- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,685
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
OLED can't compete
- Thread starter xDiVolatilX
- Start date
Wingman_ice
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 51
It may be the next wave of technology for panels, but for what I can buy right now OLED is the best. Once it becomes affordable then we can start comparing consumer levels of both types (look how long it took for OLED to become affordable to the masses). It's certainly an interesting technology and worth watching.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 11,470
You're crazy. You should always hold out on the next best technology that may or may not ever exist rather than buy the best you can reasonably afford. What the hell are you talking about?
Wingman_ice
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 51
I am cray-cray...
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,297
Yeah, we'll see about that if and when they release, and how much they actually cost. You can get a good OLED for well under grand these days.
This opens the door to an intriguing possiblity: high zone count RGB MicroLED-backlit LCDs at a somewhat affordable price. Consider the specs for the 108" model AWALL is selling:
108"
16 modules
2560x1440 priced at $30k
1920x1080 priced at $21.5k
Working it out, each of those 16 modules is about 27", with the following resolution and prices (assuming 1/16th the total display price):
27" 640x360 @ $1,875
27" 480x270 @ $1,344
So for $1,350 (also remember this is effectively the retail price) we could have a 27" MicroLED panel with about 130,000 zones, or 230,000 zones for $1,900. That's a zone for every 8x8 or 6x6 pixels, respectively, on a 4k display. This could potentially lead to a 27" FALD LCD that all but eliminates haloing and finally bests OLED across nearly all use cases, for as little as $3k. The processing to control all those zones might actually be the biggest hurdle (AFAIK the best chips are still limited to low five-figure zone counts), but the cost for the panels themselves no longer seems like a major limitation.
108"
16 modules
2560x1440 priced at $30k
1920x1080 priced at $21.5k
Working it out, each of those 16 modules is about 27", with the following resolution and prices (assuming 1/16th the total display price):
27" 640x360 @ $1,875
27" 480x270 @ $1,344
So for $1,350 (also remember this is effectively the retail price) we could have a 27" MicroLED panel with about 130,000 zones, or 230,000 zones for $1,900. That's a zone for every 8x8 or 6x6 pixels, respectively, on a 4k display. This could potentially lead to a 27" FALD LCD that all but eliminates haloing and finally bests OLED across nearly all use cases, for as little as $3k. The processing to control all those zones might actually be the biggest hurdle (AFAIK the best chips are still limited to low five-figure zone counts), but the cost for the panels themselves no longer seems like a major limitation.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 11,470
My work machine is a MacBook Pro 16 inch. And I'll be damned if that isn't a top notch display. 10,000 zone mini led. Very hard to spot the haloing. Amazing color accuracy and contrast for content creation/consumption. Takes my breath away. Lovely lovely image.
Absolute garbage fucking display for games though.
Absolute garbage fucking display for games though.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
The one thing in that video that really resonates with me is their take on combo tech usually being a bad idea. I prefer everything to be modular (which is why I prefer stands to wall mounts even, for example, but especially for appliances).
There was a dual layer LCD tech used in a $35k sony mastering monitor, and panasonic had a dual layer lcd tv in the uk at one point (I saw on HDTVTEST), but they had issues with artifacts and response times, ghosting, etc... . and heat, and probably viewing angles (which includes the end portions or frame-edges of screens when head-on viewing, not just viewing from an outside angle somewhere in a room). Also, while you would assume dual layer might mean it would be thicker, they were considerably fat housings and I think they had to use active cooling (heatsinks and fans).
There is also a multi-layer OLED (display output layers, not the QD, MLA, etc layers) more recently, too, which they are calling "tandem" oled. In the video below they say one of the ones they are showing is 4 layers.
https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/4...-monitors-are-here-gigabyte-mo27q28g-showcase
Phosphor blue OLED emitters (diodes) would also help, aka "PhOLED". The red and green ones have been phosphor for a long time while the blue ones had remained a weaker fluroescent oled which was less resilient so required work-arounds from manufacturers.
. . .
Mentioning all of that because it seems like you are talking about the same kind of thing, or the sub-genre of using a different display resolution as the backlight to a top layered higher resolution one, like dual layer lcd did (which was a 1080p lcd in monochrome backlighting a 4k top layer on the panasonic tv)..
