• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

I can't wait for OLED monitors

IceWind said:
I got the impression you were taking a stab at me, then I noticed the :p . Ung...I hate work, I get too stressed out
Click to expand...
It's alright. You must really love your job ;)
 
All I know is I'm anxious to get out of this monitor which I just spent like $500 Canadian on in January. It SCARES me that I want out of a product that cost that much, that I bought only a short time ago. I mean I'm not unhappy with the thing. It doesn't ghost AT ALL, and it's a lot brighter/overall nicer than my old 17" P.O.S. CRT.

However, the dead pixel and backlight leakage (albeit minimal) REALLY annoys me. Products that cost that much retail simply should not have factory defects on them. The whole LCD market just annoys me for that. If you pay an exorbidant amount of money on a monitor, you want it to be exactly what you want.

This is why I can't wait to jump on a nice, new, larger than 19" SED, or whatever the next generation monitor will be. Something that has a better contrast ratio, has better viewing angles than this TN LCD, has no dead pixels, no backlight leakage (or no backlight at all ;)), no dithering (this thing isn't true 16.7million colors only like 16.2mil, the rest are simulated), and hopefully doesn't cost an arm and a leg.



Does anyone know when the next generation monitors will be going mainstream (ie: Available on Newegg)?
 
Syndicated_Death said:
yes they do.. the phospher burns out.. I have a dead pixel on this viewsonic here and a friend of mine also has a viewsonic with the same prob, but my viewsonic at home is perfect
Click to expand...

Here's a picture of a dead pixel on my CRT, they're rare, but it happens.
deadpixel.jpg
 
Does the glass panel on SED's bother anyone else? I should also ask do SED displays exhibit the same 60hz flicker than regualr CRT's display?
 
peacetilence said:
Does the glass panel on SED's bother anyone else? I should also ask do SED displays exhibit the same 60hz flicker than regualr CRT's display?
Click to expand...

Dude, can we wait till they come out in full force before we start griping about them?
 
peacetilence said:
Does the glass panel on SED's bother anyone else? I should also ask do SED displays exhibit the same 60hz flicker than regualr CRT's display?
Click to expand...
There is no noticably flicker with SED displays, because the display isn't being scanned by a single set of electron emitters. Each pixel is driven directly, so even the concept of a refreshrate, much like with LCDs, doesn't apply anymore.

CRT haters annoy me.
 
logo29a said:
Does this include SED's? They're basically nothing more than a matrix of tiny CRT's. :cool:
Click to expand...
That's like saying that modern LCD screens are basically just blown up digital watch displays.
 
Araanor said:
That's like saying that modern LCD screens are basically just blown up digital watch displays.
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow at all.

SED's ARE a matrix of tiny CRT's. Each pixel is a very small cathode ray tube (CRT). Next time, think before you speak! ;)
 
Modern as well as ancient LCD displays use liquid crystals to block out light, same principle.

Hyperbole versus hyperbole.
 
Araanor said:
Modern as well as ancient LCD displays use liquid crystals to block out light, same principle.

Hyperbole versus hyperbole.
Click to expand...

That's fine except for the fact that I wasn't making a comparison, but rather stating a fact that was relevant to something IceWind said. Besides, it was a joke. Not only that, but it was a joke aimed at someone other than yourself. ;)
 
Mojo said:
...?
Click to expand...
SED displays should become available for those with less impressive budgets in 2007-2008. OLED displays might become available for the same people in 2009-2010, although this might be sooner.

Right now it's mostly a matter of SED Inc. releasing the first SED displays and seeing how the market reacts.
 
anybody think that theyll actually make these displays in sizes smaller than 30"? as i an actual computer display?

all they ever talk about is about how theyre gonna use them to make screens bigger than whats currently possible (ie +60"). i never hear anything about computer displays. there would be such a freakin big market for that...
 
the avergae computer monitor has been getting larger and larger, i wouldnt mind a display 30 inches but it would have to be the rez the one apple has.
 
