OLED Unlikely To Replace LED

[CSI_PC]

I had a Panasonic Plasma - it had a good picture and nice black. Problem - the damn thing failed about 3 months out of the warranty. I replaced it with an LED. That was about 4 years ago - to this day, I still note that the LED I have is not as good as the Plasma. Even the wife commented on this - she rarely says much tech related.

Thankfully our Pioneer Kuro plasma is still working great (yeah still in the dark ages here lol, but really not keen on some of the LEDs), but I do think the good modern LED TVs are better in quite a few areas.
But I wanted to move to OLED, cannot see that happening anytime soon
MIght have to just buy one of the top LEDs I guess.
Strange though that most reviews do not identify blacklight bleed as an issue with current OLED and say they have great black levels/contrast.

Edit:
Good review site showing just where OLED TVs are currently in useage : LG 55EG960V 4K OLED TV Review

It’s not easy deciding on a final rating for the LG 55EG960. On the one hand, by virtue of its true blacks and wide viewing angles courtesy of its self-illuminating pixels, the vast majority of viewers will clearly prefer the OLED television against the current crop of LED LCDs on the market in a side-by-side comparison, so there’s an argument for handing out our “Reference Level” award.

On the other hand, plasmas (albeit now defunct) and some LED LCD televisions still have the upper hand in motion clarity, near-black uniformity, and colour accuracy across the entire luminance range. Compatibility with future HDR content is also uncertain, which can be a worry if you’re spending nearly £4,000 on a 55in display that may have no way of taking full advantage of Ultra HD Blu-ray whose listed specifications include HDR.

Cheers

 

[Nenu]

At 25,000 hours, that's 3 years straight. That's long enough for most people... because not a lot of people have it on every second of the day. Hell, even if you keep it on as the background, you'll still have it off for 6 hours most of the days due to you going to bed. And aren't these hours measured by the tv having maxed out brightness/contrast? I would think that having it at lower brightness/contrast would increase it even more. Please confirm or deny, I'm not too sure on this.

I never heard of the UV issue though, that sounds like it could be a big problem. As for burn in, if they do the same as plasma and have it shifted, it should be fine.

Life span is usually rated as the time taken to reach 1/2 max light output of new.
As you pointed out you can mitigate this by using a lower brightness.
And it doesnt always mean its unusable when it reaches 1/2 output although for some they look dead before that.

If you dont mind saturating the highest end whites/colours, you can extend the life a bit on a poorly display by turning the brightness/contrast up.
I find this is necessary on my projector in order to use it calibrated in the first place.
However it does look bloody fantastic calibrated so I'll put up with losing a couple of bright shades.

 

[Despotes]

Thankfully our Pioneer Kuro plasma is still working great (yeah still in the dark ages here lol, but really not keen on some of the LEDs), but I do think the good modern LED TVs are better in quite a few areas.
But I wanted to move to OLED, cannot see that happening anytime soon
MIght have to just buy one of the top LEDs I guess.
Strange though that most reviews do not identify blacklight bleed as an issue with current OLED and say they have great black levels/contrast.

Edit:
Good review site showing just where OLED TVs are currently in useage : LG 55EG960V 4K OLED TV Review

Cheers

Still using my Pioneer Elite Pro111 FD. I don't think an LED/LCD is going to come close to the black levels of our plasma's. I'm looking to OLED as a replacement too. If OLED degrades at a simliar rate to plasma, I'll be very happy with that.
LCD's are the Mp3's of TV's.

 

[Despotes]

Life span is usually rated as the time taken to reach 1/2 max light output of new.
As you pointed out you can mitigate this by using a lower brightness.
And it doesnt always mean its unusable when it reaches 1/2 output although for some they look dead before that.

If you dont mind saturating the highest end whites/colours, you can extend the life a bit on a poorly display by turning the brightness/contrast up.
I find this is necessary on my projector in order to use it calibrated in the first place.
However it does look bloody fantastic calibrated so I'll put up with losing a couple of bright shades.

Is the lifespan value rated at max brightness? I'm curious how the degradation scales with a lower initial brightness setting. I have my Pioneer plasma at slightly above half for brightness and it's perfect. Great contrast, black blacks. Would the half life be doubled or quadrupled by having the brightness at 50%? (Assuming the higher the brightness setting the faster the degradation occurs.)

