OLED Computer Monitors?

[Hurin]

Likewise on the final shot wish, but ime people tend to accuse others precisely of what they themselves are guilty of.

Where have I misquoted anything. Alleged to do reading I can't back up? Post links as though they support my argument when they don't? Drop an angle when it become inconvenient, ignoring its dismantling, and then wait a page or two only to revive it as though it has never been addressed? Where have I boiled down a long, detailed, substantive rebuttal to one convenient sentence and then replied with a trite blurb?

My reading (in quotations no less by you) was and is on the topic of addition of white pixels to RGB OLED, an idea not LG's, because everyone who actually knows wtf they're talking about in the industry is aware it's a kludge, and the only way to produce OLED panels with workable yields.

Did somebody care whose idea it originally was? (straw man).

When LG says they found a way to go from 10% yields to 80, that's what they mean. They have not made any kind of major breakthroughs or reinvented the technology.

Did someone say they had? (straw man #2)

Long story short, these panels will contain bad pixels galore, they're simply harder to detect with added white pixels which can and do function as little more than pixel-sized backlights.

Source?

Also, if LG's is "fake" and the only way to get decent yields, how is Samsung getting their yields and releasing a competing television without using "fake OLED?"

Oooo! Also, LCD would kill to have individually controlled pixel-sized backlights. Talk about full-grid local dimming! That sounds awesome!

As a matter of fact, if God forbid you were slightly better read, you would have already known the charge of "fake" isn't mine but Samsung's.

So two companies use two different techniques and each says the other is superior. That's supposed to be news to me? By knowing that I'm officially "better read?" Should I also point out that the word "fake" (your quotes) isn't in what you linked. Samsung calls their version "True OLED". . .

Was it your intention to give us the impression that all your other claims are also backed up in that article? Because they aren't in any way. That article is actually quite neutral and does not say anything negative about WRGB OLED. As I mentioned, it doesn't even portray Samsung as calling it "fake". . . they don't even denigrate WRGB at all. The worst thing said about WRGB is that it isn't as "efficient" (which need not affect picture quality in any way).

Again, I would direct you to the stellar review of the 55" WRGB OLED TV. The proof is in the freakin' pudding. But because the evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you dismiss it outright citing ridiculous, illogical reasons.

For whatever reason you're the only member I find myself in constant contention with, aside from Mr. 12 Days Now.

Don't forget the guy you praised as refreshingly informed and knowledgeable only to have him come in a few posts later to tell you how utterly ignorant you are. And there are plenty others (shall I count?).

Pardon the vulgarity, but has it occurred to you that I'm just the only one who won't let your obvious bullshit go? Or that it makes it easier for others to just let your bullshit go when they already see someone else so effectively calling you out on all your bullshit?

Again I hope to be through defending myself, my knowledge and experience with someone who clearly doesn't know half as much about the industry and current state of affairs in it as I do.

Despite your vaunted "knowledge and experience" of the "industry" you repeatedly claim to have, it seems readily apparent to even the casual observer that you state only half-understood or poorly remembered things, and then feverishly engage google when challenged on them. . . only ever coming up with barely-if-at-all-relevant mass media reports that you then shoehorn into your argument unconvincingly while outright fabricating their contents in hopes that nobody will really check (as I have repeatedly demonstrated).

But tell me, is it your vast "knowledge and experience" in the "industry" that has led you to completely embarrass yourself in the FW900 thread as well? Where all the resident (actual) experts are extremely puzzled by just about everything you say? It would appear that your vast knowledge and experience does not encompass a reasonable understanding of the concept of "gamut." Hey, at least I can cite something you said yesterday rather than something you wrote ten years ago (and I won't have to back off this one like you did).

I suppose we'll just have to overlook the fact that you have had pages of responses to your most recent questions and points (not just from me) but as usual, you're going to just ignore them (probably only to restate them later). That's the only thing that you can do at this point.

--H

 

[JeffDC]

Despite your vaunted "knowledge and experience" of the "industry" you repeatedly claim to have, it seems readily apparent to even the casual observer that you state only half-understood or poorly remembered things

Keep reading the first sentence of my last response. And for God's sake find a mirror.

