or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › MEMS-based displays (TMOS/DMS) news thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MEMS-based displays (TMOS/DMS) news thread - Page 3

post #61 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post

There is no logic in that at all. OLED is more expensive because it is new. TMOS when it shows (it still hasn't) will be more expensive because it is new. Long term OLED has IMO has the potential to be the least expensive because you just need to power the OLED compound and you have an emitter. That compound eventually will be laid down with something like modified ink jet heads. These should eventually produce dirt cheap panels.

Yes, my intentions were to reflect the other guy's flawed logic about TMOS and apply it to OLED. All I've been saying is that TMOS will be cheaper than OLED, eventually while he was demanding evidence (prices, I guess ) why TMOS is cheaper than OLED now even though >=50" OLED do not even exist and will not exist for years.

Quote:


TMOS will have OLED, or better than OLED contrast ratios

Quote:


Clearly you don't understand how OLED works vs how Mems devices work. OLED is emmisive, when you turn an emitter off, it emits no light, it is pure black. Contrast ratio is infinite.

I understand that very well. Read my sentence again and think about what it actually means. I said, "will have OLED (contrast)", meaning, equal, then, "better than OLED contrast", meaning, TMOS can do HDR easily because it can be much brighter than OLED, meaning higher contrast than OLED.

Quote:


MEMs technolgies use micro shutters and a back and they leak light when off, therefore black will not be as black and contrast ratio is limited.

You're thinking LCD. MEMS is a different ball of wax. These displays will eventually be able to block all light completely, something LCD still cannot do very well even after nth generations and years of development.

Quote:


Emission technolgies like OLED seem superior in most ways from an image quality perspective:

Sure, they are superior now when you put it against LCD or plasma. It's not a fair fight. I doubt they will be superior in the future. And when it comes to manufacturing cost or availability of >50" panels, it won't be even close for another 5 years. The most realistic scenario, IMO, is that one once 50" FED hits the mass market in 2-3 years, while 40" OLED is still in the lab or at consumer shows only, investors will quickly forget about OLED. And when MEMS-based displays debut in 3-4 years (IMOD is already on the market so this could be sooner than later), investments in OLEDs for mobile devices will dry up very quickly too.
post #62 of 137
Neither LCD nor any existing MEMS can block all backlight. Though in theory they could, it practice it will be exceedingly difficult to do so, at the market's price point.

In contrast (pun intended), it is easy to shut off an OLED pixel entirely by cutting its power supply to zero. Same with SED. Displays using emissive pixels without sustain requirements have a total advantage in this area, one which can only be approached but never attained by backlight-shutter systems.

The best way to put it is the cost and technical difficulty to block light in a transmissive display increases exponentially with a linear increase in requested contrast ratio, at least at the high end.

The problem with mechanical shutter systems is that they work great at large scales (pupils {cat's eyes}, camera shutters, etc.) because the coverage:edge ratio is large.

Since light leakage occurs at the edges of shutter elements, when they are large there is little edge per square area covered. So the occlusion per unit of edge precision is high.

However, when the shutters are very small they are mostly edges. Which means the occlusion per unit of edge length {mechanical precision} is small. Which means to get a decent occlusion requires very high mechanical precision, ie. cost. Even then technical limitations like refraction, overlap, etc. cause problems.

A tiled shutter system must achieve very high edge precision in order to reach decent contrast ratios. Factoring in the typical shutter element size for a pixel, both the edge:area ratio and precision requirements are high.

Overlap helps such designs achieve higher maximum occlusion, but it also decreases transmission, and is worst as a percentage at full-open.

Refraction means light bends around edges a bit. Which not only makes it harder to occlude at full-closed, but at nearly full-closed it causes chromatic artifacts (color fringing). One example of this is a grating spectometer, which is made from thinly rules lines on glass which periodically block/transmit light. This causes rainbows.

All the little edges of those tiny mirrors/shutters make tiny rainbows, which are most noticeable when they are more than half closed. This problem can be mitigated but at loss of resolution and/or color purity.

Nanoelectromechanical shutters could avoid the refraction problem but have much worse area:edge ratios, thus negating their benefits. At that scale molecular shutters aka. LCD are the most cost-effective.