TSS Modder said:
anybody think that theyll actually make these displays in sizes smaller than 30"? as i an actual computer display?

all they ever talk about is about how theyre gonna use them to make screens bigger than whats currently possible (ie +60"). i never hear anything about computer displays. there would be such a freakin big market for that...
Click to expand...
The reason they only talk about 50+" displays is because the profit margins on such big displays are the highest, as I mentioned previously in this thread.

Smaller displays will come eventually, depending on the production capacity and the market.
 
logo29a said:
An SED will have faster response times, better viewing angles, better color rendition, better contrast, and better blacks than LCD technology ever will. Once SED's start coming out there will be little reason to buy LCD's, period. There is so much money invested in LCD technology that I'm afraid it may delay SED technology. On the other hand, whoever gets there new tech out first will have a pretty advantageous head start.
Click to expand...
Seems you don't know too much about LCD technology..

SEDs do have a better response time than LCDs, but the actual LCDs response times are not the issue anymore with LCD displays. The issue is that a LCD is not an impulse display, but rather a sample and hold display. Black frame interleaving, scanning backlights, and frame rate interpolation to 120Hz take care a lot of these issues.

SEDs will not have any better color than CRTs. LCDs with LED backlights have no problem smoking CRTs in color reproduction. The latest VAN LCD panels do not have contrast problems. You eye can see about 100:1 at any instant. The best LCD panels can do 1200:1 ANSI (checkerboard). That's more than adequate for CR. In terms of black level, backlight modulation can push the dynamic range of a LCD to >10,000:1

So, SEDs aren't going to much if any performance advantage over LCDs. Whichever is cheaper to buy is going to dominate the market.
 
Stereodude said:
So, SEDs aren't going to much if any performance advantage over LCDs. Whichever is cheaper to buy is going to dominate the market.
Click to expand...
Presumably SED and OLED displays will be cheaper to produce than LCD displays, so even if all those displays can match each other in features, then the price may just be the decisive factor in favour of the former two.
 
TSS Modder said:
anybody think that theyll actually make these displays in sizes smaller than 30"? as i an actual computer display?

all they ever talk about is about how theyre gonna use them to make screens bigger than whats currently possible (ie +60"). i never hear anything about computer displays. there would be such a freakin big market for that...
Click to expand...

but how can you view a screen that is 40" or 45" or 50"? Remember you are sitting just 1 - 2 feet in front of the monitor.

For a game, yeah, but what if you are using a spreadsheet or viewing some graph? Your head needed to tilt all the way up and then all the way down. Either that or you need a chair that adjust its height and you have to keep going up or down to see the whole screen accurately.
 
Elledan said:
Presumably SED and OLED displays will be cheaper to produce than LCD displays, so even if all those displays can match each other in features, then the price may just be the decisive factor in favour of the former two.
Click to expand...
Price will definitely be the deciding factor, but I wouldn't hold my breath for cheap SED and OLED sets. OLEDs are not cheaper than LCDs in small sizes now. Where SED falls is hard to predict.
 
Stereodude said:
Seems you don't know too much about LCD technology..

SEDs do have a better response time than LCDs, but the actual LCDs response times are not the issue anymore with LCD displays. The issue is that a LCD is not an impulse display, but rather a sample and hold display. Black frame interleaving, scanning backlights, and frame rate interpolation to 120Hz take care a lot of these issues.
Click to expand...

Do we have any working displays out there with technology? A liquid crystal will always require a certain amount of time to reconfigure and it will always be slower than a CRT.

Stereodude said:
SEDs will not have any better color than CRTs. LCDs with LED backlights have no problem smoking CRTs in color reproduction. The latest VAN LCD panels do not have contrast problems. You eye can see about 100:1 at any instant. The best LCD panels can do 1200:1 ANSI (checkerboard). That's more than adequate for CR. In terms of black level, backlight modulation can push the dynamic range of a LCD to >10,000:1
Click to expand...

