Originally Posted by Weboh
Nothing but hype, and BS. PWM is analog signal modulation. The TFT array suggests LCD, but I am not suprised you didn't catch that; and you have yet to show any evidence that LEDs, let alone OLEDs, have better response times then variable plasma flourescent light-blubs. Anything at 240 hz burns out fast, when talking normal LEDs, and any organic LED will be more delicate.
WTF...? This is a science forum, not a forum for nonsense.
PWM is a digital technique which can simulate analog levels. The human eye very effectively integrates PWM into analog levels. But they are purely digital levels. The pixel is on or off.
It is actually incorrect to call a plasma display "PWM" dithered - it in fact uses sub-field multiplexing which gives it approx 6-bit real colour resolution (due to gamma correction.) Dithering is then used to fill in the extra 2 or 4 bits of colour data. If you turned off dithering somehow, you'd still get a picture with graduation levels, but you'd lose almost all the shadow and fine detail to the image.
The switching frequency of an LED or OLED does not affect the reliability in any significant fashion. That is, I would expect a 240Hz panel to have approximately the same lifespan as a 120Hz panel, given all other conditions being similar. The pixels aren't actually flashed at 240Hz unlike LED-LCD or plasma (600+Hz) -- they are just updated at that frequency. (Black frame insertion might change this but I'm not aware of any OLEDs doing this yet.)
I didn't say OLEDs had better response time. In fact, I said the complete opposite! Current OLED panels have high pixel capacitance. This prevents them being used at high frequencies, due to motion blur effects. This also prevents efficient implementation of PWM drive for the panel, so current panels use TFT with analog drive (which is what LCD uses.) The TFTs are ONLY USED TO SELECT PIXELS to address for light output. This is called AMOLED compare with AMLCD and PMOLED vs PMLCD. Passive addressing is used only for small OLED and LCD screens (under a few inches) and is completely unsuitable for video playback. Aside from TFTs, the technology is almost completely different to LCD tech. TFTs will still be used on PWM OLED, but the TFTs will become pure switches, which will reduce the panel heating.
(If a pixel is to be 50% bright, the TFT needs to "dump" 50% of the input power as heat, and provide 50% to the OLED subpixel. The OLED then dumps 95+% as heat as it is not very efficient. Eliminating analog drive will serve to increase OLED panel efficiency by 30~50%, content dependent. The technology is currently years away from this, so don't hold your breath. The most efficient content is fully on or off, the least efficient is a full stimulus grey pattern. Grey and white will use approximately the same amount of power on an OLED TV...)
Virtually every LED lighting system uses PWM in the few hundred Hz range with no lifespan implications. Perhaps if you bothered to look this up...
And the last time I checked, plasma does have motion issues. Phosphor lag, for example, and on many panels dithering reduces motion resolution. Still not going to stop me enjoying my Kuro, though. Plasma is a great technology, but it's going to be superseded eventually. I just hope OLED can fill the gap.
I'm following OLED closely. It has the potential to be the best display for the next 15-20 years. I can't honestly see any way another technology can beat it, aside from perhaps a direct neural interface or holograms or something completely different to current flat panel tech. It's efficient, bright, has incredible contrast ratio, and in a few more technology generations we'll probably see greater leaps in motion performance and energy efficiency. These will also act to improve the lifespan of the TV, less heat means longer panel lifetimes.