 

[Hurin]

Keep reading the first sentence of my last response. And for God's sake find a mirror.

Dude. You lose. Deal with it.

 

[zanardi]

Find out why OLED is superior to QD - according to LG

http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

 

[JeffDC]

"Long story short, these panels will contain bad pixels galore, they're simply harder to detect with added white pixels which can and do function as little more than pixel-sized backlights."

"Source?"

Simply pathetic. You really can't fix stupid.

 

[flod]

Find out why OLED is superior to QD - according to LG

http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

while oled is better than qd backlit lcd, this part

QD’s color gamut is 125%, which is greater than that of OLED TV (108%), so it may show more accurate colors. However, in low temperature environment, the color gamut may fall sharply, and in a dark environment, the color gamut is not as good as OLED’s.

Also, OLED display has a respond time that is less than 0.001 milliseconds, which is about 1,000 times faster than a LCD, eliminating the blur problems. It also has a contrast ratio that is almost 10,0000:1. Furthermore, its color gamut range is greater and more accurate than LCD, which enables expression of outstanding definition.

is so inaccurate and self contradictory i dont even

 

[Hurin]

"Long story short, these panels will contain bad pixels galore, they're simply harder to detect with added white pixels which can and do function as little more than pixel-sized backlights."

"Source?"

Simply pathetic. You really can't fix stupid.

So, again, where's your source that current yields will have "bad pixels galore?" And, again, how is Samsung getting away with a competitive television not using WRGB if there will be "bad pixels galore" without the white pixels that you claim will hide them?

While we're at it. . .

Still waiting on where you repeatedly got QD as "1/20" as expensive as OLED. When the article you cite states 1/3. Just one of so many points where you have brought your own honesty and integrity into question.

I guess it's just easier to call people stupid than admit that someone so allegedly "stupid" has (rhetorically) kicked your pompous, yet ignorant ass up and down this thread for page after page. You have embarrassed yourself for long enough, don't you think?

BTW, I'm embarrassed too. But only because I continue to engage with your obvious shenanigans. My integrity (if not my dignity) remains fully intact. You clearly cannot say the same.

 

[jommy999]

arguing on internet is just pointless.

 

[Hurin]

arguing on internet is just pointless.

Guilty. Sorry.

Though, it wouldn't be if more people were intellectually honest, and argued in good faith. Instead of being proven wrong at the outset and then resorting to nothing but delaying tactics and obfuscation instead of showing some integrity and simply stating "I stand corrected."

People respect the latter. Even think more highly of the person who does so than they do the person who presented the better argument.

And by all rights, that should have happened when WRGB was dismissed as "fake" and "vastly inferior" with "washed out IQ". . . only to have the absolutely stunning and glowing reviews of the technology in action presented.

It really should have ended right there. Instead, ridiculous shenanigans ensued. To which I've contributed (in trying to rebut them). My apologies.

 

[Hurin]

Here's a good example. . .

Also, if LG's is "fake" and the only way to get decent yields, how is Samsung getting their yields and releasing a competing television without using "fake OLED?"

I stand corrected here. This is not a valid point. Apparently Samsung will not be releasing another competing RGB OLED display after their last one (released in 2013). There has been no announcement of one (the info in JeffDC's most recent link is actually quite old) and Samsung is apparently now focusing on printable OLED.

Having said all that, I would still like to see a recent (and ideally, relatively unbiased) source informing us reliably that even these improved/expanded fabrication plants are still producing OLED panels with "bad pixels galore." I suspect we'll get the same warmed over data from years ago. As though LCDs didn't also have issues with dead pixels and weren't constantly improved.

 

[SJetski71]

Personally i can hardly wait for OLED monitors. It wouldn't even have to be a true monitor, i'll take a smaller ~ 32" to ? size, low input lag, 4K, decent price.

the good is the enemy of the best.

Another favorite phrase of mine is a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now, quick! Change the subject again!

Hurin, i realize you've done your part in this debate by revealing lots of info, we thank you for it, but it gets to a point where you're wasting your time.

