENWARE seems good because its Dell. It seems if your looking for a monitor that won't go all wonky on you go with Dell or Asus. When a monitor just dies on the user it's the last thing you want to purchase. The monitor market is like the gaming chair market.
 
Murzilka said:
Phones have OLED screens, people use 55" OLED TVs as desktop monitors, laptops have OLED displays, OLED watches, even motherboards have OLED displays on them.... I think OLED gaming monitors will eventually come. It's just a matter of time, technology and cartel consensus. OLED monitors will kill TNs, IPS, VAs monitors the same month they hit the shelves. And those panel technologies are not just ancient, the whole industries are built around them. The owners and other participants can't just switch everything to just making awesome OLED monitors - who will wait for months for the shitty IPS screens with piss yellow ips glow in corners that stretches almost to the center of the HDR 400 compatible screen? Noone. Everyone would just go and buy an OLED monitor. Even a 75hz Freesync or Gsync compatible OLED would suit many people more than the shitload of ips and va's 144hz+ panels that can't keep up with stated refresh rates any way because of artifacts.
Click to expand...

Most people don't realize that while a phone OLED has colored LEDs, TV OLED panels are white LEDs with color filters over each sub pixel. Very different.

I think the 16:9 aspect ratio is carryover from the CRT days. CRTs were limited to certain form factors by their scan technology. Modern displays are not limited to any one shape yet most of them still follow in the footsteps if the old tech.

I'm pretty happy with my 3x PG279QZ array except that it's just very hard to push. The 32:9 and the 38" UW monitors are a better form factor but I dont trust first gen monitors enough to be an early adopter.

I think 4K is inherently a bad idea for gaming and not worth the fill rate cost. At least not with current and near term GPUs. Do not want.
 
Last edited:
DoubleTap said:
Most people don't realize that while a phone OLED has colored LEDs, TV OLED panels are white LEDs with color filters over each sub pixel. Very different.
Click to expand...

Not that different. They still have the same benefits and drawbacks. LG probably went with filters to solve issues with weak blue OLED materials.


I think the 16:9 aspect ratio is carryover from the CRT days. CRTs were limited to certain form factors by their scan technology. Modern displays are not limited to any one shape yet most of them still follow in the footsteps if the old tech.
Click to expand...

I don't think 16:9 has anything to do with CRT. I have never seen a 16:9 CRT. IIRC it was simply a compromise between TV aspect(4:3), and various movie aspect ratios. Nothing special just a compromise for the new HDTV standard.


I think 4K is inherently a bad idea for gaming and not worth the fill rate cost. At least not with current and near term GPUs. Do not want.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I find it kind of silly that people chase 4K, then can't power it with their GPUs for gaming, and can't read text on Windows without scaling.
 
Snowdog said:
Agreed. I find it kind of silly that people chase 4K, then can't power it with their GPUs for gaming, and can't read text on Windows without scaling.
Click to expand...

MY 1080Ti can certainly push 4k, albeit with a few options dropped down to high (or in rare cases, medium), but I've certainly not noticed any significant performance issues; some stuttering here or there, but nothing major.

As for the concerns about burn in, I will say I use my LG TV as a PC display for literally hours on end, and the only thing I've seen that causes problems are fixed HUDs that do not have transparency options. As long as the HUD either fades, disappears during some sort of cut-scene/screen transition, or is transparent to some degree, I haven't observed any problems. Most games are good with that nowadays, though legacy games could be an issue.
 
Snowdog said:
Agreed. I find it kind of silly that people chase 4K, then can't power it with their GPUs for gaming, and can't read text on Windows without scaling.
Click to expand...

For me the scaling is the whole point of having a higher res display. Better text rendering. The only problem is that the sizes of 4K displays that are high refresh rate and low input lag are either too small 27" or too large.

