Best TV for Film Quality Picture - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 97 Old 06-24-2014, 10:18 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
I'm not done yet. I think you need to back up this ludicrous statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh View Post
You're an LCD salesman who couldn't take care of his plasma TV.
I'll be waiting. Just one example will do (using LCD synonymously is a grave error on your part, and I'm sure it's to put me down. Every owner knows no LCD can generate the PQ that a bonafide self-emissive display like OLED can). What LCD has a contrast ratio that matches that of a 1st gen OLED? What LCD can boast the viewing angles of a 1st gen OLED? That's 2/3rds of the way to being the ubiquitous plasma replacement that you have already arrogantly (and prematurely) decided it can't be.

BTW, why do you keep complaining about the hypothetical reliability of first gen but conveniently ignore defects of first gens in other panel technology (most of which still exist today in some form or another)? It's a transparently troglodytic behavior.

Last edited by vinnie97; 06-25-2014 at 12:42 AM.
vinnie97 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 97 Old 06-24-2014, 10:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh View Post
Ha, an obvious lie by the OLED people.
Plasmas have an estimated 6 microseconds
3 milliseconds is the best an LCD can do, and 6 milliseconds is average.
Which isn't true according to reports I have heard.
True, but Plasma is quicker, and OLED is slower.
When you have to pretend OLED is a plasma equivalent, it is best to use to the fastest liquid crystal one can.
You do realize that a millisecond is 1000 microseconds? Now read what I posted about LCDs. You just reiterated what I said.

I'll have to hunt around again for where I saw that figure about plasmas. Heck, I might call Panasonic in the next day or two and ask them!

And I'm not pretending that OLED is a plasma equivalent. I'm suggesting that it is better than plasma.

Greater contrast ratio because each emissive pixel is addressed directly and discretely.

Thin and light.

Tremendously more efficient than plasma, if you're concerned about energy.

Better picture overall.

Plasmas were great in their day, but very few people are waiting for the reappearance of that technology.
taichi4 is offline  
post #63 of 97 Old 06-24-2014, 10:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ph8te's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,948
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1113 Post(s)
Liked: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
Not for this guy.

One of the reasons I stopped frequenting these sections I can understand being a fan, but there are certain types that just post to post and clog the system up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ph8te is online now  
post #64 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
Every owner knows no LCD can generate the PQ that a bonafide self-emissive display like OLED can).
Every LCD has a lot of fake bright contrast. The only thing different about your OLED is that it is has a wider viewing angle than most LCDs. OLED is not "bonafide self-emissive".
Weboh is offline  
post #65 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:25 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
Yes, yes it is. I know this because it's devoid of a backlight and has no blooming. At least you deferred on the viewing angle. That's progress.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #66 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
Yes, yes it is. I know this because it's devoid of a backlight and has no blooming. At least you deferred on the viewing angle. That's progress.
Has it occurred to you that the backlight could be paper thin? I don't expect you to take your TV apart to find out.

Last edited by Weboh; 06-25-2014 at 01:35 AM.
Weboh is offline  
post #67 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:48 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
Optics isn't your strong suit. What you're suggesting would require an unheard number of dimming zones. The most LCD tech has been able to procure so far (and this is only allegedly in a prototype) is 384 zones. The 70" Sharp Elite had over 300 and falls short of the contrast ratio found in the 9800. Also, the telltale evidence of these zones is evident on off-angle viewing. No such phenomenon exists on the 9800. You are giving LCD tech far too much credit by inferring to a cutting edge paper thin LED backlight with a virtually unlimited number of dimming zones (or, more accurately, one dimming zone per pixel), or 2,073,600 zones! In mathematical terms, that's at least 539,900% increase in zone count. What's easier to believe, OLED is legitimately self-emissive or that such a hypothetical LED backlight exists in the real world? Use your head.

Also, the panel is already so thin and includes light filters, with nothing in the design calling for a backlight (not likely to fit in addition to the filters). You can also see this panel being taken apart on youtube...good luck playing spot dat backlight. A helpful diagram of the pixel structure:

http://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/...ED_diagram.jpg

What you're suggesting suggests a grand conspiracy that only you and previously pg_ice were wise enough to uncover: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-oled-tv/ - to borrow a meme/quote from Philip K. Dick, these do not have the backlights you're looking for, really.