 

[JeffDC]

Personally i can hardly wait for OLED monitors. It wouldn't even have to be a true monitor, i'll take a smaller ~ 32" to ? size, low input lag, 4K, decent price.


Another favorite phrase of mine is a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Hurin, i realize you've done your part in this debate by revealing lots of info, we thank you for it, but it gets to a point where you're wasting your time.

I hear that. At this point I've backed up most or all of my major claims with cites, and more importantly explanations. In return I get personal attacks, ridiculous psychological analyses and unprovoked swipes in unrelated threads. Between his abysmally uninformed opinions and claims about everything from WRGB OLED to CRTs, message finally received. The resident Google twinkie. No shortage of them today. Moving on.

Source? Source (or explanation) provided. Source?? Etc ad nauseum, horribly irritating and his stupidity pit appears to be bottomless. You can't fix stupid or lazy and I'm through trying.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

How about you stop coming in here with your 90's tech and let us discuss the future? See how that sounds...I'm surprised this shit is even allowed, the insults hidden within the responses really help your points.\

Now what was this thread about again....something something OLED?

 

[Hurin]

I hear that. At this point I've backed up (I think) every one of major claims with credible cites, and more importantly established explanations. Between Hurin's CRT "guide", his claims about the superiority of WRGB and other claims, his unprovoked swipes at me in unrelated threads etc, I've had enough. I've cleaned his clock on this OLED issue, and when you can't handle the message the only option is to attack the messenger.

So to you, Hurin and all other OLED hopefuls, please continue wallowing in your 14 year-old ignorance about OLED and simply watch what happens the next two years.

See? You think it's easy being smarter than you are? Actually it kinda is.

Wow, the density of dishonesty per word in that post is simply astonishing. Sadly, you probably think you will fool the casual reader since few people will take the time to go back and witness your drubbing point-by-point, in detail. Throughout the thread.

But that doesn't bother me at this point. It's quite clear now that you know that you had your ass handed to you at every turn. That's enough.

--H

P.S. Nice belated stealth edit an hour later. I liked the original (quoted above) better.

 

[JeffDC]

How about you stop coming in here with your 90's tech and let us discuss the future? See how that sounds...I'm surprised this shit is even allowed, the insults hidden within the responses really help your points.\

Now what was this thread about again....something something OLED?

It amounts to genital waving since time will tell what happens. But I have no plans to allow LG to get away with dealing with OLED's limitations simply by lowering the bar of what consumers expect to receive when they buy a new monitor. LG magically went from 10% yields to 80% not by any breakthrough, but simply by masking bad pixels to the point where far more panels that used to fail testing will now pass it. Don't believe me on this, read a little.

What a fucking disaster abandonment of CRT has been.

 

[Hurin]

Hurin, i realize you've done your part in this debate by revealing lots of info, we thank you for it, but it gets to a point where you're wasting your time.

You're far too kind. I realize that when wrestling with pigs, you'll get muddy. As I said, though I wrap this up with my integrity intact, I can't say the same for my dignity. You can't indulge shenanigans like this for as long as I have here without exhibiting at least a bit of poor form (though I try to be careful to never let that bleed into the substance).

 

[JeffDC]

though I wrap this up with my integrity intact

As long as you believe so. Objective readers might have actually learned something.

 

[Hurin]

But I have no plans to allow LG to get away with dealing with OLED's limitations simply by lowering the bar of what consumers expect to receive when they buy a new monitor. LG magically went from 10% yields to 80% not by any breakthrough, but simply by masking bad pixels to the point where far more panels that used to fail testing will now pass it. Don't believe me on this, read a little.

We would love to read a little as you keep urging us to do! But you refuse to ever link to what you have read that draws a direct link between WRGB and the "masking" of dead pixels. Nor anything that even comes close to documenting that such masking alone led to a 10%-->80% swing. I'd like to trust you. I've seen that their yields are now 80% and that they achieved that improvement while developing WRGB. Haven't seen anyone ever say that it went from 10% to 80% soley from "masking" dead pixels, with no improvement in dead pixel rate. I'd like to just take your word for it. But then there's that whole "1/20" when it was really "1/3" thing. WRGB has indeed been tied to increased yields, but there are other less uncharitable and more reasonable ways to parse those data points than simply asserting that the new fabrication technique "masks" the bad pixels. FFS, just put up or shut up already. Show us someone reputable asserting that direct connection. Or you are, as usual, just talking out of your ass.