For gaming a fair number of games run just fine at 4K and on the ones that don't you can use DLSS, slightly lower rendering resolution etc and have almost the same results as native. For example I'm now playing Control but with raytracing on my 2080 Ti can't handle my CRG9's full 5120x1440 resolution (which is close to 4K 16:9 pixels). So instead I have lowered the render resolution to 3840x1080 and use the Nvidia sharpen filter since the game does not work with DLSS at this res. The end result is not the same as native but good enough and when actually playing I won't notice that it's not quite as sharp. What I will notice is the RT effects and awesome visuals. Sure, I could use without scaling say 3440x1440 but the added width really adds to the experience in this game.

I went with super ultrawide because the XG438Q turned out to be a dud and the Acer CG437KP and ASUS XG43UQ are not out yet.
 
Dropped 1500€ for 3008WFP over 10 years ago and it's still on my desk now. That was upgrade from 21" TN 12x10 monitor and it was a huge upgrade. After that bought 24" 1080p 144Hz TN for FPS gaming several years later and upgraded that to 27" 1440p 165Hz IPS again later. Recently got 32" 4K 60Hz VA for semi-cheap desktop space and it's pretty much that same as the 3008WFP (except heat).

I have been waiting for that 32"+ 4K 120Hz+ VRR (HDR) or 38" ultrawide for so long, but at this point I think it's not going to happen ever. And that's without IPS or FALD glow or some similar crap compromise. I could use up to 3k€ immediately, because that would probably be on my desk for the next 10 years. I think eventually I have to move my LG OLED TV as the desktop :/
 
kasakka said:
For me the scaling is the whole point of having a higher res display. Better text rendering.
Click to expand...

Scaling would be great, if it actually worked well in Windows, but it doesn't. Lots of applications don't scale properly. Maybe if you just run Microsoft applications you are fine, but the 3rd party support is a mess.
 
Snowdog said:
Scaling would be great, if it actually worked well in Windows, but it doesn't. Lots of applications don't scale properly. Maybe if you just run Microsoft applications you are fine, but the 3rd party support is a mess.
Click to expand...

My experience is that a lot of applications people use actually work perfectly well. I'm sure you can always find plenty of apps to the contrary but most of the everyday stuff works perfectly fine. There is no getting around scaling issues if developers don't want to make sure their apps support it or you have to use legacy crap.
 
We got the fixed height stands gaming monitors with VA Qled panels.
We have those we have dead pixel policy for 3 years even though pixels die on a daily basis. Backlight bleed that makes your eyes bleed. Fans that make noise that cool down the hot garbage we have that. Ugly stands and bezels or no bezels that are still ugly.
 
kasakka said:
My experience is that a lot of applications people use actually work perfectly well. I'm sure you can always find plenty of apps to the contrary but most of the everyday stuff works perfectly fine. There is no getting around scaling issues if developers don't want to make sure their apps support it or you have to use legacy crap.
Click to expand...

It's funny you mention this because most of our customers with the money to buy high end \ high res displays also seem to run an industry specific, expensive as hell, application that won't scale properly. Not all the same application mind you, they just all seem to have one.
 
Kardonxt said:
It's funny you mention this because most of our customers with the money to buy high end \ high res displays also seem to run an industry specific, expensive as hell, application that won't scale properly. Not all the same application mind you, they just all seem to have one.
Click to expand...

Those are exactly the kind of apps I was talking about. Specialty professional apps with decades of development behind them are not easy to adapt to make use of newer frameworks that support scaling. Almost as bad are custom UI applications.

At the same time their developers are usually tasked with squashing bugs and implementing business features so nobody ever even gets around to doing something like adding scaling support because it's still a niche feature when most offices are still using very low res displays by this forum's standards.

Apple was smart when they threw out all the legacy baggage with Mac OS X and have forced developers' hand by deprecating older frameworks. Pretty much every app scales nicely but on the flip side the external display support is a shitshow. Apple's own displays will work great with suitable scaling options but anything else often ends up missing HiDPI options altogether etc.
 
oled i have been using c6 for my pc since for years and they only ir i get is very very small, can only been seen if i use 100% slides and look for it at night....for me its a non issue and by far the most amazing gaming upgrade i ever bought
 
I can tell you right now the TV market is saturated. Less and less people buying TVs since only a select crowd uses the TVs the older generations . The roku Netflix heads. When the fabrication plants get the motivation to produce oled screens in smaller formats everything will drop. LCDS will drop off like Crts did. It would be more profitable to produce Oled screens then again I never used one outside my smart phone and what they have on display at Walmart usually sold old out LGs.