 

[Nenu]

Thankfully our Pioneer Kuro plasma is still working great (yeah still in the dark ages here lol, but really not keen on some of the LEDs), but I do think the good modern LED TVs are better in quite a few areas.
But I wanted to move to OLED, cannot see that happening anytime soon
MIght have to just buy one of the top LEDs I guess.
Strange though that most reviews do not identify blacklight bleed as an issue with current OLED and say they have great black levels/contrast.

Edit:
Good review site showing just where OLED TVs are currently in useage : LG 55EG960V 4K OLED TV Review

Cheers

I used a Pioneer Plasma for 4 years about 16hrs a day for TV and PC, about 50% each.
It was the last of the mid high powered versions so still subject to burn in issues, but it didnt suffer any.
I gave it to a member of my family and it gets a lot of PC/gaming use and is still going strong, now 8 years + a few days from new.
They report it is still perfect.
The PQ on that was stunning and the response time was better than any PC display I have used. I only gave it up to get a projector.

OLED TV reponse times must improve a lot for PC gaming.
Much faster processors are needed to do the colour processing.

 

[Nenu]

Is the lifespan value rated at max brightness? I'm curious how the degradation scales with a lower initial brightness setting. I have my Pioneer plasma at slightly above half for brightness and it's perfect. Great contrast, black blacks. Would the half life be doubled or quadrupled by having the brightness at 50%? (Assuming the higher the brightness setting the faster the degradation occurs.)

Lifespan has to be rated comparing max output otherwise it makes a mockery of rated values.
The rating will be max at new compared to max later in life.
but it doesnt mean it was used at max power to determine the lifespan.

Life span depends on the light source and how its used.
Those that are already overdriven will age far faster when pushed hard, but will age much more gracefully at lower power levels.
There will be a mfr rated lifespan for the display, probably 60,000 to 100,000 hrs which is a bloody long time!
This will be under what they consider an "average" brightness though, but even so, its going to last a long time.
Best check your actual rated lifespan to get some idea.

I used my Pioneer with very high contrast and set it up the same way after it parted my company.
They have not reported any problems with brightness and last time I saw it 2 years ago, it looked as new still.
It has a rated life of 100,000hrs.

 

[Michaelius]

I dont quite know. Companies don't like stating exactly how long until failure (unless your a HDD company), but I am sure if you do a quick scholar search for OLED research papers, I'm sure the answer wont be too hard to find

And Wikipedia wins again:
OLED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lifespan
The biggest technical problem for OLEDs was the limited lifetime of the organic materials. One 2008 technical report on an OLED TV panel found that "After 1,000 hours the blue luminance degraded by 12%, the red by 7% and the green by 8%." In particular, blue OLEDs historically have had a lifetime of around 14,000 hours to half original brightness (five years at 8 hours a day) when used for flat-panel displays. This is lower than the typical lifetime of LCD, LED or PDP technology. Each currently is rated for about 25,000–40,000 hours to half brightness, depending on manufacturer and model.

They are not using blue OLEDs anymore. LG is using only white and using them in their tvs as backlight.

 

[/usr/sbin]

Fuck you and your "organic" LCDs. You damn tree hugging hippie, I still heat my home with coal.

'MERICA !!

 

[N4CR]

At 25,000 hours, that's 3 years straight. That's long enough for most people... because not a lot of people have it on every second of the day. Hell, even if you keep it on as the background, you'll still have it off for 6 hours most of the days due to you going to bed. And aren't these hours measured by the tv having maxed out brightness/contrast? I would think that having it at lower brightness/contrast would increase it even more. Please confirm or deny, I'm not too sure on this.

I never heard of the UV issue though, that sounds like it could be a big problem. As for burn in, if they do the same as plasma and have it shifted, it should be fine.

25k hours is not bad but that's degraded to 50% brightness typically.
Yes, reducing output of any OLED/LED/Laser source will significantly extend lifetimes. Especially if thermal considerations are accounted for and not limited like some newer 'HDR' FALD screens, where the lighting array is not heat sinked well. Only Seki from memory has done it properly with no brightness over time or area limitations.

Hopefully like many screens, the brightness will be reduced during proper calibration. E.g. U2711s are often at mid to high 20% brightness once calibrated. I bet that will help a bit for extending those figures. I find almost all screens far too bright at default 50%.
Some LEDs are rated to 30-40,000 hours. The same LEDs properly engineered in a slightly more costly manner, running a little lower in output, will last 120,000 hours plus, very likely far beyond that, until 90% brightness. Basically, they'll outlast the power supplies, from data we currently have so far. Easy to change a power supply or capacitors but most don't want that slight cost increase. I don't think OLED will be so generous considering it's not already there yet, but it will likely help to ease the stain on the blues. Changing screen content and using very transparent windows and dark colours, will be the name of the game. But that black level will make it amazing to have darker UIs.

