• 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

1c3d0g said:
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).
Click to expand...
OLEDs are not power efficient. They use just as much power as an LCD + backlight, in some cases they use more.
 
mjz_5 said:
i do have a projector and screen right now... but, it can't beat the color quality of a crt.
Click to expand...
What kind of projector?

Most LCD projectors have equivalent color to a good CRT. DLPs aren't usually quite so good.
 
Stereodude said:
OLEDs are not power efficient. They use just as much power as an LCD + backlight, in some cases they use more.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in some cases where the LCD's backlight used LEDs, but otherwise an LCD display will use more power than a comparable OLED display.

Just think of it this way: in an LCD a current is applied to twist the crystals. This same current is used to power the LEDs of an OLED display. The LCD display then still needs a backlight to make the displayed image somewhat visible, ergo an LCD display will always use more power than an OLED display, especially if they manage to improve the efficiency of the latter even further.
 
I just hope the next generation doesn't cost $1000+ USD for a decent monitor (ie: the Dell 2450fpw). I can't remember when a good shadowmask/aperature grille CRT cost that much!

All I've learned from my LCD journey thus far is that I HATE dead pixels and backlight leakage. And TN- panels have pretty bad viewing angles, I mean if I move 1-2foot to the left, right, up or down the colors change a bit. It's almost as if the brightness changes.

In reality there's only two things I like about this monitor. I like it a lot more for viewing webpages (although it can't be a white one or the dark dead pixel annoys me), and it has zero ghosting for gaming with 12ms.

But the dithering is horrible, the little "squiggle" lines around certain images that contain colors the monitor can't reproduce. And the resolution is way too small. 1280x1024 just ain't cutting it for images. It becomes almost pixelated. I don't notice it as much now, but when I first got this monitor I found it super-annoying. This probably has something to do with the dot-pitch, which is... a whopping 0.294mm for this monitor!
 
Mojo said:
I just hope the next generation doesn't cost $1000+ USD for a decent monitor (ie: the Dell 2450fpw). I can't remember when a good shadowmask/aperature grille CRT cost that much!

All I've learned from my LCD journey thus far is that I HATE dead pixels and backlight leakage. And TN- panels have pretty bad viewing angles, I mean if I move 1-2foot to the left, right, up or down the colors change a bit. It's almost as if the brightness changes.

In reality there's only two things I like about this monitor. I like it a lot more for viewing webpages (although it can't be a white one or the dark dead pixel annoys me), and it has zero ghosting for gaming with 12ms.

But the dithering is horrible, the little "squiggle" lines around certain images that contain colors the monitor can't reproduce. And the resolution is way too small. 1280x1024 just ain't cutting it for images. It becomes almost pixelated. I don't notice it as much now, but when I first got this monitor I found it super-annoying. This probably has something to do with the dot-pitch, which is... a whopping 0.294mm for this monitor!
Click to expand...
What LCD monitor did you buy that has a TN panel in it? Monitors (except notebooks) haven't used TN panels for several years now.
 
Elledan said:
Perhaps in some cases where the LCD's backlight used LEDs, but otherwise an LCD display will use more power than a comparable OLED display.

Just think of it this way: in an LCD a current is applied to twist the crystals. This same current is used to power the LEDs of an OLED display. The LCD display then still needs a backlight to make the displayed image somewhat visible, ergo an LCD display will always use more power than an OLED display, especially if they manage to improve the efficiency of the latter even further.
Click to expand...
In a LCD you use voltage to charge a capacitor and the fluid to twist and stay there. The fluid has a capacitive nature.

In an OLED you need 2 transistors per pixel because there is not capacitive nature to OLEDs, So you need to make a switch to stay open to continue to deliver current to the pixel. An OLED is really a bunch of LEDs, which consume power whenever they're on.

CCFL backlights are actually more power efficient than LED backlights for LCD panels, and most OLEDs can not match the power efficiency of either.
 
Stereodude said:
In a LCD you use voltage to charge a capacitor and the fluid to twist and stay there. The fluid has a capacitive nature.

In an OLED you need 2 transistors per pixel because there is not capacitive nature to OLEDs, So you need to make a switch to stay open to continue to deliver current to the pixel. An OLED is really a bunch of LEDs, which consume power whenever they're on.