I know you are talking about backlighting using a lower resolution to light a higher one, but as far as actual lower resolution tandem oleds, etc go as the main display resolution - - - personally, I have no interest in 720p resolutions, and even 1440p would be a downgrade to me. I'd just wait for 4k versions a few years later.
As far as using a different display tech as the backlight, like microLED as the backlight for a lcd, they'd have to figure out how to eliminate artifacts and ghosting, potential high response time issues, etc. Those might not be able to be eliminated or reduced enough (especially for framegen + very high Hz gameplay), and in the longer run, they will just have 4k microLED modules/screens as the tech matures.
Last edited:
Fundamentally MicroLED-backlit LCD is the same thing as current MiniLED-backlit LCD but with orders of magnitude greater dimming zones, and like I said, the limiting factor is likely to be processing power (for now). This does indeed appear to be what plagued the consumer Hisense dual layer TV released a few years ago, but dual layer's other problems - heat and power consumption, parallax caused by the layers - aren't relevant to a hypothetical MicroLED-backlit LCD (at least no more so than existing MiniLED displays).
That said, I think processing has the potential to actually become less computationally expensive once the zone count reaches a certain threshold, since the algorithm will no longer have to decide the optimal backlight level for such a large area of the image. With much smaller zones, haloing is much less of an issue, so you're not forced between that and crushing dark detail. DIY Perks put together a dual layer-like display using a projector and an LCD screen and got surprisingly great results using just a simple OBS filter. Granted, he was using a 1024x768 projector, which is 3-6x the zones we're talking about here, but it shows that at least in principle it can work very well.
Projector + LCD was how Dolby originally tested HDR and came up with the standards for the PQ curve. I can't find the picture right now but it was a full out cinema projector. Not practical for the home, but it did work to let them test extreme brightnesses.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
I hear what you are saying. We will have to see on such models for some of those factors I guess (layering spill/glow, artifacts, uniformity, lifting or muting of: color detail, darkness in shared parts of the screen, etc). However, LCD transitions, (like you said with current mini LED ones), won't be able to keep up with 360fpsHz --> 480 --> 1000fpsHz (along with more advanced fraemgen + ai) like tandem PhOled and likely true 4k microLED screens eventually, both being per pixel emissive, response time wise.
Normally I'd say the more options the better, in regard to backlighting a LCD with a microLED - but I'd rather that actual microLED devs and manufacturing devote the money and energy to bringing microLED screens without LCD tech involved at all, personally. I'd rather LCD die for multimedia displays. Which is why I added the graphic about looking forward to the final nail in the LCD coffin between the tandem MLA PhOLED tech I outlined, progress in microLED fully emissive screens, and eventually lightweight MR glasses once they get more polished and advance to very high resolution virtual screens.
. . . .
Yes, originally things like some of the 55" and larger 720p and 1080p living room tvs were projector based, too. The projector was pointed upward inside of the base and reflected off of the back to the screen. They looked like crap though, especially black level wise, being more like blobs of grey. I'm sure dolby's test kit was way better though of course, lol. Projector based stuff also had really bad response times, but dolby wasn't testing for games, idk if they were even showing people movies originally, they may have been showingstill images in SDR vs different levels of HDR brightness versions of the same images.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,685
B the installer does a first look on the Samsung Micro RGB looks awesome
View: https://youtu.be/r6A7tZa3ZR8?si=aBoCwL1QtAMoiIPu
View: https://youtu.be/r6A7tZa3ZR8?si=aBoCwL1QtAMoiIPu
Thanks, that was a very interesting and cool project!
Being a bit of a nerd when it comes to audio/video myself, I have over time accepted the fact that "good enough" is, well, good enough for me. I'm sporting an old Samsung UE78 JS9505 TV that was expensive and state of the art when I bought it in 2016, which has a VA panel with a whopping 256 local zones.
You can of course see the halo if you look for it, but just as with higher bitrate MP3's, it is good enough to not notice in daily use. It maxes out at 1000 NITS, so going higher than that would of course make the limitations of the TV more pronounced, so in a few years I guess it is time to upgrade again.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,685
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,606
115"....Lol wake me up when there's a 50" or smaller size available.
I mean for Micro LED its an improvement. They were even bigger to start with.
...but ya it is still at least a few years off from regular TV sizes, and more still from monitor sizes.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,606
This is not even MicroLED...