Oh but dear me! Thank you for standing up for all of us and not letting LG "get away" with this. . .

"There's also more than one type of OLED display. Traditional emissive TVs like Samsung's KN55S9C OLED and most plasmas use three subpixels, one each for RGB (red, green, and blue), to create each actual pixel. LG's WRGB OLED TV system, on the other hand, uses OLED material of all three colors sandwiched together, in combination with four filters (clear [or white], red, green, and blue) for each pixel. The additional white subpixel in the LG design is said to add brightness, helping power efficiency."

. . .

"The LG 55EC9300 OLED TV's picture betters that of any LCD or plasma TV, with perfect black levels and exceedingly bright whites. It's equally adept in bright and dark rooms, showed accurate color, and looks better from off-angle than any LED LCD."

. . .

"The LG 55EC9300 lives up to the promise of OLED with the best picture quality of any TV we've ever reviewed."

. . .

OLED is everything advertised. Just like the Samsung KN55S9C I tested earlier, the LG 55EC9300 reproduced visually perfect black levels. In a completely dark room with an active screen, I couldn't tell where the black backdrop of my lab wall ended and the TV screen began.

When I was watching the one of the best scenes I've ever seen for demonstrating contrast and black level, Chapter 2 of "Gravity," the LG destroyed the other TVs in my lineup. Beginning at around 16:15, as Stone spins off into space, the shot grows darker and darker until it's just deep space, the thousands of stars of the galaxy and beyond, and the slowly dwindling lights of her helmet. None of the other sets could touch the dead-black void between the stars, the abyss of darkness in the letterbox bars, or the contrasting eye-popping clarity of the brilliant star field and helmet lights.

In this scene the screens of the LCDs appeared cloudy and indistinct next to the OLED, with dimmer stars and brighter space, and while the plasmas were better -- they're the two best TVs I'd ever tested prior to the LG, mind you -- they still didn't compare. In this scene their black areas looked dark gray next to the lightless void of OLED.

Just for fun I turned up the OLED's light output and, as expected, the blacks stayed perfect and the stars got even brighter, for even more sweet, sweet contrast. Meanwhile the LCDs' blacks brightened along with the stars...and the plasmas, particularly the ZT60, stayed the same, because they were already essentially at maximum light output. Advantage, OLED, in a landslide."
​

Yes! What a terrible "lowering of the bar!" Please oh please save us from that!

Because CRTs!

You're just damn amusing now. Playing the unsung hero now are you?

Jesus, even if your unsubstantiated and undocumented assumptions about how LG arrived at their increased yields are true (no improvement in dead pixel rates due to new techniques, just masking them), you can't argue that the net result isn't still something that sounds awesome. Again, if true, how are dead pixels that you can't detect and are effectively masked a terrible problem from which we must all be saved by your heroic efforts when the TV still looks and performs better than any other viable alternative? You're going to put a stop to that, you hero you?

I hope you don't stop them before they further improve things and make the technology ready for monitors. But it seems that if you had your way, you certainly would. How odd.

Because. . . CRTs!

Sheesh. . .

--H

 

[JeffDC]

We would love to read a little as you keep urging us to do! But you refuse to ever link to what you have read that draws a direct link between WRGB and the "masking" of dead pixels. Nor anything that even comes close to documenting that 10%-->80% swing. I'd like to trust you. I've seen that their yields are now 80% and that they achieved that improvement while developing WRGB. Haven't seen anyone ever say that it went from 10% to 80% soley from "masking" dead pixels, with no improvement in dead pixel rate. I'd like to just take your word for it. But then there's that whole "1/20" when it was really "1/3" thing. WRGB has indeed been tied to increased yields, but there are other less uncharitable and more reasonable ways to parse those data points than simply asserting that the new fabrication technique "masks" the bad pixels. FFS, just put up or shut up already. Show us someone reputable asserting that direct connection. Or you are, as usual, just talking out of your ass.

