Samsung to stop (monitor) LCD production - Focuses on quantum dot OLEDs

Armenius said:
Samsung Display formally announces its $10.8 billion investment in QD-OLED TV production

And we've already discussed the reality that they're not stopping LCD+QDCC production, just standard LCD production. The news articles just treat QLED like it's a different panel technology which is what brought the confusion to those of us who are "tech savvy." The article above shows how Samsung is already converting a plant that produces 125k LCD substrates per month to 35k OLED substrates.
Click to expand...


OLED backlighting does not equal OLED display.

Same bullshit the industry pulled back when the first LED screens came out. Only thing LED about them was the backlight. They still used LCD teccnology, but you wouldn't find the words LCD anywhere on the box, spec page or manual.

I would love to see stronger laws surrounding intentionally misleading marketing.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Are in TV tuners really still a thing?

Doesn't just about all TV rely on an external tuner in some sort of cable box these days?
Click to expand...
Over the air broadcasting is a thing. I gat all my local channels for free and get my other media from other outlets.
 
Snowdog said:
Yes, I know they announced production plans, but I still wouldn't hold my breath on seeing QD-OLED in stores anytime soon, and would expect them to be more expensive LG OLEDs.

It also isn't the end of Samsung branded normal LCD, many of which already lack Samsung Panels.
Click to expand...

AFAIK all their curved LCD monitors are using inhouse panels. Samsung's gone all in on curved and ultrawide panels for monitors; none of hte other panel makers have more than dipped their toes in the market segment.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Are in TV tuners really still a thing?

Doesn't just about all TV rely on an external tuner in some sort of cable box these days?
Click to expand...
The FCC mandates that all televisions include an ATSC tuner to receive OTA digital broadcasts. If you advertise your display as a television it means it includes a tuner, by law.
Zarathustra[H] said:
OLED backlighting does not equal OLED display.

Same bullshit the industry pulled back when the first LED screens came out. Only thing LED about them was the backlight. They still used LCD teccnology, but you wouldn't find the words LCD anywhere on the box, spec page or manual.

I would love to see stronger laws surrounding intentionally misleading marketing.
Click to expand...
Look at the design. It is using OLED emitters pushing light through a color-correcting filter. This is exactly the same way LG OLED works, which is way I made my earlier comment. Each subpixel is illuminated by an individual OLED emitter. There is no backlight pushing luminance through the subpixel structure like an LCD. If that doesn't make it an "OLED display," then what does in your opinion?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
OLED backlighting does not equal OLED display.
Click to expand...

No one is going to do a OLED backlit LCD, that would be too stupid for even the Samsung Marketing machine. You would have the worse of both worlds. The image quality of LCD and burn in of OLED.

Samsung is apparently doing what LG is doing. Monochrome OLED with color filters.

LG uses traditional color filters, and Samsung will supposedly use QD filtering.

The advantage of QD filtering is efficiency. So it should let Samsung do OLED as bright as LG RGBW, with only RGB pixels.

At least in theory, we have to wait for it to eventually arrive, and see how it turns out.
 
Snowdog said:
No one is going to do a OLED backlit LCD, that would be too stupid for even the Samsung Marketing machine. You would have the worse of both worlds. The image quality of LCD and burn in of OLED.

Samsung is apparently doing what LG is doing. Monochrome OLED with color filters.

LG uses traditional color filters, and Samsung will supposedly use QD filtering.

The advantage of QD filtering is efficiency. So it should let Samsung do OLED as bright as LG RGBW, with only RGB pixels.

At least in theory, we have to wait for it to eventually arrive, and see how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad, I did not know LG was doing it this way as well.

I was under the impression that OLED means that all color comes directly from the LED's with no distinction between backlighting and color source, with each pixel being represented by one or more red, green or blue subpixels which are LED's, color source and backlight in one.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Are in TV tuners really still a thing?

Doesn't just about all TV rely on an external tuner in some sort of cable box these days?
Click to expand...

No. Wow. Definitely no. Cheapest (zero recurring) cost and highest quality 1080p is still OTA.

This is the real core of the cordcutting movement btw. And not, "Internet streaming". Why? Because you can go crazy with streamers and end up with a bill that dwarfs your "cable TV" bill.
 
cjcox said:
No. Wow. Definitely no. Cheapest (zero recurring) cost and highest quality 1080p is still OTA.
Click to expand...
I apparently am in one of the markets to get 4k OTA, hopefully atsc3.0 decoders drop in price significantly, because yeah I went from DirecTV "HD" (most of which was 720p garbage) and had to pay a premium for it, to OTA 1080p to watch football games and oooooh boy that is some sexy night and day difference... PLUS no fucking "Local Sports Broadcasting Fee" all because I have a baseball team that signed a deal with something or other and I can't opt out at all.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I apparently am in one of the markets to get 4k OTA, hopefully atsc3.0 decoders drop in price significantly, because yeah I went from DirecTV "HD" (most of which was 720p garbage) and had to pay a premium for it, to OTA 1080p to watch football games and oooooh boy that is some sexy night and day difference... PLUS no fucking "Local Sports Broadcasting Fee" all because I have a baseball team that signed a deal with something or other and I can't opt out at all.
Click to expand...