Oh didn't look at the thread this is the RGB led stuff? That I don't understand why they don't make a smaller one. they totally could.
they could, but they still have multi pixel backlight zone even with a 115 inch/$30k screen, on a small monitor would they not become visibly worse than OLED ? Still "large" backlight led in play.
I think it would be the other way around for actual microled, those could be a phone screen size one day, like oled, the issue is yield and cost to make it viable on small screen not the microled being big right ?
I think it would be the other way around for actual microled, those could be a phone screen size one day, like oled, the issue is yield and cost to make it viable on small screen not the microled being big right ?
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,606
Cost and size. Right now they are expensive, particularly compared to OLED, and I don't think they can physically make them small enough for normal sized TVs, much less smaller things. The advantage that OLED has is you really do basically print the things on a modified web press. It is like a gigantic inkjet printer and as such they can print pretty damn small. Inorganic LEDs don't get printed like that and as such we haven't yet figured out how to scale them down to extremely tiny sizes.
Will it happen some day? Maybe, I don't know what all the issues they face are. It's not a cheap and easy problem to solve though, which is why Samsung keeps doing OLED (and other) technologies despite liking MicroLED and having working on the market products. They know that they aren't going to be able to replace all their shit with it next year, and maybe not even next decade.
micro-led are smaller than mini-led and you can fit 4k mini-led on a 27inch monitor, from my understanding they have extremelly low yield from the problem you are tallking about, so the way to make it work economically it is to make small panel with a very small amount of pixels (on monitor seen from far away that will accept 1-2 imperfection) and combining them into a large screen. Smaller the panel, less the pixel count the more will have 99.99% of them working.
The issue with 4k on a single panel that need to be near perfect, yeld would be extremelly down and for a very low resolution small panel no value in that.
The issue with 4k on a single panel that need to be near perfect, yeld would be extremelly down and for a very low resolution small panel no value in that.
Sorry, I was talking about displays that are MicroLED direct, where the subpixels themselves are MicroLEDs and there's no LCD layer. That is the ultimate goal Samsung has, and they have TVs that do it, but they are monkey-fuck-retarded expensive (like $100,000 for an 89") and they can't make them small. In fact I didn't even know they'd got it down to 89" until I went to get a current price check.
In terms of using them for backlights on LCDs sure, they are for sure small enough for that, but at this point I'm not sure how needed it is. Maybe for the RGB light stuff? I'm not sure if on this TV they actually need the tiny size or if it is just marketing.
The reason I say this is we can easily get more MiniLEDs behind existing displays, they just don't for cost and control circuitry reasons. My 16" laptop display has 2048 zones, so at least that many LEDs. Some of the Macbooks with MiniLED supposedly have about 10,000 LEDs controlled in groups of 4 for 2500 zones. So with MiniLED sized LEDs it is clearly possible to pack in plenty.
But we probably won't see it in monitors any time soon if for no other reason than money. Not only is the TV market larger, but people are willing to pay more. For TVs, $1000 is considered a good price for a nice TV, $3000-5000 is perfectly normal for a high-end consumer TV, and $10k+ is not unheard of for the ultra-high end. For monitors, people scream about how expensive $1000 is, though many will pay it, $3000 is considered ultra-high-end pro and most people flat out refuse to pay that much. Limits what they can bring to market.
yes me aswell, those are smaller than mini led I think, so should be able to put a lot on a small screen if yield was good.
At least that the claim:
https://www.unilumin.com/blog/smallest-led-display.html
Mini-LEDs are between 100 and 200 microns in size, while micro-LEDs are less than 100 microns across. Since more micro-LED pixels can fit into a given area, a micro-LED display can be smaller than a mini-LED display with the same pixel density.
If Micro led is not smaller/higher density possible than MIniLed (edit
) that would be a very confusing naming convention
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
Micromini nanu nano ?
Per Pixel Emissive is what we need (or per sub-pixel), but
"Direct Output Per Pixel Emissive LED screen" (DOPPEL ?), or "Per Subpixel Emissive" doesn't have the same ring to it as " *magic*minimicronanoquantum LED".
"Self-Emissive" , SE. SE-LED ?
PPE (per pixel emissive) might work as a standard and label to differentiate from screens based on older tech (but apparently it also stands for "Personal Protective Equipment").
Emissive can also have some bad connections drawn language-wise (depending on your sensibilities).