Oh but dear me! Thank you for standing up for all of us and not letting LG "get away" with this. . .

"There's also more than one type of OLED display. Traditional emissive TVs like Samsung's KN55S9C OLED and most plasmas use three subpixels, one each for RGB (red, green, and blue), to create each actual pixel. LG's WRGB OLED TV system, on the other hand, uses OLED material of all three colors sandwiched together, in combination with four filters (clear [or white], red, green, and blue) for each pixel. The additional white subpixel in the LG design is said to add brightness, helping power efficiency."

. . .

"The LG 55EC9300 OLED TV's picture betters that of any LCD or plasma TV, with perfect black levels and exceedingly bright whites. It's equally adept in bright and dark rooms, showed accurate color, and looks better from off-angle than any LED LCD."

. . .

"The LG 55EC9300 lives up to the promise of OLED with the best picture quality of any TV we've ever reviewed."

. . .

OLED is everything advertised. Just like the Samsung KN55S9C I tested earlier, the LG 55EC9300 reproduced visually perfect black levels. In a completely dark room with an active screen, I couldn't tell where the black backdrop of my lab wall ended and the TV screen began.

When I was watching the one of the best scenes I've ever seen for demonstrating contrast and black level, Chapter 2 of "Gravity," the LG destroyed the other TVs in my lineup. Beginning at around 16:15, as Stone spins off into space, the shot grows darker and darker until it's just deep space, the thousands of stars of the galaxy and beyond, and the slowly dwindling lights of her helmet. None of the other sets could touch the dead-black void between the stars, the abyss of darkness in the letterbox bars, or the contrasting eye-popping clarity of the brilliant star field and helmet lights.

In this scene the screens of the LCDs appeared cloudy and indistinct next to the OLED, with dimmer stars and brighter space, and while the plasmas were better -- they're the two best TVs I'd ever tested prior to the LG, mind you -- they still didn't compare. In this scene their black areas looked dark gray next to the lightless void of OLED.

Just for fun I turned up the OLED's light output and, as expected, the blacks stayed perfect and the stars got even brighter, for even more sweet, sweet contrast. Meanwhile the LCDs' blacks brightened along with the stars...and the plasmas, particularly the ZT60, stayed the same, because they were already essentially at maximum light output. Advantage, OLED, in a landslide."
​

Yes! What a terrible "lowering of the bar!" Please oh please save us from that!

Because CRTs!

You're just damn amusing now. Playing the unsung hero now are you?

Jesus, even if your unsubstantiated and undocumented assumptions about how LG arrived at their increased yields are true (no improvement in dead pixel rates due to new techniques, just masking them), you can't argue that the net result is still something that sounds awesome. Again, if true, how are dead pixels that you can't detect and are effectively masked a terrible problem from which we must all be saved by your heroic efforts when the TV still looks and performs better than any other viable alternative? You're going to put a stop to that, you hero you?

Sheesh. . .

--H

Please stop talking about TVs. Request #29 I think. It's also the answer to your question. WRGB OLED flies well for TVs, I've never denied it in this thread or anywhere else. It doesn't fly when proofing and color correcting video and images. It's one of the spec differences between TVs and monitors (I've mentioned these earlier) that you either are unfamiliar with or believe have no relevance to the topic. But regardless of what you believe it's directly relevant. Please post all the stellar TV reviews you wish, it doesn't flipping matter as long as the technology doesn't work for computer monitors.

Look as far as I know I don't even know you, and I have no interest whatsoever in creating some kind of personal problem with you. Again I haven't had this problem anywhere else on this site, even though my opinions are usually as if not more challenging and off the wall. Time will declare winners and losers, my only personal vested interest in any of this is the pending final demise of two (14 and 15 year-old) CRTs that have been running continuously for five times their rated warranty period. My options now to replace current functionality (no backlight/color shift/input lag/slow response/etc) are fewer today than they were 15 years ago, still limited to $8K 19" OLED panels (that start to decay immediately, so one can't justify them even as a long-term investment), or a $2500 wide-gamut LED IPS panel that still sucks donkey balls at video. One bright spot may be the new IPS+Freesync/G-Sync etc monitors due this year. I think it's the actual answer to what many or most prosumer video enthusiasts will be using 2-3 years from now. Again time will tell so can we please spare the genital waving about my opinions.