An atomically-perfect nanoscale or microscale shutter array could beat all other display technologies because it doesn't have uneven pixel wear; by brute precision it would achieve a very high maximum occlusion (thus contrast ratio). However, the cost of building one (even one which meets or reasonably exceeds current display contrast ratios) would likely doom it in the real-world marketplace.

Thus, outside specialized applications where other characteristics of the technology merit the cost per unit benefit, it is predicted to be unable to achieve market success.
post #63 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isochroma View Post

Neither LCD nor any existing MEMS can block all backlight. Though in theory they could, it practice it will be exceedingly difficult to do so, at the market's price point.

IMOD, for example doesn't even have a backlight. It's a fascinating technology (reflective display) as well although I'm still not sure how it could translate to home viewing. I guess if it came with a stand that would flash a bright light onto the panel, it might work very nicely.

As for TMOS, don't forget these panels will be transparent (sooner or later) with incredible light output efficiencies so 2 or even 3 of these panels could be easily stacked on top of each other. Now, think about what is already possible as far as contrast enhancement goes with Dolby Vision/Contrast technology just by modulating 1836-zoned backlight with a crappy LCD panel. Imagine one TMOS panel doing per-pixel light modulation (not that it's even necessary) for the other TMOS panel. Two not enough? How about three. LCD could never come even remotely close to doing anything things like this without installing Sun as backlight.
post #64 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

@Richard Paul: Read this if you want to simply learn how TMOS works.
http://www.uni-pixel.net/assets/unip...r_20070717.pdf

I know how TMOS works what I want is evidence for what you have been stating as fact. For instance you have stated that there is "No light leakage from a deactivated pixel" with TMOS but you have posted no evidence for that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

Also, why TMOS should be cheaper than OLED? Becasue TMOS will always be cheaper than even LCD (fewer layers, fewer components) which, in turn, is significantly cheaper to produce than OLED.
http://www.uni-pixel.net/assets/press20070529.pdf (19th slide)

The problem is there is no evidence that TMOS is cheaper than LCD not alone that it is cheaper than OLED. For instance can you provide evidence for how much it would cost to make a fully functioning TMOS Opcuity Film and what kind of ANSI/dynamic contrast ratio it would get?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

I think some people in this thread have been trying to question that without no real knowledge about how TMOS works, what the components are, and how it's manufactured.

vtms, I think the reason you use that as an excuse is since you can't provide evidence for the marketing hype and personal speculation that you have been posting in this thread as fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

All I've been saying is that TMOS will be cheaper than OLED, eventually while he was demanding evidence (prices, I guess ) why TMOS is cheaper than OLED now even though >=50" OLED do not even exist and will not exist for years.

The reason I ask for evidence it since you have stated as a fact that TMOS would be cheaper than OLED.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

You're thinking LCD. MEMS is a different ball of wax. These displays will eventually be able to block all light completely,

What evidence do you have for that?
post #65 of 137
There are only three ways a transmissive shutter system can block all light:

1. The shutters' edges meet perfectly, or close enough that the photons' wave functions can't pass through. This is a quantum effect so it will either be all or nothing.

2. The shutters' edges overlap, so even if imprecise they will prevent all photons from passing.

3. The shutter system makes use of total internal reflection or refraction to direct all light such that none penetrates to the front side.

None of these three is particularly easy or cheap to achieve.
post #66 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:


Originally Posted by vtms
All I've been saying is that TMOS will be cheaper than OLED eventually while he was demanding evidence (prices, I guess ) why TMOS is cheaper than OLED now even though >=50" OLED do not even exist and will not exist for years.

Quote:


The reason I ask for evidence it since you have stated as a fact that TMOS would be cheaper than OLED.

I thought I gave you the evidence and logic behind my statement. Perhaps it's time you should define exactly what you mean by "evidence."
post #67 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isochroma View Post

There are only three ways a transmissive shutter system can block all light:

The shutter system makes use of total internal reflection or refraction to direct all light such that none penetrates to the front side.