Maybe they could call it something like "TruePixel™", but that is the name of a 1080p projector and some camera already.
Gamers might like something like EMP (like electro-magnetic-pulse) , standing for EMissive-Pixel.
. . . . .
Taking the LCD layer out of the equation would be a huge improvement. Just shrinking the backlight and still using a lcd layer isn't the way to go in the long run. LCDs with their physically rotating molecules won't be able to keep up with 500 - 1000Hz like emissive technologies will be able to. It's too slow.
The FALD macbooks, for all of the improved LED backlight density, are exceptionally slow (though I haven't looked into the technical reasons why, improved local dimming tech might have something to do with it). An unverified chart someone made:
Last edited:
Brightness may also be a factor. Apparantly that is one of the reasons the panel in the PG32UQX is so slow. The high heat from the high brightness necessitates a panel that is slower. Why I don't know but that was what AUO claimed.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
Maybe heat + overdrive is problematic on denser, (relatively) small screen arrays of high output HDR. Something to think about. I really haven't tried looking around to find out to be honest.
There are some very high output fald tvs, but they are large, and some if not all can suffer from aggressive ABL. The PG32U screens have active cooling fans (on a profile/sensor ramp up as necessary I believe), and a heatsink from what I recall, so they have some improved heat management - at least vs ABL, ASBL in bright, large % windows.
Ya I dunno. I'm not in the display industry and it isn't like they talk about this publicly a whole lot, just the tidbits I've picked up. I know that they can certainly do better and still be pretty bright, my laptop does like 1100-1200nits peak and maybe 600-800 full field and it is a quite zippy 240Hz MiniLED panel. But Apple's "XDR" stuff is another level, like the PG32UQX, and pushes 1600nits or more and at least it sounded like from AUO that the radiant heat from the LEDs means the LCD has to be designed different to not get screwed up. Even though LEDs radiate most of their heat backwards, some radiates forwards too. Even with active cooling you'd have a hotspot on the light when it is blasting.
Everything gets easier on TVs due to their size I'm sure. More area to dissipate heat, larger subpixels let out more light per pixel so less light needed for a given level of emission, etc.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,685
Is it considered aggressive if I've never noticed it on my QN90B mini led? I know it has the feature but I've never actually noticed it happening on any type of movie or game. Where on the OLEDs I noticed it immediately without questioning it I know it is aggressive ABL.
More aggressive than some of the high-end monitors for sure. It's not near what an OLED would see, and not often an issue, but it is higher. So lets look at your QN90B: It peaks out at about 1900nits in game mode, seriously bright shit, brighter than a PG32UQX which peaks out at about 1650-1700nits. It can do that up to a 10% window. However, at 25%, it is down to around 1300nits, the PG32UQX is at about 1600nits. At a 50% window the QN90B is down to 855nits, PG32UQX is still at about 1600nits. At full scene the QN90B is at a little over 600nits, so like a third of its max brightness, the PG32UQX is at about 1200nits, more than 70% of its peak.
Net effect is that the really bright MiniLED monitors have almost no ABL. It only happens with extremely high APL scenes, and even then isn't much. MiniLED TVs have more, happening at lower APLs.
In real content is it a problem? Probably not often. A simple way to think about it is that if you can do 1900nits at a 10% APL, that means with a scene of around 190nits average or less, you are getting the full peak brightness on highlights. Turns out, most scenes are not that bright. Like if you run an analysis tool when you are in a well lit outdoor scene in a game, it'll often be below 100nits average level, and nearly always below 200nits. So you aren't going to see much brightness limiting in real content.
OLEDs have much more serious ABL. Even the high-end TVs drop much faster than MiniLED TVs. Like the S95F, it'll get peak brightness above 2000nits, but that is only temporary, it can only sustain about 1100nits at 10% APL. Full screen it is about 400nits. So despite higher momentary peaks than something like the S95F, it will more easily hit situations where the brightness has to be turned down. OLED monitors are even a faster rolloff, with many being down in the 450nit range at 10% APL.
Basically the ultra-bright MiniLED monitors are designed to almost never have ABL, even in aggressively bright scenes, and MiniLED TVs are designed to have minimal to no APL in realistic content.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
I look forward to seeing if phOLED (blue oleds replacing the weaker fluorescent ones they had to stack and still would degrade faster if not guarded more), will allow for brighter and less aggressive ABL/ASBL. That plus tandem (multi-layer) OLED and MLA if all in one package.