 

[Fleat]

When I was watching the one of the best scenes I've ever seen for demonstrating contrast and black level, Chapter 2 of "Gravity," the LG destroyed the other TVs in my lineup. Beginning at around 16:15, as Stone spins off into space, the shot grows darker and darker until it's just deep space, the thousands of stars of the galaxy and beyond, and the slowly dwindling lights of her helmet. None of the other sets could touch the dead-black void between the stars, the abyss of darkness in the letterbox bars, or the contrasting eye-popping clarity of the brilliant star field and helmet lights.

That scene is certainly an amazing one to test with as it plays to all of OLED's strengths. Other scenes that personally blew me away were the Shanghai building fight followed by the Macau casino scene in Skyfall. I was comparing it side by side with my plasma at the time (Panasonic VT60), and it is hard to describe how badly the OLED shamed the plasma in this instance.

I should also mention that I was fortunate enough to have a chance to compare the LG OLED display with Samsung's OLED in a controlled environment last year. In the brief time that I got to spend playing with them, I didn't feel like LG gave up any quality utilizing WRGB compared to Samsung. I do have a sneaking suspicion that the Samsung might be easier to calibrate, but the calibrated end results were very similar.

 

[Hurin]

Please stop talking about TVs. Request #29 I think. It's also the answer to your question. WRGB OLED flies well for TVs, I've never denied it in this thread or anywhere else. It doesn't fly when proofing and color correcting video and images. It's one of the spec differences between TVs and monitors (I've mentioned these earlier) that you either are unfamiliar with or believe have no relevance to the topic. But regardless of what you believe it's directly relevant. Please post all the stellar TV reviews you wish, it doesn't flipping matter as long as the technology doesn't work for computer monitors.

So let's all note that you've now completely dropped the topic of LG "masking" dead pixels and how you're going to save us from such a lowering of the bar and have now completely changed the topic so that we're now talking about serviceability as proofing and color correcting video. Really? You don't think anybody is going to notice this? Just slamming on the brakes, and flying off in an all new direction?

Also, is it your impression that we're all excited about OLED computer monitors so that we can proof and color correct video? And you're harping on relevance?

Can you even hear yourself?

Oh, and no, I could be wrong. It's a long thread. But, I do believe that this is the first time that you've stated that somehow WRGB will not be serviceable for color correction or proofing whereas RGB OLED was going to be fine(?). I'd still rather see your evidence that LG went from 10% to 80% yields solely by masking dead pixels instead of reducing their incident rate at all, as you directly alleged. Funny that this (new?) angle comes from you (only?) now. As usual, totally changing the topic so you don't have to substantiate anything.

--H

 

[Hurin]

That scene is certainly an amazing one to test with as it plays to all of OLED's strengths. Other scenes that personally blew me away were the Shanghai building fight followed by the Macau casino scene in Skyfall. I was comparing it side by side with my plasma at the time (Panasonic VT60), and it is hard to describe how badly the OLED shamed the plasma in this instance.

I should also mention that I was fortunate enough to have a chance to compare the LG OLED display with Samsung's OLED in a controlled environment last year. In the brief time that I got to spend playing with them, I didn't feel like LG gave up any quality utilizing WRGB compared to Samsung. I do have a sneaking suspicion that the Samsung might be easier to calibrate, but the calibrated end results were very similar.

BUT HOW WILL YOU PROOF AND COLOR CORRECT VIDEO!?! IT'S CRAP! IT MUST BE STOPPED!

 

[spacediver]

while oled is better than qd backlit lcd, this part
is so inaccurate and self contradictory i dont even

holy shit @t that quote from the review. Talk about the dregs of content farming.