Last edited by vinnie97; 06-25-2014 at 02:01 AM.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #68 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4
In that context, OLEDs such as LG's first generation 55 inch have a pixel response time of 0.1 microsecond,
This is a lie given by out by the manufacturers. You are still getting motion blur in the picture, and motion blur only improves fast, juddered motion; not smooth high frame rate fast motion.
Weboh is offline  
post #69 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
Optics isn't your strong suit. What you're suggesting would require an unheard number of dimming zones. The most LCD tech has been able to procure so far (and this is only allegedly in a prototype) is 384 zones. The Sharp Elite had under 300 and failed to perform with a contrast ratio that matches the 9800. You are giving LCD tech far too much credit by inferring to a cutting edge paper thin LED backlight with a virtually unlimited number of dimming zones (or, more accurately, one dimming zone per pixel), or 2,073,600 zones! What's easier to believe, OLED is hocus pocus or that such an LED backlight exists? Use your head.

Also, the panel is already so thin and includes light filters, with nothing in the design calling for a backlight (not like it would fit). You can also see this panel being taken apart on youtube...good luck playing spot dat backlight.

http://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/...ED_diagram.jpg

What you're suggesting suggests a grand conspiracy that only you and previously pg_ice were wise enough to uncover: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-oled-tv/ - these do not have the backlights you're looking for, really.
A paper thin plastic backlight melted to the back would have to be peeled off and examined with a microscope.


It also suggests the American media/press is stupid, and they are.
Weboh is offline  
post #70 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 02:03 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
No, just no. You should be able to point to some foreign expose of this OLED in LCD with LED backlight's clothing if that held any water. You aren't even thinking this through. You are hypothesizing a pie-in-the-sky scenario that would make OLED obsolete. That's a 539,900% increase in dimming zones (if we take Vizio at their word of 384 zones for the vaporous R series).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #71 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 02:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
No, just no. You aren't even thinking this through. You are hypothesizing a pie-in-the-sky scenario that would make OLED obsolete.
No, I am not. The American public knows very little about LCD, and the American press is stupider. You have already assumed there a lot of LEDs in your TV, when there could be one. But even when there would so many pixels, there is also quantum dot, which is another version of OLED. So we may have another version of the same tech. I think Quantum Dot has trumped OLED already.


I also find it suspicious how there are very few defects for such a new technology. The defects of early plasma and LCD are extreme.
Weboh is offline  
post #72 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 02:28 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
lol @ unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and appeals to American idiocy. The Sony XBR-900A actually utilized quantum dots and doesn't perform near the level of the 9800. Pardon the term, but that suggests a quantum leap in what that tech can deliver in only a year's time, all the while keeping it under wraps courtesy of a company who hasn't used it before! Conversely, what we know to be OLED actually has been around for years albeit in smaller form factors (from at least 3 different CEs, LG included). TV sizes proved too difficult yield-wise until the last year in what seems like a quantum leap in reported yield improvements, but the results speak for themselves. So now the 1st gen is too problem-free to be legit? The cons that have been chronicled in the owner's thread don't exist? I'm a pretty horrible salesman for all the critique I've given in that thread.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #73 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 02:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
When you talk film, are you talking played back on VHS or DVD? No flat panel i have seen gives you that "old" film look. I think you should repair your TV or find another DLP/CRT RP for that "old" film look.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #74 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Weboh said one thing true, at least. Quantum dot technology bears a certain technological relationship to OLED and is a promising technology.

