AVS Forum banner

Quantum-Dot 55-in. UHDTV TV to sell for one third the price of OLEDs

8K views 96 replies 26 participants last post by  Foxbat121 
#1 ·
#4 ·
Compared with LED and LCD, OLED displays have a superior contrast ratio; a wider range of 'real life colors,' and its self-emitting pixels allow for deeper blacks, Gonzalez-Thayer said.


I don't understand the technology. I thought there is a backlight like LCD/LED Tvs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tazz3
#5 ·
Compared with LED and LCD, OLED displays have a superior contrast ratio; a wider range of 'real life colors,' and its self-emitting pixels allow for deeper blacks, Gonzalez-Thayer said.


I don't understand the technology. I thought there is a backlight like LCD/LED Tvs?
apparently, the dots sit in front of the backlight and can be turned off

"Like OLEDs, QD Vision's quantum dot technology supplies light on demand, which enables more efficient displays than more common light emitting diode (LED) or liquid crystal diode (LCD) displays. "

im not sure if that eliminates alot of the exisiting lcd problems like blooming, off angle viewing, etc
 
#10 ·
Correct.

Now here is something that will really twist your noodle - the QD film could be placed on the exit side of the LCD just under the RGB color .
Maybe that could be done, but it isn't actually being done.

It's just a film to create purer color. The effect is nice, but hardly revolutionary.

The TV is an LCD with a small boost in color fidelity and a big boost in marketing speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morning5
#8 ·
It is still an transmissive technology. You can't really turn off individual pixels. From some history stuff I read, Sony engineers originally want to make QD as emissive TV like OLED but can't make it work in large size. So, they switched to use it as backlite for LCD. I don't know the detail but it probably works like super FALD with more zones than traditional LED based FALD. It still has all the problems LCD have today.


It's not OLED quality. So, I'm not sure 1/3 of the price is really that surprising.
 
#9 · (Edited)
It is still an transmissive technology. You can't really turn off individual pixels. From some history stuff I read, Sony engineers originally want to make QD as emissive TV like OLED but can't make it work in large size. So, they switched to use it as backlite for LCD. I don't know the detail but it probably works like super FALD with more zones than traditional LED based FALD. It still has all the problems LCD have today.


It's not OLED quality. So, I'm not sure 1/3 of the price is really that surprising.

Now here is something that will really twist your noodle - the QD film could be placed on the exit side of the LCD just under the RGB color filters. This might result is something with the viewing angle more akin to WOLED than LED/LCD.

White light (from the LEDs on the backlight)
VA-type LCD lightvalve (limited to native contrast ratio of ~5000:1)
Quantum dot film (to purify the chromatic composition of the light and scatter its angle)
RGB color filters (one for each subpixel)

Contrast and the possibility of bloom/halo would be the same as any other VA FALD LED/LCD, but viewing angle would probably be more similar to WOLED and so would color saturation.
 
#14 ·
It's literally a different diffuser film for a backlight. It has NO influence on contrast ratio, at all. No influence on black level or peak white. It will more accurately direct the light through the LCD panel, improving efficiency. It may also improve the colour gamut by blocking less wavelengths (its transmissivity will be closer to ideal.) The actual effect is likely to be negligible.

It's amazing what marketing has done to the TV industry. All buzzwords now, with no meat.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Some one should tell this guy, because he seems very impressed.

http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/hands-on-with-hisenses-unique-uled-tvs

The thing I want to know is if this ULED has just changed since CES 2014. Imagic and most people that saw the comparison back in January were not as impressed as this guy. Hard to tell from 1080p youtube videos, but to me it was not quite as good in blacks, but had better whites and colors. Not as good as OLED, but close enough for a $2500 4K FLAT 65" WCG 144 zone FALD.
 
#16 · (Edited)
Yeah, it is amazing what marketing-speak can do. Heck, I read some of the literature on Nanosys and while it becomes clear that it's not a backlight itself, I could see how a layman could be misled.

Examples of, IMO, misleading information:

From http://www.nanosysinc.com/what-we-do/display-backlighting/qdef/:

"They enable deep color and high efficiency by providing displays with an ideal light source." Oh really, sounds like maybe it provides the light source itself. It doesn't!

Or, how about from here http://www.nanosysinc.com/what-we-do/quantum-dots/:

"Quantum dots are actually very powerful devices." Devices? Really? I think device is a stretch....