 

[JeffDC]

BUT HOW WILL YOU PROOF AND COLOR CORRECT VIDEO!?! IT'S CRAP! IT MUST BE STOPPED!

If you knew what the jesus fuck you were talking about, yet again, best of luck calibrating those dead but masked pixels.

 

[ReaderX]

10 days? Was someone recently banned?

Between Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC, IIyama, Viewsonic etc etc the world was swimming in wonderful 21-22" CRTs, in the 1990's and 2000's. Well before 10 years ago. Not exactly pointless.

A true brainless troll, I like your trolling tactic, put 20 years in your post so it's hard for people to nail down, but I am going to nail you down anyway, well before 10 years ago? OK, 21-22 CRT PC monitor back in late 90s/early 00s were far more rare than today's 29-34" LCD of today, where you claim most users today found anything larger than 24-27" pointless.

 

[ReaderX]

Please stop talking about TVs. Request #29 I think. It's also the answer to your question. WRGB OLED flies well for TVs, I've never denied it in this thread or anywhere else. It doesn't fly when proofing and color correcting video and images.

So you take this back?

"So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices. "

If you take it back then say it, else stop making stupid requests.

 

[Hurin]

If you knew what the jesus fuck you were talking about, yet again, best of luck calibrating those dead but masked pixels.

Yes, because you who are oh so concerned about the relevance to the audience of this thread and thus refuse to acknowledge TV reviews appear to be under the impression that each and every one of us are professional video editors.

But, as usual, distraction achieved. You really are good at switching gears just as soon as you're stuck. Would be nice if you would instead document how you know that all of the yield increase (from 10% to 80% no less!) that came along with LG's WRGB technique is due to masking/hiding them while none of it is due to an actual decrease in the number of dead pixels.

Why do you find it so onerous to provide such things? Indeed, why is it the only thing such an in-the-know guy like you can come up with is a ComputerWorld article that doesn't say what you asserted it said (to say nothing of that "1/3"-->"1/20" issue) and a woefully outdated general OLED information page. And that's the sum total of your "citations" of which you're so proud.

And thank you for saving us from WRGB OLED. Whew, for a second there I thought we might be stuck with great color, fast response times, infinite contrast, and excellent viewing angles. But by all means, put a stop to that because you assert we won't be able to calibrate all those dead pixels you tell us will exist.

Thank you for your brave stand.

--H

 

[svalbard]

So you take this back?

"So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices. "

If you take it back then say it, else stop making stupid requests.

Of course he won't take it back. His fragile ego would shatter.
And he CAN'T stop himself from making stupid requests, that's what stupid people do.

 

[Hurin]

Careful guys. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that he's just trying to provoke you into getting banned at this point.

 

[JeffDC]

So you take this back?

"So LG achieved 80% yields only by switching to a different (and from what I've read vastly inferior) pixel technology. As with everything these days it'll be a complete fucking scam, OLEDs with washed out IQ sold at OLED prices. "

If you take it back then say it, else stop making stupid requests.

What is there to take back? I've shown exactly why it's a scam, and how LG was magically able to get that yield number from an absolute joke to viability. The simple truth is that any company, including Samsung, could have done exactly what LG did, and replace superior RGB OLED technology with vastly inferior (even in theory) WRGB. I wish you people would do a little reading on what Samsung has to say about LG's OLED, and no I won't do any more learning for you. Stop typing drivel in forum discussions and start typing into Google, if it's all you have to work with.

 

[spacediver]

... E.g. I'm not sure how many readers know CRTs are still being produced...

Pretty sure those aren't being currently manufactured (although the stock clearly exists).

For this one, they must've had a really fine aperture grille to cram 1920 lines into a 9 inch screen.

 

[Hurin]

What is there to take back? I've shown exactly why it's a scam, and how LG was magically able to get that yield number from an absolute joke to viability.

If by "shown" you mean "assumed" and "asserted". . . based on no evidence presented whatsoever. Then, yes, you have "shown" it.

I think we'd like to hear it from someone other than you.