UV is worrying, because UV or deep blue lasers and intense leds, have their own range of detrimental effects both biologically and to materials when considering engineering with them. They are the worst of the visible spectrum, most damaging and most energetic. It's bad enough at 445nm with laser, 430nm must be a even more of a problem, especially with plastics. Most make the mistake of using 445nm with plastic optics at high densities, because it's cheap, it doesn't work long term. At the emission window of the OLED, there might be enough power density for this to be an issue. I suspect the emission wavelength of the OLED may be ever so slightly self damaging also, of low efficiency which doesn't help.

It's basically photochemical bleaching of material that occurs. Too much energy in that deep blue!

I guess the LG solution might be the way. It's sort of like how modern digital cameras work in reverse.

 

[pothb]

25k hours is not bad but that's degraded to 50% brightness typically.
Yes, reducing output of any OLED/LED/Laser source will significantly extend lifetimes. Especially if thermal considerations are accounted for and not limited like some newer 'HDR' FALD screens, where the lighting array is not heat sinked well. Only Seki from memory has done it properly with no brightness over time or area limitations.

I'm a bit confused here. What do you mean degraded? The 25k should be at full brightness, then it would degrade to half brightness. So it would be the time after the 25k.

I normally use my screens at about 65 ish brightness, because my eyes hurt staring at a bright screen. Unless it's during daylight or a very dark game.

 

[N4CR]

They are not using blue OLEDs anymore. LG is using only white and using them in their tvs as backlight.

I thought all the phones still were? Don't think they can make it dense enough yet with the white + colour filter approach.

Just looked and yes, people are already reporting burn in on the S7. It happens on all of them if you use them enough. This will be fun for Apple if they do move to AMOled....

 

[N4CR]

I'm a bit confused here. What do you mean degraded? The 25k should be at full brightness, then it would degrade to half brightness. So it would be the time after the 25k.

I normally use my screens at about 65 ish brightness, because my eyes hurt staring at a bright screen. Unless it's during daylight or a very dark game.

I don't think they run them at 100% the whole time, only at the test points. What they run them at depends on what they say if marketing is involved!

Lifespan has to be rated comparing max output otherwise it makes a mockery of rated values.
The rating will be max at new compared to max later in life.
but it doesnt mean it was used at max power to determine the lifespan.

Life span depends on the light source and how its used.
Those that are already overdriven will age far faster when pushed hard, but will age much more gracefully at lower power levels.

Nenu said it..

 

[mullet]

I changed my mind I want the 80" OLED.

 

[ep0x73]

What about VA panels? Can they not go higher then around 27"?
I have 3 BenQ VA monitors and they are damn nice with great contrast and no bleeding.

 

[pothb]

I don't think they run them at 100% the whole time, only at the test points. What they run them at depends on what they say if marketing is involved!



Nenu said it..

I guess your phrasing was just confusing.

 

[Michaelius]

What about VA panels? Can they not go higher then around 27"?
I have 3 BenQ VA monitors and they are damn nice with great contrast and no bleeding.

They do - almost every TV on market uses VA panels.

 

[qbanb8582]

Price is always going to be a factor. That is why LED is going to dominate. I want an OLED TV but chances are I'm going to get a LED. The Vizio P-series which at 65" is $1999, a 65" OLED is $4500. So if I get one this year as much as I want OLED, its going to an LED because of price.

 

[CreatedTheMultiverse]

The Vizio P-series which at 65" is $1999, a 65" OLED is $4500. So if I get one this year as much as I want OLED, its going to an LED because of price.

LG 65EF9500 - 65-Inch 2160p 4K UHD Smart 3D OLED TV - $3,000

Edit: dead

 

[rat]

At 25,000 hours, that's 3 years straight. That's long enough for most people... As for burn in, if they do the same as plasma and have it shifted, it should be fine.

Burn in was seen within the first month of the brand new Galaxy S7 models. You know... the one with the newest, highest end displays available on phones right now...

Burn in will never not be a problem.

 

[Nolan7689]

I was planning to stick with my Plasma until 4K OLED became a more affordable solution. But I guess maybe not.

I've got 6 years out of it now, and I'll keep it going until it dies rather than go to LCD.