TMOS uses frustrated total internal reflection. Not sure if that's relevant to what you're talking about.
post #68 of 137
FTIR. Even if the process is perfect, the light bounces around inside. It would be almost impossible to prevent all that light bouncing around within the system from escaping somewhere. Lots of rays, lots of matter, lots of surfaces = large probability space.
post #69 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

Yes, my intentions were to reflect the other guy's flawed logic about TMOS and apply it to OLED. All I've been saying is that TMOS will be cheaper than OLED, eventually while he was demanding evidence (prices, I guess ) why TMOS is cheaper than OLED now even though >=50" OLED do not even exist and will not exist for years.

You keep touting your personal speculations as facts. They are not. There are less materials in OLED, there is less manufacturing, I certainly speculate that OLED will be cheaper in the long run. You look at the same information and assume the opposite as fact.

Quote:


You're thinking LCD. MEMS is a different ball of wax. These displays will eventually be able to block all light completely, something LCD still cannot do very well even after nth generations and years of development.

Here again, you make your personal speculations into facts. You are not reporting the news, you are making it up. Isochroma explains in great detail what is wrong with your assumed facts in this case. MEMs shutters leak and it will be incredible difficult (read expensive) to build non leaky shutters, so it likely won't be done.

You also completely ignore potential issues from the time domain sequential color generation.

OLED is near ideal display technology, it easily does things that MEMs devices will likely never match it in key areas like pure black/infinite contrast and still hold unknown issues with time domain color generation. Sure MEM shutters are interesting technology, but it is hard to see where this back light shutter technology exceeds a near ideal emitter technology.

I see MEMs in more industrial applications where super brightness is needed, like outdoor signage. But for home imaging, OLED/FED/SED look like the future.
post #70 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

Fair point. Then let's at least acknowledge that, in theory, TMOS should be cheaper and better than LCD. I think some people in this thread have been trying to question that without no real knowledge about how TMOS works, what the components are, and how it's manufactured.

Sure. My only point is that since the main reason why many of these "dream displays" are getting stuck for decades in the prototype stage is due to high cost of manufacturing (too many components, too many manufacturing steps, sophisticated assembly techniques), TMOS should have an inherent advantage in the "dream display" space as it takes advantage of the existing components and manufacturing know-how associated with LCD technology. In fact, the only new component that's involved is the polymer layer with micro-optic structures underneath it. The other components such as light guide and LED edge-illumination have been around for years. So, while TMOS is a revolutionary display, its adoption doesn't require revolution in manufacturing, as it's the case with other "dream displays". TMOS is basically an LCD without backlight (replaced by edge-lit light guide), LCs (replaced by the polymer layer), polarizers and color filters. Manufacturing TMOS is not much different than manufacturing LCDs, except it can be done in fewer steps and with minor modifications to existing production chain. All this means that TMOS has much better chance of "making it" than other "dream displays".

Even so, it doesn't follow from that that all MEMS-based displays are destined for failure. I think that's the main reason why some people automatically dismiss this technology. They think failure of SED (so far) will kill the whole MEMS-display market potential.



I see where you are coming from and I agree 100% that this is an exciting product. I think I read somewhere Philips is interested in the tech and that is promising indeed

If only 1 or more of the big "S" CE firms (Sharp, Sony, Samsung) could get behind TMOS, we might get our dream display at last
post #71 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post

You keep touting your personal speculations as facts. They are not. There are less materials in OLED, there is less manufacturing, I certainly speculate that OLED will be cheaper in the long run. You look at the same information and assume the opposite as fact.
Here again, you make your personal speculations into facts. You are not reporting the news, you are making it up

I'm not making any news up. There's a difference between news and news analysis that involves stuff like thinking and logic. You just don't agree with my analysis, that's all. Clearly, you are typical OLED defender who prefers to focus entirely on PQ advantages while ignoring the fact that this technology has been around for decades without any serious market presence specifically due to technological problems and manufacturing cost. And yet, while being aware of this history of ridiculously slow progress and decades-old hype (or hope, rather) of "super-cheapness", you still are trying to tell me that eventually OLED will cost next to nothing? That might be true someday except how long do you think that could take? Another 10-20 years? In that time, competing and much cheaper technologies will effectively slow OLED's already slow progress and market adoption, eventually killing OLED's market appeal. Again, this is analysis, not making up facts.
post #72 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