I'd prefer if OLED had a backplane heatsink and modular fans on an active cooling profile, in a fatter housing, to help combat heat degredation -> death and to reduce how much dimming guardrails kick in - but I don't see that happening.
I'd prefer if OLED had a backplane heatsink and modular fans on an active cooling profile, in a fatter housing, to help combat heat degredation -> death and to reduce how much dimming guardrails kick in - but I don't see that happening.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
I just looked up a few numbers from RTings. Of course the OLED ABL is way more aggressive ( 0.05 or 0.06 on the FALD LEDs vs 0.1 for OLED in RTings scoring convention would mean around ~ 40% more aggressive by comparison I guess) - but it's still there on bright FALD LED backlight screens some, plus ASBL, and the % windows on any screen vary but it looks like tandem oled made great strides there. I can't wait to see what tandem + MLA will be capable of once they switch to phosphorescent blue OLEDs ("phOLED"), from the weaker fluorescent ones.
. . .
RTings ABL score HDR / HDR Game Mode :
LG G5 OLED = .100 / .096
Samsung Q90F = .061 / .060
TCL QM8K = .055 / .053
. . .
HDR Game Mode Scene Scores - LG G5 OLED, Samsung Q90F, TCL QM8K (brighter QM9K due out soon)
. .
RTings had the LG G5 OLED's DTM setting set to HGiG, the most accurate.
If I'm reading it correctly, I didn't see any HGiG scores (Dynamic Tone Mapping off) , at least on RTings, for some or all of the scores on the other two screens, which is unfortunate because I don't like using dynamic tone mapping.
The % window scores in the chart below on the samsung were set to DTM: static (which might be similar to HGiG), but the scene scores were HDR DTM set to "Active".
The TCL QM8K was set to different DTM variables for the scene scores. I think the main % window chart also has DTM on but I didn't see which setting.
. .
. . .
. . .
RTings ABL score HDR / HDR Game Mode :
LG G5 OLED = .100 / .096
Samsung Q90F = .061 / .060
TCL QM8K = .055 / .053
. . .
HDR Game Mode Scene Scores - LG G5 OLED, Samsung Q90F, TCL QM8K (brighter QM9K due out soon)
. .
RTings had the LG G5 OLED's DTM setting set to HGiG, the most accurate.
If I'm reading it correctly, I didn't see any HGiG scores (Dynamic Tone Mapping off) , at least on RTings, for some or all of the scores on the other two screens, which is unfortunate because I don't like using dynamic tone mapping.
The % window scores in the chart below on the samsung were set to DTM: static (which might be similar to HGiG), but the scene scores were HDR DTM set to "Active".
The TCL QM8K was set to different DTM variables for the scene scores. I think the main % window chart also has DTM on but I didn't see which setting.
. .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,529
I'm certain MicroLED is the future. I never really went OLED due to gaming and burn in in the past. Now that I almost never touch a console maybe it's less of an issue. But on average I still find MiniLEDs to still be cheaper. My last TV purchase as a 65" TCL QM8 in 2023 and it was 1300 bucks. It's plenty bright and plenty dark for my needs. Before this TV I was a Sony XBR guy for over a decade.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,653
If it gets "micro enough". Maybe. I think OLED will be around for a long time. Or something else will come along.
If "your monitor" is beyond 55" in size, then maybe this is ok (if you have the dollars).
But, surprise me with a 27" or even 32" 1440p or better "micro" LED. I could see this being a "past tense" "niche" product.... but we'll see. With a fan base though. I'd liken it to plasma.
I am curious about long term durability of "micro" LED. When you pay a lot, having "dead anything" won't be great. I mean, perhaps it becomes something much much much better than what it is currently and surprises us all (???) But... today???
Edit: also, "can't get blood from a stone". You gotta power this without a ton of thickness to handle cooling, even then, heat production? We'll see.
If "your monitor" is beyond 55" in size, then maybe this is ok (if you have the dollars).
But, surprise me with a 27" or even 32" 1440p or better "micro" LED. I could see this being a "past tense" "niche" product.... but we'll see. With a fan base though. I'd liken it to plasma.