The simple truth is that any company, including Samsung, could have done exactly what LG did, and replace superior RGB OLED technology with vastly inferior (even in theory) WRGB. I wish you people would do a little reading on what Samsung has to say about LG's OLED, and no I won't do any more learning for you. Stop typing drivel in forum discussions and start typing into Google, if it's all you have to work with.

Well, let's not forget that you did actually provide a link the last time that you demanded that we all go read what Samsung has to say about their competitor. And there was nothing negative about WRGB OLED in it at all. Remember? Don't worry, I do!

So, just to be 100% clear, you are hereby stating that LG achieved an increase from 10% to 80% yields solely from masking bad pixels. That's your position? Based on what evidence? If not all of that increase, how much? Only by giving such a number can you possibly make the claims and assertions that you so blithely state. I guess we're just supposed to stand in awe of your oft-professed expertise and cast away all doubt.

H

 

[JeffDC]

Meanwhile readers interested in actual information instead of genitalia waving are directed here, and here. Oh and here and especially here. Stop reading when you get the message.

 

[Hurin]

Pretty sure those aren't being currently manufactured (although the stock clearly exists).

For this one, they must've had a really fine aperture grille to cram 1920 lines into a 9 inch screen.

They're not. Edz posted a marketwatch article confirming that production ceased in 2008. Hey everyone, look! A fact, and documentation.

 

[ReaderX]

Meanwhile readers interested in actual information instead of genitalia waving are directed here, and here. Oh and here and especially here. Stop reading when you get the message.

Now you want to take this:

"Please stop talking about TVs. Request #29 I think. It's also the answer to your question. WRGB OLED flies well for TVs, I've never denied it in this thread or anywhere else."

back?

If you want to take this back, say it.

 

[spacediver]

That is not true. It takes current G2 (i.e. the current setting, NOT the number saved in the monitor's non-volatile memory, which btw is why Hurin's directions easily could and no doubt did cause overbrightness problems for some or many people) and bumps it up not down, thereby "restoring" the monitor to "original" quality.

What? If anything, image restore lowers G2. Where did you get the idea it bumps it up??

The only way to increase brightness and contrast is to raise G2 not lower it.

Wrong.

 

[flod]

Pretty sure those aren't being currently manufactured (although the stock clearly exists).

For this one, they must've had a really fine aperture grille to cram 1920 lines into a 9 inch screen.

it says in specs

Pitch 0.25mm Super Fine Pitch Trinitron

 

[spacediver]

it says in specs

Pitch 0.25mm Super Fine Pitch Trinitron

strange. You'd think it would be lower, if it really does resolve 1920 lines across that small of a space. I also wonder why they're so goddamn expensive.

edit: weird, says it's only 340 tv lines (which is the vertical resolution).

 

[Hurin]

Meanwhile readers interested in actual information instead of genitalia waving are directed here, and here. Oh and here and especially here. Stop reading when you get the message.

Someone arguing in good faith would post their contention, then the link, and for the convenience of the reader, a quote that substantiates their contention.

Amidst your constantly shifting "points" and claims, it's hard to know what those articles are supposed to show. Will be reading about Quantum Dots spoiling the party again? Or will it be that WRGB is "fake" and we will be awash in bad pixles? Or is it that WRGB won't allow us all to be professional video editors? And so on. . .

The last time you posted "citations" of your views, what you posted bore almost no resemblance to your claims. And you flat out misrepresented a key figure produced in one. I suspect this will be the same. But I'll peruse them all the same and get back to you if any of it actually supports your contentions beyond repeating some PR from competing technologies that we've already gone over.

 

[spacediver]

I knew sooner or later someone would come along with the formal industry line. And most of it is absolute horseshit. .

While I love CRTs (I've never owned anything except CRTs), they probably weren't the most viable tech moving forward.

To build larger CRTs, the neck of the tube would need to be massive to house a lens system capable of deflecting the beam effectively. And to avoid the loss of spot focus associated with large deflection angles, you'd need to make the tubes that much deeper.

That said, they are, in my mind, a mind-blowing technology. It's sheer, brilliant madness how they work. It's a damn shame their full potential wasn't realized.