We'll wait and see. Besides, I was refering to current LCD technology as this was what the orignal poster was refering to. If a better LCD technology comes along, I am all for it. However, I believe that you are overhyping LED LCD's and that that technology is a long ways away. Do you have any sources that back up your claim that they will have better color rendition?

Your assertion that the human eye can only percieve 100:1 contrast is rediculous. The maximum limit is about 300:1. However, even small amounts of ambient light reduce the percieved contrast ratio of a display dramatically. For true blacks I wouldn't take anything lower than 2000:1. Backlight modulation is a solution for LCD's, but it certainly isn't a very elegant one. Nor will it be a cheap one.

Stereodude said:
So, SEDs aren't going to much if any performance advantage over LCDs. Whichever is cheaper to buy is going to dominate the market.
Click to expand...

You're way too certain of yourself and you're putting yourself at the mercy of those in charge of producing the technology. We know how SED's will perform. The new LCD technology is very iffy. All of the new LCD technologies you mentioned only allow LCD's to POSSIBLY match the performace of the upcoming SEDs. They make production far more complicated and expensive. I really don't see them catching on for quite a while. Even then, what would be the point?
 
Stereodude said:
You eye can see about 100:1 at any instant. The best LCD panels can do 1200:1 ANSI (checkerboard). That's more than adequate for CR. In terms of black level, backlight modulation can push the dynamic range of a LCD to >10,000:1
Click to expand...

The problem is, quoting dynamic range and contrast ratio figures to show LCDs have decent black-level performance is a red herring.

The black sucks; I don't care what the overall dynamic range is if the baseline black looks like some fuzzy 10% gray, no amount of dynamic range is going to make up for that. I don't care if it's 1,000,000,000:1, an unblack black just ruins everything.

Nick
 
The_Incubator said:
The problem is, quoting dynamic range and contrast ratio figures to show LCDs have decent black-level performance is a red herring.

The black sucks; I don't care what the overall dynamic range is if the baseline black looks like some fuzzy 10% gray, no amount of dynamic range is going to make up for that. I don't care if it's 1,000,000,000:1, an unblack black just ruins everything.

Nick
Click to expand...
You can't have a 1,000,000,000:1 CR and have a bad black. It's a ratio. The white aren't getting any brighter with new models and yet the CR is improving, so that would have to mean that black is getting darker.
 
logo29a said:
Do we have any working displays out there with technology? A liquid crystal will always require a certain amount of time to reconfigure and it will always be slower than a CRT.
Click to expand...
Hitachi has a 32" LCD with black frame interleaving.
We'll wait and see. Besides, I was refering to current LCD technology as this was what the orignal poster was refering to. If a better LCD technology comes along, I am all for it. However, I believe that you are overhyping LED LCD's and that that technology is a long ways away. Do you have any sources that back up your claim that they will have better color rendition?
Click to expand...
I'm not overhyping anything. You can buy LED BL LCDs now. Sony sells a 46" one called the Qualia 005. NEC is selling a 20.3" LED BL LCD monitor. Nearly everyday at work I work on LED BLs for LCDs. We measure the R, G, and B of the panels with CCFL BLs and white LED BL, and RGB LED BL. The RGB LED BLs cover the largest portion of the NTSC Ratio (and in some cases cover more than the 1953 NTSC primaries). Funny thing is the 1953 NTSC Primaries were discarded because they were deemed unattainable. Now pretty much every RGB BL LCD panel is over 100% NTSC ratio.
Your assertion that the human eye can only percieve 100:1 contrast is rediculous. The maximum limit is about 300:1. However, even small amounts of ambient light reduce the percieved contrast ratio of a display dramatically. For true blacks I wouldn't take anything lower than 2000:1. Backlight modulation is a solution for LCD's, but it certainly isn't a very elegant one. Nor will it be a cheap one.
Click to expand...
it's commonly accepted that somewhere between 100:1 and 200:1 is the limit. Regardless, the difference between 100:1 and 300:1 is pretty small when you're working on a log scale (which your eye does).
 
now, if i can purchase an 85 inch display for less than 3000 dollars, i'll be happy :p
 
Stereodude said:
it's commonly accepted that somewhere between 100:1 and 200:1 is the limit. Regardless, the difference between 100:1 and 300:1 is pretty small when you're working on a log scale (which your eye does).
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, I am for whatever technology is better. However, you still haven't addressed the price and complexity issues.