 

[Snowdog]

I used a Pioneer Plasma for 4 years about 16hrs a day for TV and PC, about 50% each.

What? 16 hours/day? That's like every waking hour, for 4 years straight... You didn't work or go to school for 4 years? You did nothing but sit in front of your TV for 4 straight years?

 

[pothb]

He could be just working from home. My brother does that. And maybe he isn't the one watching, could be others.

Burn in was seen within the first month of the brand new Galaxy S7 models. You know... the one with the newest, highest end displays available on phones right now...

Burn in will never not be a problem.

But do the S7 shift like plasma tvs to help deter burn in? a couple of months in makes it seem like they didn't.

 

[KazeoHin]

Here's the thing. The cheapest will ALWAYS be the absolute cheapest. The way the market works, is that manufacturers fight a fierce, bloody battle on the the cheap side of the market, and have more of a heated discussion on the more expensive side. This means that in order to edge out the competition, they need to have the absolute cheapest products that they can offer, forget quality. So long as the box can have all the buzzwords ticked (like 'Full HD' and 'Widescreen' and 'LED' and '1qunitillion to -1 DCR') they could care less about the ACTUAL quality so long as they can sell it for $1 less than the other guy.

This makes OLED inherently ALWAYS a niche solution. Why?

Think about IPS and VA panels. They are better than TN in every way. Have they taken over the market? no! yet there ARE cheap IPS and VA panels available, in fact, you can grab a basic-level 1080p IPS monitor for less than $100 from AOC. So why aren't ALL monitors IPS or VA?

because the TN screens are slightly, SLIGHTLY cheaper. If an IPS panel sells for $80, the TN equivalent would only have to be $79.65 to cause massive adoption of the TN screen. Not from a consumer standpoint, but from a 'bill of materials' manufacturer standpoint. If you are going to manufacture a new product, and you want to compete in the low-price segment, you have two options: Product A and Product B. Product A uses the cheapest panel available for the size, for $79.65. You can pair this with basic, budget level components and sell a product for $110. Product B would use a much higher quality panel, but the panel would cost 35c more per unit. Unfortunately management decree that because it is using a slightly more expensive panel, that the price would have to be raised on the final product to justify the additional costs. So the final product would cost $120, but unfortunately, that extra $10 does not buy the customer any 'buzwords' compared to Product A. On paper the two units look identical, except the panel type is a different unintelligible acronym on each SKU. So in order to justify the customer paying more for Product B, extra 'buzwords' have to be added. So management decree that the product would need a USB 3.0 hub built into the product. Unfortunately this raises the BOM price by $7. So the price of the final product is now $140 because reasons. Now the product is in 'mid-range' price territory and is no longer competing against cheap products. In order to justify this, management decree that Product B needs some better electrical components so they can offer a slightly longer warranty. This bumps up the BOM by an extra $10, making the final product $160, naturally. Unfortunately, now the monitor is competing with products that have more 'buzzwords' than it does. Managment decide to add a DisplayPort controller on the unit to compete with the products wthing the price range. This adds a whopping $12 to the BOM, putting the final price at $185.

So, essentially, the extra 35c for the panel caused a snowball effect that raised the price of the final product by $75. Anyone who has worked in this manufacturing environment knows I'm not far off the truth.

The thing is, this is NOT a reaction to the market fluctuating by 35c, this is the 'management' reaction to purchasing a part that is >$0 more expensive than what else is available. If the same TN panel were to fluctuate up by even $2 the prices wouldn't change. But management see that the 'not absolute cheapest' option MUST be paired with additional features and quality to form a much more expensive final product.

This is why OLED will ALWAYS be a 'niche' product. It will ALWAYS be >$0 more than a TFT solution, which makes it a 'quality' item relegated to much more expensive products.

 

[Nenu]

What? 16 hours/day? That's like every waking hour, for 4 years straight... You didn't work or go to school for 4 years? You did nothing but sit in front of your TV for 4 straight years?

lol yes.
There is more than one person using it
I decided to leave them out of it.

 

[sleepeeg3]

I dont quite know. Companies don't like stating exactly how long until failure (unless your a HDD company), but I am sure if you do a quick scholar search for OLED research papers, I'm sure the answer wont be too hard to find

And Wikipedia wins again:
OLED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lifespan
The biggest technical problem for OLEDs was the limited lifetime of the organic materials. One 2008 technical report on an OLED TV panel found that "After 1,000 hours the blue luminance degraded by 12%, the red by 7% and the green by 8%." In particular, blue OLEDs historically have had a lifetime of around 14,000 hours to half original brightness (five years at 8 hours a day) when used for flat-panel displays. This is lower than the typical lifetime of LCD, LED or PDP technology. Each currently is rated for about 25,000–40,000 hours to half brightness, depending on manufacturer and model.