I'm not making any news up. There's a difference between news and news analysis that involves stuff like thinking and logic. You just don't agree with my analysis, that's all. Clearly, you are typical OLED defender who prefers to focus entirely on PQ advantages while ignoring the fact that this technology has been around for decades without any serious market presence specifically due to technological problems and manufacturing cost. And yet, while being aware of this history of ridiculously slow progress and decades-old hype (or hope, rather) of

I am typical in that we are all pointing out the same thing, that you think your opinions are facts. They aren't.

OLED principles have been know for quite some time, but it was also known that making blue emitter compound with longevity was a serious challenge. That challenge has only recently been overcome and now we have several big players jumping into the OLED display ring.

No one has announced an intention to produce a TMOS TV. This puts it behind SED/OLED/FED.

It has no imaging advantages and significant disadvantage on the contrast side unless you include your made up assumption that the shutters won't leak.

In short you are building a house of cards on personal assumptions, this is not analysis, this is rampant speculation.

Here is my speculation. Within 5 years there will be many OLED TV's in peoples homes, but even within 10 years there won't be TMOS TVs available. It has nothing to offer in terms of image quality over FED/OLED/SED which will all likely be on the market when TMOS funding dries up.
post #73 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isochroma View Post

FTIR. Even if the process is perfect, the light bounces around inside. It would be almost impossible to prevent all that light bouncing around within the system from escaping somewhere. Lots of rays, lots of matter, lots of surfaces = large probability space.

Well, the pixels in the off state do not frustrate total internal reflection so there's no reason why light would travel to those pixels with total internal reflection being maintained inside the light guide at those pixel locations. Sure, there will always be some system noise due to LG's optical imperfections and other reasons but they are being addressed. I know this because I've seen Unipixel patents for significantly lowering the noise floor. (could provide the links, if interested)

Considering inherent light output efficiency of TMOS, a simple panel filter could further lower or even eliminate any remaining system noise. Sure, the power consumption efficiency would take a hit, but each pixel would be black.
post #74 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidryp View Post

Here is my speculation. Within 5 years there will be many OLED TV's in peoples homes, but even within 10 years there won't be TMOS TVs available. It has nothing to offer in terms of image quality over FED/OLED/SED which will all likely be on the market when TMOS funding dries up.

I agree, this is pure speculation on your part. I just want to remind you that OLED has a long record of failure and slow progress while TMOS and MEMS-based displays in general don't. Quite the opposite.

I think a joke about OLED is that it's always been "5 years away". I think 5 years from now, people will still be saying the same thing (Sharp seems to thinks so as well, so this is not only my personal opinion). Forget about MEMS. Super-thin LED LCDs with local dimming, FEDs, and even infinite contrast plasmas will probably significantly diminish OLED's appeal and kill whatever is left of its market growth potential even before 50" MEMS panels come along.
post #75 of 137
vtms, I suspect the resistence you are getting is more to do with the near total lack of press that TMOS has recieved rather than it's technology or potential. They have to generate more buzz and when I list all the display techs that are currently being researched (OLED, FED, SED, Laser, LED....etc) it falls dead last regarding exposure. I think that TMOS was at SID this year (for the first time) and still they recieved nearly no press exposure? They have to generate more buzz. They should be paying you as it seems you are doing a better job than they are

Cheers
post #76 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

vtms, I suspect the resistence you are getting is more to do with the near total lack of press that TMOS has recieved rather than it's technology or potential. They have to generate more buzz and when I list all the display techs that are currently being researched (OLED, FED, SED, Laser, LED....etc) it falls dead last regarding exposure. I think that TMOS was at SID this year (for the first time) and still they recieved nearly no press exposure? They have to generate more buzz. They should be paying you as it seems you are doing a better job than they are Cheers

You know what, I think they should. Yeah, some people are skeptical because hardly anyone has heard, let alone, seen MEMS displays except the scientists and engineers who attend display conferences. These are extremely new technologies, fresh out of labs.