CCFL backlights are actually more power efficient than LED backlights for LCD panels, and most OLEDs can not match the power efficiency of either.
Click to expand...
thats why NED's are king...lol
 
Stereodude: "What LCD monitor did you buy that has a TN panel in it? Monitors (except notebooks) haven't used TN panels for several years now."

Do you live somewhere in the future? You claim that no LCD's use TN panels anymore and that trailing isn't a problem today.
The latter I proved to you in the other thread.

A lot of monitors use TN panel. Many popular models, like LG L17xx and L19xx, Samsung 172X, Acer AL17xx etc. I could go on for ages.

Do you know the panel manufacturers? If not, I will provide you with a list of the largest:
AUO: http://www.auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=items&items_id=1
Samsung LCD: http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/common/product_list.aspx?family_cd=LCD01
LG.Philips: http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd200_j_e.jsp
CMO (Chi Mei Optoelectronics): http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/product/product_01.jsp

You will see that each and every one of the mentioned have thier own variant of a TN panel. Just look at the sites sporadic.
 
mistar said:
Stereodude: "What LCD monitor did you buy that has a TN panel in it? Monitors (except notebooks) haven't used TN panels for several years now."

Do you live somewhere in the future? You claim that no LCD's use TN panels anymore and that trailing isn't a problem today.
The latter I proved to you in the other thread.

A lot of monitors use TN panel. Many popular models, like LG L17xx and L19xx, Samsung 172X, Acer AL17xx etc. I could go on for ages.

Do you know the panel manufacturers? If not, I will provide you with a list of the largest:
AUO: http://www.auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=items&items_id=1
Samsung LCD: http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/common/product_list.aspx?family_cd=LCD01
LG.Philips: http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd200_j_e.jsp
CMO (Chi Mei Optoelectronics): http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/product/product_01.jsp

You will see that each and every one of the mentioned have thier own variant of a TN panel. Just look at the sites sporadic.
Click to expand...
Ok, let me clarify myself.

No one is using conventional TN panels like you still see in some notebooks. All the examples of what you posted are wide viewing angle TN panels that are using retardation films to widen out the viewing angle of the panels. While they aren't as good as IPS, MVA, PVA, ASV, or AFFS they are signigicantly better than a standard ol' conventional TN panel.
 
Well the + is just redundant when we talk about LCD monitors as every TFT LCD computermonitor has this wide viewing angle filter

Does this mean that a MVA panel isn't a variant of VA?
These are small details which are unimportant and I don't see why you have to be so arrogant. Mojo's post was perfectly understandable to everyone.
 
OLED 80'' for Christmas 2006.

523ss82inch500x317.jpg
 
Haha :p I still prefer the North-American variety, thank you very much. ;)

/me drools... :eek:
 
Stereodude said:
What LCD monitor did you buy that has a TN panel in it? Monitors (except notebooks) haven't used TN panels for several years now.
Click to expand...
Benq 937s 19" LCD
 
Elledan said:
Just wait until you've seen an SED display sitting next to an LCD and plasma one. It'll blow you away.
Click to expand...

Have you seen it? Or are you just regurgitating what you've read?
 
moralpanic said:
Have you seen it? Or are you just regurgitating what you've read?
Click to expand...
well pretty much anything is better than plasma but it would be hard pressed to match an lcd that has a good backlight and an awesome response time
 
ScHpAnKy said:
Holy shit! Is that a "simulated display" or is that actual output? If it is the latter, where can I signup?
Click to expand...
it says right there on the picture that its an 82" TFT-LCD... which im about 90% means its not an 80" oled
 
cell_491 said:
well pretty much anything is better than plasma but it would be hard pressed to match an lcd that has a good backlight and an awesome response time
Click to expand...