Or, "Each quantum dot is actually a tiny semiconductor -- which means it can convert incoming energy. The electronic characteristics of quantum dots are determined by their size and shape." Electronic characteristics? It all sounds like I can supply it with power and change its properties on demand, you know, like an "electronic" device. Of course, that's not true...they do hint at that themselves, on the first page, by saying "The dots we produce are tuned to create better color by changing their size during fabrication to emit light at just the right wavelengths." So, OK, once fabricated the color "emitted" by the "device" is fixed. But, there's that word "create" again.... They don't really "create" anything......of course, I guess matter is never created, so, lol....

And here's the best, in big bold letters, "World’s best light emitter" from, http://www.nanosysinc.com/s/Nanosys-QDEF.pdf. COME ON, it emits light? It lets it pass through.... Define emit, "produce and discharge"! Oh yeah, it produces jack $hit!

Even in their quasi-white-paper, http://www.nanosysinc.com/s/QDEF-InformationDisplay-8z4n.pdf they say things like, "Quantum dots comprise a new class of material that can be tuned to emit light very efficiently at precise red, green, and blue wavelengths, thus creating an ideal light spectrum for LCDs." Yep, emit and create again....

All-in-all, I think the literature is misleading if taken out-of-context by non-technical folks. And there is a lot of marketeering and bull$hit in most of it for what seems like ultimately another form of light filter. Plus, I felt like someone told them, "better stick OLED in your documents so people find this crap when they are searching for OLED" because there are some very pointless references to it throughout the material. Like, "Similar to OLED materials, quantum dots are sensitive to oxygen and moisture." Oh, who gives a crap?! But, they make sure to have this gem, "by adding QDEF, the display maker can immediately begin producing LCD panels with color and efficiency performance beyond OLEDs, without making changes to established processes." Yay, how about contrast and black-level performance? Yep, not even a contest.

Ugh...but, hey, someone bought into their crap and I suppose they'll make some money. Good for them!

edit: I suppose to be fair, the AT&T documentation here, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pc.41.100190.002401?journalCode=physchem, does say "excited electronic states", but that reads better to me than "electronic characteristics".... Either way, it's a lot of marketing crud for something that's been around since 1990 and really is unlikely to do much to improve LED...though it will make some people at Nanosys rich, so....
 
#19 · (Edited)
If you were paid for the review, couldn't you come up with positive things to say, irrespective of conditions?

I'm leaving this up with a line through it, but I want to make clear that I have no reason to question the integrity of the review and regret doing so.
 
#22 ·
Colour me skeptical. Quantum Dot sounds like it'll suffer the same fate as FED. OLEd has too many advantages. The super thin profile, the ability to be "printed", and the absolutely perfect picture quality. It's only a matter of time before the equation is solved and OLED trumps all.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Reviewed.com said:
since OLED bottoms out at about 0.001 cd/m2
Told me all I needed to know. Sigh, do they even bother researching stuff like this?

I seem to remember a few years back when LED-LCD was just going into fashion and we had conventional CCFL-LCD that buzz-words had basically become code for "enhances contrast by crushing black and clipping white". Samsung were using DNIe, LG had XD Engine/Picture Master Engine, Panasonic had C.A.T.S... but they really were just contrast/colour enhanchers (which distorted the image more.) People weren't fooled so you saw less and less of it; manufacturers targeted other features like ARC and CEC (which were genuinely useful.)

I thought we got over that, but it seems to be coming back.

Case in point, Samsung's Wide Colour Enhancer Plus (code for Saturation+10%)


Someone looking at that image might naturally assume that it altered the backight in strips behind the panel. But it really is just a plain Jane saturation control, and nothing more.

Samsung's "Micro Dimming" is the worst -- it would seem to imply it does some kind of local backlight control, after all, it "enhances contrast, colour and sharpness in 600 zones across the display." Apparently, unlike ordinary local dimming, which is BAD (don't buy it, naughty consumer!) the Micro Dimming technology goes "deep into the pixels" to control them. Bloody hell, why didn't anyone else think of this before... all this time we'd assumed we had to set the pixels to minimum 1% or they'd burn out, magically Samsung can set them to 0%, making it like OLED!

Things like THIS are the reason the video-phile industry (plasma HDTV) is dying, and might be harmful for OLED when it comes about. If Samsung decides not to support OLED, or tries to use FUD about it, they could kill it. Samsung never liked plasma. It was important for them to stay in the industry (they didn't want to lose market share to Panasonic, or worse, LG) but it wasn't something they wanted to be involved in because the people buying plasmas DID compare beyond the label specifications of 1:1,000,000 contrast ratios and 600Hz drive. Samsung's customers were primarily driven by box specifications and the BB employee regurgitating Micro Dimming taglines.

Keeping LED-LCD as the dominant technology benefits Samsung because it allows them to sell TVs based on loosely defined specifications and software tweaks (like Micro Dimming), rather than any actual performance improvement. In other words, a lot more money to be made than on potentially expensive OLED panels. Samsung is the next Apple.
 