It's safe to say the casual observers (most AVSers) don't really care about reading technical documents and patents for fun just to satisfy their curiosity about how these new and potentially revolutionary display technologies work. Most people will start paying attention only when Samsung, Sony, etc., licenses some MEMS flavor and demonstrates shiny and new >40" panels at consumer shows for everyone to see. Right now, the prototypes are not really ready for prime time so there's nothing to show that would capture people's imaginations.
post #77 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLee View Post

I see where you are coming from and I agree 100% that this is an exciting product. I think I read somewhere Philips is interested in the tech and that is promising indeed

Well, the first 3 kinds of prototypes were assembled at MiPlaza, Philips' research facility. This doesn't mean Philips is necessarily interested in licensing TMOS, but the partnership is already established so this looks promising.

Quote:


If only 1 or more of the big "S" CE firms (Sharp, Sony, Samsung) could get behind TMOS, we might get our dream display at last

Yup. Licensing deals with one or more big LCD manufacturers would serve as clear indication that TMOS is coming and that the technology itself is worth pursuing. We'll see.
post #78 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

I thought I gave you the evidence and logic behind my statement. Perhaps it's time you should define exactly what you mean by "evidence."

I am asking for scientific evidence as in something that can prove that what has been stated is true and which can be objectively tested. For instance if you said that the Sun would explode next week few people would believe you unless you could prove it. To break it down even further merely proving that it is possible for the Sun to explode next week given the right conditions would not be evidence that it will happen. Note that I have yet to see evidence for the questions I asked and some of the statements you have made have gone far beyond even what Unipixel has claimed. For instance while Unipixel is claiming that TMOS will someday have a 4500:1 contrast ratio you have stated as a fact that TMOS will someday have an infinite contrast ratio.
post #79 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

I just want to remind you that OLED has a long record of failure and slow progress while TMOS and MEMS-based displays in general don't. Quite the opposite.

wat?
post #80 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

For instance while Unipixel is claiming that TMOS will someday have a 4500:1 contrast ratio you have stated as a fact that TMOS will someday have an infinite contrast ratio.

Just like some people are claiming infinite contrast for OLEDs even though no OLED manufacturer has said so. Are they wrong? No, because OLED pixels can be turned off completely which is all that matters. If you understand that, you can safely disregard whatever marketing departments are saying about contrast ratios. Again, if you really understand the technology, you are more than justified in making statements about its potential.

Look, it's clear that the only evidence that will satisfy you will be the actual panels being shown at consumer shows. So how about we end this unresolvable discussion and resume it after TMOS shows up at CES in few years, OK?
post #81 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLee View Post

wat?

Sorry, that was supposed to be "failure to deliver" instead of just "failure". OLED has not failed in the technical sense. Neither has SED.
post #82 of 137
Oh, I suspect OLED is stealing a march. But I don't really care what technology or technologies come out winning. I just want better, cheaper HDTVs. In the relatively near future, too.

My main TV is a 720p LCoS RPTV. Pretty much extinct technology, although it still has pretty darned good PQ. Next year I will likely replace a 27" CRT direct view with something in the 42"-50" range. Probably LCD. I'd like to think that the next TV bought after that would be of a technology that will stick around for 10-20 years.
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

Again, if you really understand the technology, you are more than justified in making statements about its potential.

vtms, I would point out that even the people who are working on TMOS and have every reason in the world to exaggerate its potential have only claimed that it will someday have a 4500:1 contrast ratio. Despite that when anyone asks you for evidence that TMOS will someday have an infinite contrast ratio you respond by implying that they don't understand the technology. To me that looks like an insulting implication made to belittle anyone that asks for evidence.
post #84 of 137
Thread Starter 





Quote:


Pixtronix Brings Ultra-Low Power Consumption and Exceptional Image Quality to Flat Panel Displays
Demonstrates PerfectLight, the Industry's First Digital Display for Multimedia Applications

Andover Mass., October 27 2008 — Pixtronix, Inc., a private venture-backed developer of innovative multimedia display technologies, today introduced the PerfectLight™ Display, the industry's first flat panel display to deliver both ultra-low power consumption and exceptional image quality. With PerfectLight, Pixtronix realizes a 75% power reduction over traditional LCD displays, while reaching new heights in color gamut, color depth and view angle.