I am curious about long term durability of "micro" LED. When you pay a lot, having "dead anything" won't be great. I mean, perhaps it becomes something much much much better than what it is currently and surprises us all (???) But... today???
Edit: also, "can't get blood from a stone". You gotta power this without a ton of thickness to handle cooling, even then, heat production? We'll see.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,297
DLP were "projector based" and looked amazing.I hear what you are saying. We will have to see on such models for some of those factors I guess (layering spill/glow, artifacts, uniformity, lifting or muting of: color detail, darkness in shared parts of the screen, etc). However, LCD transitions, (like you said with current mini LED ones), won't be able to keep up with 360fpsHz --> 480 --> 1000fpsHz (along with more advanced fraemgen + ai) like tandem PhOled and likely true 4k microLED screens eventually, both being per pixel emissive, response time wise.
Normally I'd say the more options the better, in regard to backlighting a LCD with a microLED - but I'd rather that actual microLED devs and manufacturing devote the money and energy to bringing microLED screens without LCD tech involved at all, personally. I'd rather LCD die for multimedia displays. Which is why I added the graphic about looking forward to the final nail in the LCD coffin between the tandem MLA PhOLED tech I outlined, progress in microLED fully emissive screens, and eventually lightweight MR glasses once they get more polished and advance to very high resolution virtual screens.
. . . .
Yes, originally things like some of the 55" and larger 720p and 1080p living room tvs were projector based, too. The projector was pointed upward inside of the base and reflected off of the back to the screen. They looked like crap though, especially black level wise, being more like blobs of grey. I'm sure dolby's test kit was way better though of course, lol. Projector based stuff also had really bad response times, but dolby wasn't testing for games, idk if they were even showing people movies originally, they may have been showingstill images in SDR vs different levels of HDR brightness versions of the same images.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
I agree, but there is the future and there is the nearer future.
I feel that very high resolution, very lightweight mixed reality glasses will be at some point be the future too, surpassing staring down at smartphones, and replacing use of most other physical screens. MicroOLED (with an "O", organic), exists in some headsets already.
..HDR brightness levels are effectively much, much brighter nearer they are to your eyes. (inverse square law, double the distance = 4x dimmer, triple the distance = 9 times dimmer, and vice-versa. So it follows that testing from sites being typically done right up against the screen using hardware, you are then seeing dimmer values the farther from a screen you sit).
..With a screen per eye, such glasses will be capable of "holographic" 3d objects, environments, and beings (like bulky VR/MR headsets can already do), which will be way more immersive (like bulky VR/MR headsets can do).
..They will be able to create high resolution virtual screens in real space (once the resolutions are high enough in the lightweight glasses formats).
..They will be able to "go through the looking glass" to bring virtual things (virtual entity ~ "holograms") into the real world perspective where you might not even opt to use a virtual flat screen for some things, instead working with virtual objects and toolboxes in real space.
..They could also put planes of 3d terrain and architectures with creatures and entities in real space, at different scales as desired, and cutaways, moving scenes and environment map planes, etc. for games intead of traditional flat screen gaming, and as opposed to a blacked out VR first person PoV option.
Both of those (high rez consumer microLED, and lightweight MR glasses that truly deliver) are still years away from being available, especially at enthusiast consumer level. MicroLED will come first but idk how long it will take until a 65" - 70"+ living room tv, or a 55", -> 42" or smaller 4k microLED for pc gamers, will be available and at enthusiast level pricing. E.g. for $5k or less in modern dollars, where most people doing a big purchase might be willing to spend up to $4k for a high end 70"+ tv in previous years, if that (some were around $3200, depending), maybe 1500 - 2000 ( - 3500) on a higher end gaming laptop, or 2k - 3k on a top tier gpu. The point I'm getting at is that I doubt most enthusiasts would pay 6k to 10k or more for a display, especially since display tech improves year to year or over several of the following years. Also because there will be tandem phOLED with MLA, etc, and still microLED FALD offerings that will likely remain much cheaper and which will still look pretty great.
. . .
The smallest model TCL QM8K is 65" which is unfortunate for pc gamers. 65" is a stretch even for a wider spaced "command center" style setup where the screen is mounted separately (on it's own stand, surface, or wall mount) and gapped from the desk. You don't approach your central human 60 to 50 degree viewing angle on a 65" 16:9 until about 48" (4') away. Do-able for some niche setups for those willing to do that kind of layout, but typically not realistc for most who use a screen planted on top of their desk/desk arm and with more space restrictions.