#25 ·
Told me all I needed to know. Sigh, do they even bother researching stuff like this?

I seem to remember a few years back when LED-LCD was just going into fashion and we had conventional CCFL-LCD that buzz-words had basically become code for "enhances contrast by crushing black and clipping white". Samsung were using DNIe, LG had XD Engine/Picture Master Engine, Panasonic had C.A.T.S... but they really were just contrast/colour enhanchers (which distorted the image more.) People weren't fooled so you saw less and less of it; manufacturers targeted other features like ARC and CEC (which were genuinely useful.)

I thought we got over that, but it seems to be coming back.

Case in point, Samsung's Wide Colour Enhancer Plus (code for Saturation+10%)


Someone looking at that image might naturally assume that it altered the backight in strips behind the panel. But it really is just a plain Jane saturation control, and nothing more.

Samsung's "Micro Dimming" is the worst -- it would seem to imply it does some kind of local backlight control, after all, it "enhances contrast, colour and sharpness in 600 zones across the display." Apparently, unlike ordinary local dimming, which is BAD (don't buy it, naughty consumer!) the Micro Dimming technology goes "deep into the pixels" to control them. Bloody hell, why didn't anyone else think of this before... all this time we'd assumed we had to set the pixels to minimum 1% or they'd burn out, magically Samsung can set them to 0%, making it like OLED!

Things like THIS are the reason the video-phile industry (plasma HDTV) is dying, and might be harmful for OLED when it comes about. If Samsung decides not to support OLED, or tries to use FUD about it, they could kill it. Samsung never liked plasma. It was important for them to stay in the industry (they didn't want to lose market share to Panasonic, or worse, LG) but it wasn't something they wanted to be involved in because the people buying plasmas DID compare beyond the label specifications of 1:1,000,000 contrast ratios and 600Hz drive. Samsung's customers were primarily driven by box specifications and the BB employee regurgitating Micro Dimming taglines.

Keeping LED-LCD as the dominant technology benefits Samsung because it allows them to sell TVs based on loosely defined specifications and software tweaks (like Micro Dimming), rather than any actual performance improvement. In other words, a lot more money to be made than on potentially expensive OLED panels. Samsung is the next Apple.

Or the next Nokia.
 
#26 ·
It seems to me that we are seeing more the advantage of HDR than of the actual WCG of the Quantum Dots. Like I said, I doubt it is as good as OLED, but at a third of the price it may be goon enough for 90% of the buying public. Like Ken said, it would not be the first time a superior tech has gone down to a cheaper tech with better price/performance ratio.

Here is a link to a bigger pic.
http://uhd-tv.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/07/Hisense-ULED.jpg



 
#27 ·
It seems to me that we are seeing more the advantage of HDR than of the actual WCG of the Quantum Dots. Like I said, I doubt it is as good as OLED, but at a third of the price it may be goon enough for 90% of the buying public. Like Ken said, it would not be the first time a superior tech has gone down to a cheaper tech with better price/performance ratio.

Here is a link to a bigger pic.
http://uhd-tv.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/07/Hisense-ULED.jpg



lol, that pic is like vegas trying to compare the oled sets
you can tell the oled is washed out and too bright
 
#28 ·
^ Perhaps a good example of why trying to form opinions based upon photos posted here is a bad idea. On my monitor which is calibrated reasonably well the ULED looks like the reds are clipped badly and red saturation is too high. The OLED appears to have much more accurate reds but skin tone has too much luminance.
 
#35 ·
I really do think that many folks (including the only half-diligent reviewers and the marketing 2-drink-minimum grunts that feed them information) are still getting confused between the QD's that are activated by a backlight, and the QD theoretical emission stuff that has no way of being used in a display. At least not yet.

These two technologies confused the crap out of me at first as well----hardly anyone were getting the facts straight. Sony didn't help matters at all with their first round of Trilum-QD diagrams....which IMO bordered on outright disinformation.
 
#65 · (Edited)
I think they have multilayered colored liquid crystal in WOLED. It would be over the generic white LED.


While I am disappointed by Plasma; I have to admit I was surprised by why it failed. It was too easy to damage in shipping. I wish someone would develop a backlit version of Mirasol to replace it. But fast technological progress is hard on everyone.
 
#70 ·
^^^See, this is a perfect example of why putting people on a block list doesn't work.

If some people were left unchallenged, then other's would see what they say and the conversation descends quickly into nonsense. It's only because rogo didn't block him that he can address all the misunderstandings.

Others seeing us not address such mistakes head on would have no choice but to assume we tacitly agreed.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top