Probably still 2-3 years out before ATSC 3.0 is a thing. Full equipment replace (as you mentioned). Also... there definitely some shady-ness in the spec, some might not like. IPTV over the air.
 
My main gaming monitor I use is a Samsung VA CRG5 24 inch good thing I picked up two.
 
Armenius said:
If that's what you believe after all the information posted in here then LG's OLED are also just "LCD panels with an OLED backlight."
Click to expand...
That's how I've understood them... LG isn't doing 'per-pixel RGB OLED' either, which is what "true" OLED would be, right?

The biggest difference between LGs OLED and Samsung's QDOLED (?) boils down to the color spectrum of the OLED and the technology used in the 'color filter', which is itself an LCD. Corrected below
 
Last edited:
There is a new way of making OLEDs I read on OLED info which is just printing out the substrates which is more cost effective I don't know if Samsung is during this currently but I know another company is.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
That's how I've understood them... LG isn't doing 'per-pixel RGB OLED' either, which is what "true" OLED would be, right?

The biggest difference between LGs OLED and Samsung's QDOLED (?) boils down to the color spectrum of the OLED and the technology used in the 'color filter', which is itself an LCD.
Click to expand...

No, this is incorrect. There is no LCD on either LG Current nor Samsung future OLED TVs. I don't know why people think LCD is involved. Samsung's shady QLED (LCD) crap confusing everyone?

They are both, per pixel (per sub pixel actually) OLED.

It's just that it's monochrome OLED, with color filters on subpixels. These color filters are completely passive.

If it helps think of it as dye. Imagine that OLED goop is white, but they use Red, Green and Blue dye on the sub pixels to make them different colors.

The reason for using monochrome OLED material, is to stop differential aging. The actual Red OLED material is chemically different, from actual Blue OLED, and actual Green OLED materials, and they all have different durability and aging characteristics. Which sucks if you want your TV to keep it's color balance as it ages.

So it's MUCH better to use the same OLED material for all the sub-pixels and use color filters (logical equivalent of dye job) to make the colors. Now all the colors age the same.

Monochrome OLED layer is not a step down, it's a beneficial feature, that enhances durability. One that Samsung didn't have when both they and LG, initially revealed their OLED TVs many years ago, and may be why Samsung bailed out of OLED TV business all those years ago. Now it looks like they are coming back with their own monochrome OLED solution for TVs. Potentially a slightly better one.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
No, this is incorrect. There is no LCD on either LG Current nor Samsung future OLED TVs. I don't know why people think LCD is involved. Samsung's shady QLED (LCD) crap confusing everyone?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. For a minute I thought everyone was going completely loopy.
 
Snowdog said:
No, this is incorrect. There is no LCD on either LG Current nor Samsung future OLED TVs. I don't know why people think LCD is involved. Samsung's shady QLED (LCD) crap confusing everyone?

They are both, per pixel (per sub pixel actually) OLED.

It's just that it's monochrome OLED, with color filters on subpixels. These color filters are completely passive.

If it helps think of it as dye. Imagine that OLED goop is white, but they use Red, Green and Blue dye on the sub pixels to make them different colors.

The reason for using monochrome OLED material, is to stop differential aging. The actual Red OLED material is chemically different, from actual Blue OLED, and actual Green OLED materials, and they all have different durability and aging characteristics. Which sucks if you want your TV to keep it's color balance as it ages.

So it's MUCH better to use the same OLED material for all the sub-pixels and use color filters (logical equivalent of dye job) to make the colors. Now all the colors age the same.

Monochrome OLED layer is not a step down, it's a beneficial feature, that enhances durability. One that Samsung didn't have when both they and LG, initially revealed their OLED TVs many years ago, and may be why Samsung bailed out of OLED TV business all those years ago. Now it looks like they are coming back with their own monochrome OLED solution for TVs. Potentially a slightly better one.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post. It is the best description I have seen on the topic thus far, and has cleared up a lot of misconceptions I have had.
 
People should understand, the way quantum dots are used today in LCDs is not the same. Current Samsung QLEDs use a blue inorganic LED backlight with random red and green QDs of a certain density. Together they all form white and pass through the normal LCD color filters....The advantage is the RGB colors are tightly focused, and creating a purer white this way is a lot brighter and efficient over white LED backlight. But the use of the LCD panel would defeat the purpose if QDs were made subpixel color filters.