PerfectLight™ - The Perfect Display for Today's Multimedia Lifestyle
As rich multimedia applications become mainstream, consumers are spending more time than ever using their mobile devices for email, navigation and video. This multimedia lifestyle has dramatic implications for manufacturers of electronic devices, who require larger, brighter displays with better image quality and reduced power consumption. While traditional display technologies are unable to meet these requirements, the PerfectLight Display gives the best multimedia experience possible, while providing device manufacturers with the most power efficient display in the industry.

"As consumers do more with mobile multimedia, they're demanding better image quality displays that don't drain the battery dry," said Tony Zona, CEO of Pixtronix. "Until now, high quality multimedia has come at the expense of excessive power consumption; Pixtronix changes that with the introduction of the PerfectLight Display."

Performance Demonstrated at FPD International
Pixtronix is demonstrating the PerfectLight Display at FPD International, the comprehensive exhibition and forum on flat panel displays, October 29 - 31 in Yokohama, Japan. Pixtronix is demonstrating:

* Exceptional Image Quality - Full speed video with 24-bit color depth, 105% NTSC color gamut, high contrast ratio, and wide view angles
* Ultra-Low Power Consumption - 75% power reduction of LCD displays
* Programmability - Simultaneously optimized image quality and power consumption enabling additional power savings for any application on any device

Digital Micro Shutter™ Technology - Driving the PerfectLight Display
At the heart of the PerfectLight Display, Pixtronix Digital Micro Shutter (DMS™) technology applies breakthrough innovation utilizing existing display infrastructure. Through the integration of MEMS and TFTs, DMS brings critical differentiation while leveraging TFT-LCD manufacturing equipment, processes and materials.

* Digital MEMS Shutters - Drive high speed, low power light modulation with proven durability
* Digital TFT Backplane - Delivers low power consumption with high reliability, all-digital circuitry
* High Efficiency Field Sequential Color - Achieves deep, rich colors with no image artifacts
* Optimized Module Architecture - Eliminates need for liquid crystals, color filters and polarizers
post #85 of 137
It is telling that Pixtronix doesn't state the contrast ratio for their prototype DMS display.
post #86 of 137
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

It is telling that Pixtronix doesn't state the contrast ratio for their prototype DMS display.

That's it, DMS is doomed now. Call the company and tell them they are wasting their time developing this technology.
post #87 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

That's it, DMS is doomed now. Call the company and tell them they are wasting their time developing this technology.

vtms, you joke about it only because there is something fishy about the fact that both the TMOS prototype display and DMS prototype display did not have their contrast ratio numbers published.
post #88 of 137
Thread Starter 
That neither company publishes contrast ratio numbers for the first prototypes is perfectly understandable. Why would they throw out some silly number and risk people who don't know better comparing prototype's CR to fake, inflated CRs of current sets on the market? Why would they give people false impression that the prototype's CR will be the same as that of mature product 5 years later? Seems like a smart decision by both companies to just say "high contrast ratio" and leave it at that.

If we agree that mechanical shutter layers are inherently far superior to slow, light-leaking, liquid crystal layer, it should follow that MEMS-based displays have potential for far better PQ than most advanced LCDs now.
post #89 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtms View Post

If we agree that mechanical shutter layers are inherently far superior to slow, light-leaking, liquid crystal layer,

That is very optimistic speculation considering that I have yet to hear of even a single prototype MEMS display with a contrast ratio over 1000:1. As such I would have to disagree since there isn't any evidence that MEMS displays can even equal the contrast ratio of LCD displays.
post #90 of 137
I really have my doubts about the reliability of mechanical shutters. Or I would, if it weren't for the experience of DLP micro-mirrors.

On a side note, I recently replaced that 27" CRT with a 52" LCD (post 82). I mention that, because I think it is common for something to come up that will drive people to make replacements on rather short notice. What's on the shelf is what will be bought. We can't always plan our future purchases to wait until some expected new technology availability date.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › MEMS-based displays (TMOS/DMS) news thread