However...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled


“...An OLED display works without a backlight; thus, it can display deep black levels and can be thinner and lighter than a liquid crystal display (LCD)...”


http://www.displaymate.com/LG_OLED_T...#Response_time


...Comparison with Plasma TVs
Plasma TVs have traditionally had a smaller market share, but they are often preferred by video enthusiasts over LCDs because of their superior Black Levels, Contrast Ratios, Viewing Angles, and Response Time. However, Plasma displays produce visible image noise at dark intensity levels, which compromises their picture quality, whereas OLED displays do not. The OLED TV clearly outperforms Plasmas in all of the above categories, especially when viewing dark image content. In addition, Plasma TVs typically have peak Brightness (Luminance) levels of 100 to 200 cd/m2, whereas the OLED TV produces roughly double that value, even on the accurately calibrated ISF Expert picture modes. OLEDs will clearly become the preferred technology for video enthusiasts...”

People can disagree about things which are a matter of interpretation, but disagreeing about inarguable facts is a profitless enterprise. There is no way that you can describe OLED as a backlit technology. To do so is to pretend that OLED does not exist, and that's just silly.
taichi4 is offline  
post #75 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post
People can disagree about things which are a matter of interpretation, but disagreeing about inarguable facts is a profitless enterprise. There is no way that you can describe OLED as a backlit technology. To do so is to pretend that OLED does not exist, and that's just silly.
It is not that it doesn't exist; it's that it looks like LCD technology. And being as expensive as it is, Samsung backed out of it and will probably use Quantum Dot. Quantum Dot will kill OLED.


And you misread the document which quote the reponse time as 100 microseconds or .1 miliseconds. I find even this doubtful though.

Last edited by Weboh; 06-25-2014 at 10:41 AM.
Weboh is offline  
post #76 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh View Post
It is not that it doesn't exist; it's that it looks like LCD technology. And being as expensive as it is, Samsung backed out of it and will probably use Quantum Dot. Quantum Dot will kill OLED.


And you misread the document which quote the reponse time as 100 microseconds or .1 miliseconds. I find even this doubtful though.
What document?

I was referring to your mystifying reiteration of the response times of LCD panels (fast and average) that I'd posted.

Listen, Quantum Dot technology is very interesting, and might be better than OLED at some point. It might be more immune to uneven aging of the pixel elements, that affects OLED. LG (using Kodak's patents entirely) gets around that with the additional white element that is filtered with color filters to compensate for the resulting, and changing shift in color balance.

The LG (Kodak) design is a very good one, and their WRGB or WOLED design is much easier to produce than Samsung's RGB tech, which is the reason Samsung exited the market.

But OLED has nothing in common with LCD except for the use of the thin film transistor backplane, which is the circuitry that drives and addresses the elements of the display. It does not supply illumination at all. The backplane directs current and information to the display elements, not light.

The illumination in LCD originally came from CCFL tubes, and now derives from LEDs whose light is filtered and modulated by the liquid crystals.

OLED, on the other hand, themselves produce light when excited, and have no need for any additional light source.

It's the differences between transmissive displays (LCD) and emissive displays (OLED, and Sony's never released Crystal LED display) that gives OLED (and Quantum dot) the clear advantage in picture quality.

The only potential drawback to OLED, then, is the uneven wear of the OLEDs (largely addressed by the Kodak/LG design) and burn in. LCDs are far more resistant to uneven wear or "burn in."

This should all make you happy, because eventually we'll all get better, more luminous, more affordable large displays which we can put on our walls. No more sticky stuff on your shoes from the movie theater.
vinnie97 likes this.

Last edited by taichi4; 06-25-2014 at 12:38 PM.
taichi4 is offline  
post #77 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 12:33 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1011
Very good synopsis of the competing displays techs! The concerning problem with quantum dot is that based on the surface, it has taken a regression in usage. Sony has abandoned it for the 2014 models. I'm almost not sure that I believe it can reach parity with OLED.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #78 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 12:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post
Very good synopsis of the competing displays techs! The concerning problem with quantum dot is that based on the surface, it has taken a regression in usage. Sony has abandoned it for the 2014 models. I'm almost not sure that I believe it can reach parity with OLED.
It's hard to know what will become of it, but it's another emissive display tech, which I appreciate.

It's too bad Sony abandoned its Crystal TV, as non organic LEDs age better than OLEDs from my understanding.

