Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Wow, I'm sure many of us wish we had your capacity to 'absorb knowledge' at such a significantly higher rate. Fewer of us wish we had your capacity to interpret and understand this vast amount of information. Even fewer of us wish we possessed your humility.
As for edge lit being superior to FALD, you should start out understanding why emissive displays are superior to transmissible displays. At your absorption rate, that should take milliseconds.
FALD tries to move in the direction of emissive displays by providing more zones than edge lit displays do. Of course this is still a tiny fraction of the 'zones' in an emissive display, but it's far better than edge lit.
Most FALD displays do not use IPS panels, so your beloved static CR tends to be higher. One of the FEW edge lit displays that came close to FALD in terms of black levels and uniformity, was the Sony XBR 900B. That display was a rarity and was the exception in the edge lit world.
I'm done here. One thing I've learned reading your posts is that nobody will shake you from your beliefs, no matter how contrary they are to conventional wisdom, science or what is accepted in the world of video. People have tried and nobody has succeeded.
I am moving on, it's just not worth it.
There's really no point of stating, "I'm done here" when in the end you keep coming back.
Also your sarcasm in regards to me reading per minute, intelligence is not linked to that at all. I learned how to speed read, I didn't just inherently have it on my own. You can purchase speed reading classes, as I did in the past. Plus, it doesn't matter how fast someone reads, can they understand the material? I only mentioned I read that quickly because, I have been here for just a few months and I have learned quite a bit. I could have only done that by speed reading, and learning off other people in these forums. You made a comment on how people have been here for years and I'm suddenly contradicting the experts.
Well, even the experts can be wrong. Unlike most people, I go further into details. I can't accept, yes it's always better. I read up on how it works, what are the cons and pros. Nothing is truly perfect, there are pros and cons to everything.
I have seen the sony edgelit tvs, with their frame dimming turned off they are absolutely amazing. I have seen FALD in person, and have personally seen it wash out the whites. The most important thing is how bright white can be at the same time, in a black background. This is why OLED stands out; but the person asked what would be a good substitute?
Anything can be good, just read up on the static ratio, not how many lines they add to the TV and tell you it's better. More specifically, anything near 2000:1 will give a similar experience to OLED.
And for the record, no one has provided me proof that what I am claiming is wrong. When I get this information, then I will accept I am wrong. I am not going to take information from someone who is experienced just off their opinion. I need proof, in details and in scientific format. The people in geek squad are experts too and you know how everyone thinks about them here. Instead, everyone is just discrediting my opinion via ad hominum and treating my statement as a joke. Sorry, that's not good enough to convince me that what I am stating is false.
THe most important thing in my opinion is, how good of a tv can I get for X amount of dollars. There is a certain point where the power of the item exceeds the ratio of cost. A $9,000 OLED 4k display is an example of that. Yes it's great, but its not worth the value. A $5000 top of the line 4k TV can be a fair competition. But if money is not much of an issue, then yes OLED wins; in this case though the person appeared to not be able to afford it, so I provided an honest answer.