Average American watches 5 hours / day, so you are talking a useful life of around 8 years. Most will have long since have replaced it, so it's not going to matter. Once the prices come down, LCDs will lose favor.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Think about IPS and VA panels. They are better than TN in every way. Have they taken over the market? no! yet there ARE cheap IPS and VA panels available, in fact, you can grab a basic-level 1080p IPS monitor for less than $100 from AOC. So why aren't ALL monitors IPS or VA?

IPS were headed toward plasma's fate, before prices came down. They are slowly taking away TN+Film marketshare. The problem is marketing has never given people a clear reason to buy IPS over TN+Film, because the panel type was rarely advertised. Consumers see a faster refresh rate and a cheaper price for the TN+Film, so they settle for the lesser technology.

TV's never had that problem. There was always a clear distinction between CRT, Projection, DLP, LCD, Plasma, OLED, etc. They will buy based on what looks best within their budget.

 

[qbanb8582]

LG 65EF9500 - 65-Inch 2160p 4K UHD Smart 3D OLED TV - $3,000

Not bad but still slightly out of my price range atm. Also the current OLEDs I don't think support HDR which is something I'm interested in getting as well. That is encouraging to see what the price will be next year.

 

[chenw]

From what I have observed:

1. TV: People usually do not care about what technology is behind each TV, they care about 2 things: how it looks (which can be affected by the image it is displaying, etc) and the price tag. People here in Asia care even less about OLED's infinite contrast because we have a stigma that watching TV in a dark room is bad for eyes (ironically, we are also mad about blue light harming eyes, when the most harm done is using smartphones at full brightness in a dark room, ie before you go to bed), so we generally watch TV in brightly lit environments, which makes OLED's infinite contrast less obvious. Besides, the OLED TV that's available here is often a whole US$3000 more expensive than non-OLED TV (Why get a TV for NT$125,000 when you can get one for less than $25,000). So adaptation of OLED is crawlingly slow.

2. Smartphone: again, people do not care. Not many even NOTICE how AMOLED's blacks were deeper than IPS screens most other phones use, they only care about how 'vibrant' the screen is, which can be altered. I had to point it out to another person and the reply was "oh, didn't notice that".

3. PC screens: Again, price has the biggest say in this. Typical computer users don't care how their screens look, their main goal is "as long as it is usable, get the cheapest", which usually happen to be TN panels. The average user doesn't actually notice the difference because the screen size is either small enough that TN's black crush do not manifest visibly (21" or less) or they simply do not care, because they get the job done. I have tried explaining the difference between the 3 types of panels to several computer screen buyers before from work, and they all didn't care, they ended up buying the cheapest they can see. So I believe the reason why TN is still so prevalent isn't because they don't know better, but simply they don't care, or don't buy big enough screens that disadvantages manifest (all 3 panel types show severe shortcomings with large panels, it's just a matter of personal preference as to what is acceptable).

my 2c

 

[Snowdog]

IPS were headed toward plasma's fate, before prices came down. They are slowly taking away TN+Film marketshare. The problem is marketing has never given people a clear reason to buy IPS over TN+Film, because the panel type was rarely advertised. Consumers see a faster refresh rate and a cheaper price for the TN+Film, so they settle for the lesser technology.

TV's never had that problem. There was always a clear distinction between CRT, Projection, DLP, LCD, Plasma, OLED, etc. They will buy based on what looks best within their budget.

Of course TV's had that problem. What do you think happened to Plasma? It was better than any LCD, but it cost a little more, now it's gone. I hope OLED hangs on long enough so I can get it on my next TV.

 

[steakman1971]

I was planning to stick with my Plasma until 4K OLED became a more affordable solution. But I guess maybe not.

I've got 6 years out of it now, and I'll keep it going until it dies rather than go to LCD.

Keep up the good fight. I miss my plasma - the LCD I bought does not have the same picture quality. I'm hoping my current one lasts many years - I don't want to spend money on something if I don't have too. Given my life priorities, I will have a restricted budget for a TV. I've got kids, wife, house repairs, etc - since I don't watch a lot of tv anyway, not too high on my list in the first place.