It's also too bad that our good old US company Kodak made such wonky decisions. Besides inventing WOLED, they invented the digital camera and digital photography! Somebody must have been heavily drinking during board meetings.
vinnie97 likes this.
taichi4 is offline  
post #79 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 12:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dr_jitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I did not read all of the thread, but I have a Mitsu 82 inch screen DLP. It is a bit more than 3 years old.

They are being phased out, but there is really nothing in their price range that even comes close to their picture quality if you like a big screen.

Mitsu knows about the chip issue, and will supply a new one for free, you pay the $200 labor cost. Do not pay a trip charge, just the $200 plus tax.

I would not replace my self, because someone needs to watch the screen closely while the format is adjusted.

Picture is now excellent. Tech said that nothing coming out will come close to the pic qual of the 82 inch dlp.
Dr_jitsu is offline  
post #80 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post
It's hard to know what will become of it, but it's another emissive display tech, which I appreciate.

It's too bad Sony abandoned its Crystal TV, as non organic LEDs age better than OLEDs from my understanding.

It's also too bad that our good old US company Kodak made such wonky decisions. Besides inventing WOLED, they invented the digital camera and digital photography! Somebody must have been heavily drinking during board meetings.
I don't agree. I think we are being lied to about OLED and what it is. It seems OLED has more in common with LCD than it does plasma. It would be easy to underestimate it, but we are talking about very small backlights at least which makes it a dense FALD.
Weboh is offline  
post #81 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post
I did not read all of the thread, but I have a Mitsu 82 inch screen DLP. It is a bit more than 3 years old.

They are being phased out, but there is really nothing in their price range that even comes close to their picture quality if you like a big screen.

Mitsu knows about the chip issue, and will supply a new one for free, you pay the $200 labor cost. Do not pay a trip charge, just the $200 plus tax.

I would not replace my self, because someone needs to watch the screen closely while the format is adjusted.

Picture is now excellent. Tech said that nothing coming out will come close to the pic qual of the 82 inch dlp.
I believe the original poster had a Samsung DLP, and their policy may be different.

I'm a fan of DLP, and was sorry to see them fazed out. I never saw the 82 inch in a good setting, but the 73838 had a brilliant picture. At that price point nothing could match the size of the set you were getting.

With better ventilation, and a move to a 3 chip DLP engine, a next gen set would have been interesting. But people don't like cabinets so much nowadays, even though Mits began to produce very light and thin cabinets.

I also like the Rear Projection look, which brings us full circle to the original intent of the thread.

Keep your vents clean, and maintain good clearance for ventilation on all sides of your 82 inch. Those UHP lamps get hot!
taichi4 is offline  
post #82 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_jitsu View Post
I did not read all of the thread, but I have a Mitsu 82 inch screen DLP. It is a bit more than 3 years old.

They are being phased out, but there is really nothing in their price range that even comes close to their picture quality if you like a big screen.

Mitsu knows about the chip issue, and will supply a new one for free, you pay the $200 labor cost. Do not pay a trip charge, just the $200 plus tax.

I would not replace my self, because someone needs to watch the screen closely while the format is adjusted.

Picture is now excellent. Tech said that nothing coming out will come close to the pic qual of the 82 inch dlp.
Plasma TV have better contrast, less rainbow effect; but DLP does have better color i.e. ANSI contrast than an LCD. So I give that. And you can always switch to front projection.
Weboh is offline  
post #83 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh View Post
I don't agree. I think we are being lied to about OLED and what it is. It seems OLED has more in common with LCD than it does plasma. It would be easy to underestimate it, but we are talking about very small backlights at least which makes it a dense FALD.
Having a feeling about something does not rise to the level of certitude and authority that a fact possesses. There is no one out there that can support your feeling with any fact whatsoever, nor is there any motive for the kind of conspiracy of lies that you're suggesting, nor way of implementing such a reasonless conspiracy.

There are reams of white papers and patents that explain the inarguable fact that OLEds have no backlighting.

Not even a teensy weensy bit of backlighting.

And yes, well made Plasmas have better contrast than DLPs.

You're much more likable when you stick to facts.
vinnie97 likes this.