What? Are you kidding? In what way is an LCD better than a Plasma? SED's are going to rape LCD technology in every aspect.
 
logo29a said:
What? Are you kidding? In what way is an LCD better than a Plasma? SED's are going to rape LCD technology in every aspect.
Click to expand...
sed's maybe but not plasma...plasma has absolutely shitty picture quality
 
cell_491 said:
sed's maybe but not plasma...plasma has absolutely shitty picture quality
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? Don't be stingy! :D

Right now plasmas have better viewing angles, contrast, and color fidelity than mainstream lcd technology. About the only aspects where they fall short is power consumption and lifespan.
 
logo29a said:
What are you smoking? Don't be stingy! :D

Right now plasmas have better viewing angles, contrast, and color fidelity than mainstream lcd technology. About the only aspects where they fall short is power consumption and lifespan.
Click to expand...
sure bro sure....go to bestbuy and look at a 42" plasma then look at a big lcd and tell me which one has better picture quality. Plasma screens look all blocky and digitized i think they are crap but thats my personal oppinion
 
Most likely the 42" plasma was EDTV and you were looking at an HD LCD. Since you didn't mention model numbers I'm forced to say that your comparison is uninformed.
 
logo29a said:
What? Are you kidding? In what way is an LCD better than a Plasma? SED's are going to rape LCD technology in every aspect.
Click to expand...

LCD's last longer than plasma. The gas inside plasma displays leaks out / breaks down, etc, and the whole unit will start to dimm. This happens after about 5/10 years. I want to keep my $4000 display a little longer than 5 years thank you. When this happens all the little gas cells need to be replaced. This means the whole whole unit is trash. The only thing that wears out in a LCD is the backlite. As long as you have a white (read flourecent) light source, your LCD will work. 20 Years down the road, you can just replace the backlite bulb with a new one. 50 years later it could still fixable and working for you.

LCDs and plasma are both great to look at. No flicker, no electrons being pumped into your face either. Both are good tech.

SEDs are nice, but again, they are not that reliable. This is because they are still based on a phosphor layer. Electrons hit the layer and make it glow. That phosphor breaks down over time, and breaks down with use. Why the hell do you think people invented screen-savers? Not to have somthing to look at, but to save the screen. Without them you get "used up" or burnt out places. I don't know about you, but plasma, CRT, and SED are all fundamentally flawed in that using them 24/7 causes them to break fairly quickly. Not somthing I want to spend my $4000 on and put in the family room. I want a TV/Monitor that will last.

SEDs solve the flicker problem, they are smaller, and they have a better picture than CRTs. That's a good thing. They aren't a fix for all the problems though, because you still have a large electron gun pumping electrons into your face, and they are still phosphor based which means they can "burn" and they don't last long.

OLEDs are the best out there. The big advantage? They are like any LED and last almost forever. There is no gas to escape or break down, no phosphor layer to "burn" and use up. Oooh! Guess what else? Since they are organic (read polymer, read plastic-like), they can bend and be flexible. In the future, imagine OLED displays you can roll up when you're done with them. OLEDs do not emit electron streams at your head. Like any LED, the only thing that is shot out is light. Also, unlike CRTs, OLEDs do not need to "refresh" and there isn't any flicker. OLEDs really are the way of the future.
 
xonik said:
Most likely the 42" plasma was EDTV and you were looking at an HD LCD. Since you didn't mention model numbers I'm forced to say that your comparison is uninformed.
Click to expand...
its not just one plasma screen dude its every one ive ever seen EVER. Every time i see one the picture is blurry, blocky, and looks like the cheesy cut scenes from lucas arts' games
 
visaris said:
LCD's last longer than plasma. The gas inside plasma displays leaks out / breaks down, etc, and the whole unit will start to dimm. This happens after about 5/10 years. I want to keep my $4000 display a little longer than 5 years thank you. When this happens all the little gas cells need to be replaced. This means the whole whole unit is trash. The only thing that wears out in a LCD is the backlite. As long as you have a white (read flourecent) light source, your LCD will work. 20 Years down the road, you can just replace the backlite bulb with a new one. 50 years later it could still fixable and working for you.

LCDs and plasma are both great to look at. No flicker, no electrons being pumped into your face either. Both are good tech.

SEDs are nice, but again, they are not that reliable. This is because they are still based on a phosphor layer. Electrons hit the layer and make it glow. That phosphor breaks down over time, and breaks down with use. Why the hell do you think people invented screen-savers? Not to have somthing to look at, but to save the screen. Without them you get "used up" or burnt out places. I don't know about you, but plasma, CRT, and SED are all fundamentally flawed in that using them 24/7 causes them to break fairly quickly. Not somthing I want to spend my $4000 on and put in the family room. I want a TV/Monitor that will last.