Similar to OfaceSIG's TCL QM8 price range when he bought it,
the 65" TCL QM8K model is currently $1500, which isn't bad for a high performing, highly rated HDR gaming tv of that size. The 75" is around $2000. They are releasing a QM9K soon, with higher brightness supposedly and some other imrprovements. I'm not sure what price that will be and whether it will affect the price of the QM8 eventually or not.
The samsung Q90F is around $1900 at 65", and $2300 at 75". You can get a 43" Q90F for ~ $1000 though (for pc use for example, though you'd still need a 32" view distance to get to a 60 deg viewing angle unless you are ok with suffering progressively lower ppd and worsening viewing angles, unifomity, ergonomics, etc the nearer it was viewed).
The LG G5 tandem OLED 55" model is smallest avaialble (for pc gamers with a wider spaced command center for example), and is around $2000 usd. The 65" has listings of $2900, 77" is ~ $4300. To get 60 deg viewing angle on a 55" 16:9 you'd need to sit around 42 inches away (3' 6").
For me, taxes are always a consideration, too, where on higher priced hardware the tax becomes a lot larger. Hundreds of dollars on things costing several thousands.
I told myself my next screen, after ticking a lot of other boxes necessarily, would be at least 240hz 4k, or 4k+ uw. Hz increases seem more meaningful every time they double. The 45" 5120x2160 screens seemed interesting at 800R, but their abraded surface and lower brightness along with the 165Hz limit made them less appealing.
. . .
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,782
The dual layer LCDs in one or more mastering monitors plus some consumer panasonic model(s) in the uk supposedly had excellent picture with very high backlighting definition, too (e.g. 1080 monochrome screen lighting a 4k color lcd layer, and the double layer effectively blocking more light spilling from the backlight than traditional FALD) - but they didn't seem to be a way to go due to tradeoffs like bulk, large power consumption and heat generation, heatsink+active fans, some screen abberation and poor off-axis viewing, very poor response time, and likely additional cost compared to competing techs.
It's been awhile since I read about DLP so I can't speak informatively about the pros and cons, but something must have steered me away from those. Idk if it was the color wheel effect and/or screen door effect or some other tradeoff or potential tradeoff, I can't recall. After owning a rear projection LCD with it's replaceable bulb, I probably found the bulb thing a turnoff, too. They also used fans, which at the time was probably a turnoff to me. I'll take your word for the quality you experienced though.
At the time, I believe I had a panasonic rear projector LCD screen, 50", which was large for the time, to me anyway, but the PQ wasn't great. Contrast/black depth was terrible. I ended up bying a floor model sony xbr960 34" widescreen tv (1080i/"720p") to go alongside of it, angled in the coner of the room. Believe it or not, that crt had a hdmi port on it even. Nothing outside of plasma had that kind of contrast and black depth, and I found console games unplayable on LCD TV response times back then, where the crt had practically none. I kept that display for years even after upgrading my main TV, but I eventually retired it when flatscreen TV's got better contrast and response times. (I also had a FW900 graphics professional CRT alongside various LCDs for several years at my desk, too).
. . . .
AI blurb about DLP anyway, refreshed some of the cons, though actual owners might argue the impact or lack thereof on these. All screen techs have pros and cons, but I never bought into DLP personally. Among some of the other cons, I'm the type of person that can notice flicker lights and low frequencies, other details in things.
Last edited:
Part of the problem was people liked the thin LCDs too much so by the time DLPs started getting their issues fixed, they started going off the market. Near the end of their life LED based ones came on the market. That totally solved the bulb issue, the LEDs were long enough life that by the time they'd get dime (10+ years) it would be time to replace the unit. We have LED lit projectors in a lot of classrooms at work and the oldest have been in place for over a decade, no issues. Likewise they fix the rainbow issues, because the lights can cycle much faster so they do so above the limits of human vision.
The primary color LED light source for them really improved them in a lot of ways, but there was like one generation of that on sale then they went off the market.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,653
Curious what sort of "brightness" (with contrast so it's not trash) you get from an LED projector. If it's well into the thousands of lumens, can you share the model you use? That is, do you get fairly good quality in very lit room.