Last edited by taichi4; 06-25-2014 at 01:17 PM.
taichi4 is offline  
post #84 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
5x10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 874
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 535 Post(s)
Liked: 292
i love my lcd oled
Weboh likes this.
5x10 is offline  
post #85 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post
Having a feeling about something does not rise to level of certitude and authority that a fact possesses. There is no one out there that can support your feeling with any fact whatsoever, nor is there any motive for the kind of conspiracy of lies that you're suggesting, nor way of implementing such a reasonless conspiracy.

There are reams of white papers and patent that explain the inarguable fact that OLEds have no backlighting.

Not even a teensy weensy bit of backlighting.
Why does the motion of OLED look liquid? Is it possible that it is an attempt to avoid making difficult plasma TVs? There is enough motive by the companies which started the fraud; but proving it would be elaborate. I believe he goal wasn't to make an inferior product, but rather an LCD which is as good as plasma; and I suspect this hasn't been done; though OLED would have a better backlighting system than a normal FALD.
Weboh is offline  
post #86 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 04:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 10,134
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 665 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Just put him on ignore. If he doesn't understand that light is emitted from the PN junction of an OLED there no reason to even engage him or read anything he writes.
Foxbat121 and Weboh like this.
Stereodude is offline  
post #87 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh View Post
Why does the motion of OLED look liquid?...
Maybe because motion itself is liquid. That doesn't mean that a display that has liquid crystals displays motion in a liquid way. Liquid crystal describes a crystal that shows both the characteristics of a solid and a liquid. As such it can change state readily, which is why it is used as a shutter device over a backlight.

Display makers are already making LCDs that come close to Plasma in some respects, at a price that people are willing to pay, and a price that is profitable to produce. Ramping up for OLED fabrication is a costly business, and with prices coming down, what is the motive for manufacturers to spend more to make less?

Answer: There is none.

The reason, which you avoid admitting is that manufacturers are making them because OLEDs offer something more than LCDs or Plasmas in terms of picture quality, and that eventually that is what people will demand.

You can't build a good argument without facts. It's a waste of time.
taichi4 is offline  
post #88 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taichi4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Just put him on ignore. If he doesn't understand that light is emitted from the PN junction of an OLED there no reason to even engage him or read anything he writes.
Stereodude. You're clearly delusional. Don't you know that the light is being emitted from pixies holding tiny flashlights behind the OLEDs as backlighting? That's where the word pixels comes from. Pixies.

PN junction stands for Pixie Novice Junction, where the Pixie Novices hang around until called upon during an action scene. Only novices would take such an arduous job.

So you see, OLEDs are backlit. I've proven it with my own facts.
Stereodude and Morning5 like this.
taichi4 is offline  
post #89 of 97 Old 06-25-2014, 09:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi4 View Post
Maybe because motion itself is liquid. That doesn't mean that a display that has liquid crystals displays motion in a liquid way. Liquid crystal describes a crystal that shows both the characteristics of a solid and a liquid. As such it can change state readily, which is why it is used as a shutter device over a backlight.
It suggests OLED is not emissive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi
Display makers are already making LCDs that come close to Plasma in some respects, at a price that people are willing to pay, and a price that is profitable to produce. Ramping up for OLED fabrication is a costly business, and with prices coming down, what is the motive for manufacturers to spend more to make less?

Answer: There is none.
I wish OLED worked the way it says on paper. It would be a plasma successor rather than a fancy LCD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taichi
The reason, which you avoid admitting is that manufacturers are making them because OLEDs offer something more than LCDs or Plasmas in terms of picture quality, and that eventually that is what people will demand.
Samsung shot down OLED faster than they did Plasma. I wonder why. And I prefer to discuss display tech with someone who know the difference between a millisecond and a microsecond.
Weboh is offline  
post #90 of 97 Old 06-26-2014, 01:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
Just put him on ignore. If he doesn't understand that light is emitted from the PN junction of an OLED there no reason to even engage him or read anything he writes.
I don't think you even know what a zener diode is.
Weboh is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General
Gear in this thread - HU8550 by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off