SEDs solve the flicker problem, they are smaller, and they have a better picture than CRTs. That's a good thing. They aren't a fix for all the problems though, because you still have a large electron gun pumping electrons into your face, and they are still phosphor based which means they can "burn" and they don't last long.

OLEDs are the best out there. The big advantage? They are like any LED and last almost forever. There is no gas to escape or break down, no phosphor layer to "burn" and use up. Oooh! Guess what else? Since they are organic (read polymer, read plastic-like), they can bend and be flexible. In the future, imagine OLED displays you can roll up when you're done with them. OLEDs do not emit electron streams at your head. Like any LED, the only thing that is shot out is light. Also, unlike CRTs, OLEDs do not need to "refresh" and there isn't any flicker. OLEDs really are the way of the future.
Click to expand...

actually oled's arent that good about lastin either the blue organic material has a max operating life of only 5000 hours. I personally think the future belongs to NED's
 
cell_491 said:
sure bro sure....go to bestbuy and look at a 42" plasma then look at a big lcd and tell me which one has better picture quality. Plasma screens look all blocky and digitized i think they are crap but thats my personal oppinion
Click to expand...

You're basing this on your experience at bestbuy? :rolleyes:

You do realize that they generally split low quality signals to several displays, don't you?
 
visaris said:
LCD's last longer than plasma.
Click to expand...

I already mentioned the life-spay issue.

visaris said:
SEDs are nice, but again, they are not that reliable. This is because they are still based on a phosphor layer.
Click to expand...

SEDs are based on CRT technology. They do rely on phosphors but the lifespan on modern phosphors is very long. There is NO reliability issue here.

visaris said:
They aren't a fix for all the problems though, because you still have a large electron gun pumping electrons into your face, and they are still phosphor based which means they can "burn" and they don't last long.
Click to expand...

You won't have any health related issues with and NED or modern CRT. There is quite a large amount of material that blocks harmful radiation. Again, you are simply wrong about longevity issues. I have CRTs that are probably older than you are.

visaris said:
OLEDs are the best out there. The big advantage? They are like any LED and last almost forever.
Click to expand...

You don't read much do you? OLEDs are made from organic materials that break down over time. They may possibly have the shortest lifespan of any of the modern displays. That is yet to be seen.
 
logo29a said:
You're basing this on your experience at bestbuy? :rolleyes:

You do realize that they generally split low quality signals to several displays, don't you?
Click to expand...
thtas funny then that all the lcd tv look a thousand times better even though there on the same low quality signal. Which is funny because bestbuy uses dvd's for there demo footage.
 
cell_491 said:
thtas funny then that all the lcd tv look a thousand times better even though there on the same low quality signal. Which is funny because bestbuy uses dvd's for there demo footage.
Click to expand...

What another great demonstration of your ignorance. Again, you're speaking from personal experience and opinion. You are NOT speaking from facts.

Plasma has better color, contrast, viewing angles, and near instantaneous response. LCD's have poor viewing angles, poor contrast, shallow color fidelity and transition lag.
 
logo29a said:
What another great demonstration of your ignorance. Again, you're speaking from personal experience and opinion. You are NOT speaking from facts.

Plasma has better color, contrast, viewing angles, and near instantaneous response. LCD's have poor viewing angles, poor contrast, shallow color fidelity and transition lag.
Click to expand...
first off thats flaming, second i dont care about the "facts" ive seen the damn things up close and personal several times in my life and i dont fucking like them...OK!
 
cell_491 said:
first off thats flaming, second i dont care about the "facts" ive seen the damn things up close and personal several times in my life and i dont fucking like them...OK!
Click to expand...

No need to get so worked up about it. If you don't like them that's fine. However, know that your opinion doesn't line up with that of most people. Know that as far as specifications are concerned, current LCD technology is inferior to Plasma. Personally, I believe that CRT's are still curently the best in terms of PQ. However, NEDs and SEDs will have all of the PQ of CRTs in the small form factor of LCDs and Plasmas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top