Originally Posted by Weboh
It suggests OLED is not emissive.
I wish OLED worked the way it says on paper. It would be a plasma successor rather than a fancy LCD.
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.
How does the explanation of liquid crystals suggest OLED is not emissive? That is not just an unexplained logical leap, it is a bungee jump into the valley of unreason. OLED was not even mentioned in the discussion of liquid crystal.
The reason (as I've already explained) that Samsung dropped OLED had to do with the fact that Samsung's RGB design was much more difficult to fabricate as a panel than LG's, and if they can't have a high economical yield, and experience high defects, they won't do it.
Moreover Samsung's design had no solution for the rapid aging of the blue subpixel. What that means is that the panel's life is shortened due to color shifting. LG's WOLED compensates for that. Compared to fabricating OLEDs, building plasmas was much easier. Samsung (like other plasma makers) had an incentive to make them for economic reasons. Now they don't.
A microsecond is one millionth of a second.
A millisecond is one thousandth of a second.
Therefore there are one thousand microseconds in a millisecond. A microsecond is a smaller unit than a millisecond.
OLED response is measured in double digit microseconds.
The best plasmas are measured somewhere around one millisecond.
I would prefer discussing displays with someone who is at least trying to read the information given accurately, and respond reasonably. Forums are for discussion, and the pursuit of knowledge. Not a Punch and Judy show.