QD-OLED does just that though, the QD layer is used to color specific RG subpixels, with blue passing through. But using all-blue OLED for the panel, it will be like LG OLEDs with all the advantages. But I think it's better.

For one, LG TVs use blue and yellow OLED emitters to create white, add the RGB color filters, and keep an unfiltered white as the 4th subpixel for brightness. For the same reasons a LCD QLED TV looks brighter and more saturated than a white "LED TV", it should be the case here. The white OLEDs are "dirtier" in terms of color spectrum which reduces RGB saturation, and the traditional color filters further absorb much of the light. QDs are almost entirely efficient though, and the colors are focused and pure. These will be brighter and image quality should be better with just RGB subpixels, and the added complexity of driving 4 subpixels instead of 3 means the Samsung panel should also have better processing and performance. And it's true that blue OLEDs have caused the most trouble with efficiency and lifetime, but advances have mitigated this. Using all-blue should mean more uniform aging and reduced burn-in.

I have a LG B9 and love it though, and LG should be thanked for sticking with OLED and giving us another option after SED was abandoned and plasmas were discontinued, but there's always better and it's good to have some competition. OLED still looks incredible and there's no going back for me.

MicroLED seems to be the holy grail of the future, but electroluminescent quantum dots are also being worked on, which means the QDs themselves would be the emitters and there'd be no need for the OLEDs. Panel lifetimes could possibly approach 1,000,000 hours.
 
Snowdog said:
I don't know why people think LCD is involved. Samsung's shady QLED (LCD) crap confusing everyone?
Click to expand...
An LCD is a panel of color filters with some sort of backlight. OLED TVs are panels of color filters with some form of OLED per-pixel backlighting.

We're not seeing RGB OLED subpixels on OLED TVs, thus the continued use of color filter panels.

Corrected by Snowdog below

And no, I have never been confused by Samsung's 'QLED' asshattery.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
An LCD is a panel of color filters with some sort of backlight. OLED TVs are panels of color filters with some form of OLED per-pixel backlighting.

We're not seeing RGB OLED subpixels on OLED TVs, thus the continued use of color filter panels.

And no, I have never been confused by Samsung's 'QLED' asshattery.
Click to expand...

Color filters aren't the defining feature of LCD, saying color filters on OLED equals LCD, is like saying a glass panels on OLED is LCD, because an LCD also has one.


An LCD is a Liquid Crystal Display. The "Liquid Crystal" layer is the defining feature. The functionally like a window shutter mechanism, it's what actually does the switching. This is the central element of the display. This is the element responsible for the LCD downsides, of low contrast, poor viewing angles, slow response time. There are monochrome LCDs as well, With no filters, with the exact same downsides.

lcdworks.gif
 
Snowdog said:
An LCD is a Liquid Crystal Display. The "Liquid Crystal" layer is the defining feature. The functionally like a window shutter mechanism, it's what actually does the switching. This is the central element of the display. This is the element responsible for the LCD downsides, of low contrast, poor viewing angles, slow response time. There are monochrome LCDs as well, With no filters, with the exact same downsides.
Click to expand...
I see my error, thanks for the response :)

[there's no need for the 'shutter' mechanism that is in LCDs for OLEDs, since its purpose is to vary brightness for that color channel; instead, this is done with individual OLEDs]
 
Reading about QD-OLED, seems that the early closed door prototype wasn't quite able to deliver as deep of blacks as LG WOLED (note, it was a prototype). There seems to also be concerns about heat, and the use of blue OLED (lifetime) as the basis even though the promise of better color is there. And finally seems it costs about twice as much to make. Granted, people are pretty strange, and Sumsung is a big company, so maybe the combination of premium price and slight loss aren't out of the question to make things go for Samsung. I could be wrong about initial price, who knows, maybe it will only be "high" for a year or two (??).
 
cjcox said:
Reading about QD-OLED, seems that the early closed door prototype wasn't quite able to deliver as deep of blacks as LG WOLED (note, it was a prototype). There seems to also be concerns about heat, and the use of blue OLED (lifetime) as the basis even though the promise of better color is there. And finally seems it costs about twice as much to make. Granted, people are pretty strange, and Sumsung is a big company, so maybe the combination of premium price and slight loss aren't out of the question to make things go for Samsung. I could be wrong about initial price, who knows, maybe it will only be "high" for a year or two (??).
Click to expand...

Sounds like a groundless rumor. It's pretty much impossible for OLED to not achieve deep blacks.
 
Well if their per pixel low voltage control isn't as good as LG, then the minimum brightness would be higher when the pixels are on. The pixels being off would still be the same as LG, but one step up would be a lighter shade of very dark grey. LG had an issue a few years back trying to keep a steady low voltage per pixel.
 
zehoo said:
Well if their per pixel low voltage control isn't as good as LG, then the minimum brightness would be higher when the pixels are on. The pixels being off would still be the same as LG, but one step up would be a lighter shade of very dark grey. LG had an issue a few years back trying to keep a steady low voltage per pixel.
Click to expand...