I think the lcd market is in a downturn the reason why we are seeing shite displays.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Scaling would be great, if it actually worked well in Windows, but it doesn't. Lots of applications don't scale properly. Maybe if you just run Microsoft applications you are fine, but the 3rd party support is a mess.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the apps that don't implement scaling right happen to be the same ones that don't implement 4k in the first place. I haven't had a problem with any apps made in the past two or so years that I've used; it's mostly legacy apps that have issues.
 
Comixbooks said:
I can tell you right now the TV market is saturated. Less and less people buying TVs since only a select crowd uses the TVs the older generations . The roku Netflix heads. When the fabrication plants get the motivation to produce oled screens in smaller formats everything will drop. LCDS will drop off like Crts did. It would be more profitable to produce Oled screens then again I never used one outside my smart phone and what they have on display at Walmart usually sold old out LGs.

I think the lcd market is in a downturn the reason why we are seeing shite displays.
Click to expand...

This is so far off, it's barely worth thinking about. They're still making plenty of 1080p gaming monitors which I see enough people getting excited about, so LCD ain't going anywhere for a looooonnnng time yet. OLED has always been costly to produce, and while LG will be aiming at the more budget conscious consumer with their 48" OLED due next year, it's still not going to be 'cheap'. And besides, there is no indication anyone is interested in making smaller OLEDs for the PC market... and that really is the only market that would be interested, as few want a TV that small. The phone market is entirely different... millions of people need and want phones, with a big push for the latest and greatest. The PC monitor market is many magnitudes of niche below that, so not at all comparable. And let's not forget the burn-in issue, which absolutely will rear its head when people are using PC monitors for hours on end with browser windows, apps open etc. I see no serious future for OLED in this space, not outside professional/bleeding edge screens at exorbitant cost.
 
bananadude said:
And besides, there is no indication anyone is interested in making smaller OLEDs for the PC market...
Click to expand...

Actually JOLED is interested. They are specifically targeting mediums sized panels(10" to 32"), that would be bigger than mobile, and smaller than TVs.

JOLED Demos 21.6-Inch OLED Monitor for Gamers
At the show JOLED demonstrated a prototype of its 21.6-inch OLED display that was co-developed with Burning Core, a Japanese gamers team that JOLED sponsors. The monitor features a 1920×1080 resolution and was test driven at Finetech Japan.
In addition to a 21.6-inch Full-HD OLED panel, JOLED also has a high-contrast 21.6-inch Ultra-HD OLED panel in its arsenal. The company has been shipping a medical 21.6-inch 4K OLED display under its own brand (presumably only in Japan) since late 2017. Also, a similar (or the same) 21.6-inch Ultra-HD OLED panel is used by ASUS for its ProArt PQ22UC monitor that is yet to hit the market.
Click to expand...

Joled starts mass production of monitor OLED panels 10" to 32" next year
JOLED Inc. (headquartered in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; Representative Director and President: Tadashi Ishibashi; hereafter “JOLED”), which develops, manufactures, and sells organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, has been developing the world’s first printed OLED display mass-production lines, and started building production lines for the post-process at the recently established JOLED Chiba Site.

OLED displays by JOLED will be produced through the pre-process from the array process to the printed OLED process conducted at JOLED Nomi Site and the module process that constitutes the post-process, conducted at Chiba Site. After passing the final inspection, the completed display products are being shipped to customers from Chiba. The production capacity at Chiba Site will be approximately 220,000 units of OLED displays per month. Chiba Site is scheduled to start operations in 2020, simultaneously with Nomi Site.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this
I'm not terribly optimistic about JOLED, after the mixed review LTT gave the ASUS PG22UC (based on JOLED panel), and it's current $4k asking price. Granted, these panels are being produced on a pilot line, and the move to a full mass production line should bring some economies of scale to bear, but I'd be surprised if a 27-32" OLED reaches the realm of affordability in the next couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top