Commonly accepted among who? You and yourself?

"There is a natural maximum limit to the eyecontrast resolution, which is 300:1"

http://bbriefings.com/pdf/886/lth041_t_siemens.pdf

I also was able to pull up a couple of pubmed studies that coroborate this. A display will need to display much higher contrast ratios than this due to even small amounts of ambient light affecting blacks much more than whites.
 
Stereodude said:
Nearly everyday at work I work on LED BLs for LCDs.
Click to expand...

Well there we have it. You're in the industry. Now we know why you're pushing LCD technology so hard. :D
 
logo29a said:
Well there we have it. You're in the industry. Now we know why you're pushing LCD technology so hard. :D
Click to expand...
Actually I work for a military contractor to put ruggedized displays in vehicles and other applications. We don't have a bias towards LCDs. If there were a better solution we'd be using it.
 
logo29a said:
A display will need to display much higher contrast ratios than this due to even small amounts of ambient light affecting blacks much more than whites.
Click to expand...
That's not really why a display needs a dynamic range that exceeds a 300:1. It needs a dynamic range that far exceeds 300:1 because our eyes adapt and can still see 300:1 when the display is only using 30:1 of it's 300:1 (ie: in a dark scene).

They trick is to make the display always use it's 300:1 even in the dark scenes. This is done by backlight modulation and some fancy processing.
 
ok ive heard of the awesome NED and the just as awesome SED but what the hell is an OLED
 
IIRC:

Organic Light Emitting Display. The organic matter emits light when current is passed through it, but it doesn't need a constant energy stream, thereby giving displays big energy savings of almost 90% in some cases. This is why especially laptop manufacturers are so interested in OLED (it could make 8 hours straight on 1 battery charge a reality).

However, it seems that the organic matters "die" over time, which is not necessarily a problem with the red and green ones (I think they achieved around 20,000 to 30,000 hours or so), but the blue organic matter specifically is a PITA. It usually burns out around 2,000 to 3,000 hours, which is too short to make a profitable business out of producing OLED's. But scientists are constantly improving the life of the blue organic matters, and it's just a matter of time before someone announces a breakthrough.

If nobody can resolve the problems associated with OLED's... L(ED)B(acklight)LCD's, NED's, SED's or some other display technology will take its place. Hopefully that won't be the case, because as we all know, competition is a Good Thing. ;)

Edit: yeah, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
 
Stereodude said:
That's not really why a display needs a dynamic range that exceeds a 300:1. It needs a dynamic range that far exceeds 300:1 because our eyes adapt and can still see 300:1 when the display is only using 30:1 of it's 300:1 (ie: in a dark scene).

They trick is to make the display always use it's 300:1 even in the dark scenes. This is done by backlight modulation and some fancy processing.
Click to expand...

It might not be the only reason, but it is the main reason.
 
Wow, with OLEDs I can see OLED digital books in the future because of their flexibility. I don't think SEDs could do that. It also sounds funny for a Tube for each pixel. Maybe good if you need ultimate clarity for science. As long as the OLED contrast is black enough and the color reproduction is similar to the PVA panel i will be satisfied and cozy. It seems like the wave of the future because of the OLED's flexibility; you can have houses made out of OLEDs.
What is the anti-ghosting tech for OLED and interpolation.Better then 'overdrive'?
So they wont mass market large OLEDs until the Blue life is extended? Just prototypes for now?
 
Samsung has made flexible LCD panel prototypes, so OLED is not the only tech capable of this, although I don't know what kind of backlight solution they used for this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top