 

[WangChung]

Hell, there's some of us that are still longing for RP DLP TVs to be available. The only upgrade now that I'm seriously considering is an $8k laser projector.

As already stated, mass market doesn't care about correct settings or picture quality as they're watching 'Two Broke Girls' with the brightness cranked to eleventy. Major manufacturers don't cater to enthusiasts, and the ones who do gouge the shit out of you for something that only has most of the features you want.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I love my LG OLED TV. Its bloody gorgeous. And they worked out the burn in issues they had previously so it works great with games. I hope they move everything to oled

OLED still has some things working against it:

1. Brightness: They aren't as bright as LCDs. And with HDR around the corner it's they need to make the panels work harder.
2. Implementation: Even WHITE OLEDs with filter panels still suffer from color shift over the long term. Diodes typically produce 1 narrow frequency, not full spectrum white. They then use a series of tricks like stokes shift effect to produce more colors of the spectrum.
3. Longevity: Color shift and burn is are still minor issues.
4. Cost: Can easily cost twice as much as a really good LCD panel
5. LG's implementation: This isn't a fault of the panel. But the image processing on the LG (which is the largest producer of OLEDs) really F's with the picture gamut in a bad way. It's almost as bad as when Sharp added a 4th yellow pixel.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Hell, there's some of us that are still longing for RP DLP TVs to be available. The only upgrade now that I'm seriously considering is an $8k laser projector.

As already stated, mass market doesn't care about correct settings or picture quality as they're watching 'Two Broke Girls' with the brightness cranked to eleventy. Major manufacturers don't cater to enthusiasts, and the ones who do gouge the shit out of you for something that only has most of the features you want.

The Epson? *drools*

 

[Ruffy]

Plasma was much better than LCD and often cheaper in the end and it still failed because manufacturers wanted to keep their LCD business intact so marketing was non existant. Also, people just don't care about picture quality. I can see an LCD a mile away, no side-by-side comparison is needed to see how absolutely shitty it is, no matter the TV cost. The amount of times I've entered people's homes and saw their TV set on dynamic-ultra-neon-mega-processing-eye bleeding settings...They just don't care.

Plasma is miles better. But power hungry and runs hot.

I for one welcome 4k OLED. Especially with HDR

 

[Semantics]

Plasma is miles better. But power hungry and runs hot.

I for one welcome 4k OLED. Especially with HDR

Personally i could never do plasma the plasma whine was too apparent to me shame because i didn't mind the power requirements.

 

[mlcarson]

The thing that kept Plasma from being better than LED was the burn-in potential. Every plasma screen I've ever seen had some kind of static content burned into the screen. OLED has a limited life-span so who wants to pay a premium for something that's not going to last as long?

Plasma was much better than LCD and often cheaper in the end and it still failed because manufacturers wanted to keep their LCD business intact so marketing was non existant. Also, people just don't care about picture quality. I can see an LCD a mile away, no side-by-side comparison is needed to see how absolutely shitty it is, no matter the TV cost. The amount of times I've entered people's homes and saw their TV set on dynamic-ultra-neon-mega-processing-eye bleeding settings...They just don't care.

 

[nvgrim]

The thing that kept Plasma from being better than LED was the burn-in potential. Every plasma screen I've ever seen had some kind of static content burned into the screen. OLED has a limited life-span so who wants to pay a premium for something that's not going to last as long?

Most of the newer plasmas alleviated that problem, but the damage had been done with everyone thinking they were bad and not buying them. I used to work in sears electronics years ago and i would suggest plasma tv's because of the better picture and cheaper price but people acted like i just showed them a steaming pile of shit and wanted nothing to do with plasmas. A common phrase is "im looking for a new TV and no plasmas"

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Most of the newer plasmas alleviated that problem, but the damage had been done with everyone thinking they were bad and not buying them. I used to work in sears electronics years ago and i would suggest plasma tv's because of the better picture and cheaper price but people acted like i just showed them a steaming pile of shit and wanted nothing to do with plasmas. A common phrase is "im looking for a new TV and no plasmas"

You mean besides Plasma's thickness, higher weight, lower brightness, reflective screens, higher power usage, and power supplies that kept crapping out. Other than that, plasmas are great!

 

[dangerouseddy]

yes plasmas do have a great picture, still miss mine. don't miss all the drawbacks like the mirror screen though, super high power consumption etc.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

W-OLED still has lifespan and burn-in issues. It's just more uniform than RGB OLED. They will still have issues with burnin.