I really don't know why people find it necessary to rationalize completely unsubstantiated nonsense rumors.
 
It’s fun to speculate? *shrug*
I mean really we wont know till they start showing off panels and objective sources look at them.
 
Snowdog said:
Sounds like a groundless rumor. It's pretty much impossible for OLED to not achieve deep blacks.
Click to expand...

Depends. There's a couple things that could affect it. One is if there was scattering/leakage from adjacent pixels, another is the minimum driving level. Remember that the useful stat to consider with regards to black level really isn't the absolute zero driving level, but the step up. While OLED displays like to advertise "infinite" contrast ratio on account of being able to turn a pixel off, that doesn't matter so much as what level can you achieve between your lowest step and your highest step. So if it turns out that the lowest driving level for QD-OLED is much higher than the actual, useful, contrast ratio could be lower. Particularly because if the step is too big from off to on, you can't leave the display off, you have to bias it or it'll look wrong. You saw that back in the CRT days a lot both to combat burn-in and for better appearance. You'd notice that when the screen was on, but displaying black, it wasn't totally dark. The guns weren't off, they were just emitting at their lowest possible level. This was done because the step between off and minimum was too much (as well as a few other reasons).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Then mark it as speculation
Click to expand...

I would have thought that when you start a paragraph with the words "well if", then it's implied speculation. Syscraft posted a better explanation above me for what I was suggesting could cause it, if Samsung is having this issue. LG had this issue years ago with their earlier panels, there were many complaints about it on avsforum at the time.
 
Sycraft said:
Depends. There's a couple things that could affect it. One is if there was scattering/leakage from adjacent pixels, another is the minimum driving level. Remember that the useful stat to consider with regards to black level really isn't the absolute zero driving level, but the step up. While OLED displays like to advertise "infinite" contrast ratio on account of being able to turn a pixel off, that doesn't matter so much as what level can you achieve between your lowest step and your highest step. So if it turns out that the lowest driving level for QD-OLED is much higher than the actual, useful, contrast ratio could be lower. Particularly because if the step is too big from off to on, you can't leave the display off, you have to bias it or it'll look wrong. You saw that back in the CRT days a lot both to combat burn-in and for better appearance. You'd notice that when the screen was on, but displaying black, it wasn't totally dark. The guns weren't off, they were just emitting at their lowest possible level. This was done because the step between off and minimum was too much (as well as a few other reasons).
Click to expand...

Again, I think this is just pointless rationalizing of what is almost certainly just a bogus rumor. Samsung knows how to make OLEDs, they have had commercial products longer than LG, and people are rationalizing amateur hour nonsense.
 
i wonder why more OEMs aren't doing DUAL LCD. Sony did some but they are $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 however it rivals even OLED. I never though LCD could capable of such blacks, color and vibrance without having shite blacks. i might not mind OLED though especially at 60 hz.
 
cdoublejj said:
i wonder why more OEMs aren't doing DUAL LCD. Sony did some but they are $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 however it rivals even OLED. I never though LCD could capable of such blacks, color and vibrance without having shite blacks. i might not mind OLED though especially at 60 hz.
Click to expand...

It's still going to have slow response times, and poor viewing angles of LCD, and in the end probably cost more to produce than OLED.
 
Snowdog said:
It's still going to have slow response times, and poor viewing angles of LCD, and in the end probably cost more to produce than OLED.
Click to expand...

actually i was surprised to see the response time very similar to oled, 14-60 ms

 
cdoublejj said:
i wonder why more OEMs aren't doing DUAL LCD. Sony did some but they are $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 however it rivals even OLED. I never though LCD could capable of such blacks, color and vibrance without having shite blacks. i might not mind OLED though especially at 60 hz.
Click to expand...
Form what I read it is the power consumption. Those Sony ones are like 350w. You are looking at near 1000w for bigger TVs.
 
Snowdog said:
OLED response time is 2ms or less, and that is real, unlike BS LCD marketing response times.
Click to expand...

that same guy used the same methodology on the LG B8 i got i thought i remember it being more than 10ms. not that i'd notice tooo much between 2ms vs 14ms
 
cdoublejj said:
that same guy used the same methodology on the LG B8 i got i thought i remember it being more than 10ms. not that i'd notice tooo much between 2ms vs 14ms
Click to expand...

OLED pixel response times are vastly superior to LCD with little to no persistence, the latency comes from the image processing.
 
OLED response times are basically instantaneous, microseconds. Even that fastest LCD doesn't come close. LG's marketing is clueless and says stuff like 1ms response time or "> 2ms response time" on their website lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top