[amnesia0287]

Except that QLED/LCDs are a class of LCD TV.

No, they aren't. LCD, LED, and QLED are all different, in general usage, and people are reasonably clear what they mean. This continued appeal to archaic terminological niceties is just irritating. To people who haven't followed discussions here, it's just a stealthy way to advocate your personal favorites among consumer display technologies. It's not your language -- you don't get to say how the rest of us use these terms.

What type of panel is all those displays.

The issue is people can refer to any of them using LCD. QLED and LED are just short names for "QLED LCD" and "LED LCD". They are more specific yes, but that doesn't magically make them not LCD no matter what semantics you want to argue.

 

[GregLee]

The issue is people can refer to any of them using LCD. QLED and LED are just short names for "QLED LCD" and "LED LCD". They are more specific yes, but that doesn't magically make them not LCD no matter what semantics you want to argue.

I took issue with the use of "LCD TV", not "LCD". "LCD" continues also to be used to refer to a display technology. Since the time LED TVs came into common use, a TV with a LED backlight has not ordinarily been referred to as an LCD. It's a LED. Outside this forum, I have never ever encountered a LED TV being referred to as a "LED LCD TV", so I don't think you are right about the facts. If you want to be clear, use terms the way others do.

 

[cah95046]

No, they aren't. LCD, LED, and QLED are all different, in general usage, and people are reasonably clear what they mean. This continued appeal to archaic terminological niceties is just irritating. To people who haven't followed discussions here, it's just a stealthy way to advocate your personal favorites among consumer display technologies. It's not your language -- you don't get to say how the rest of us use these terms.

Yes they are different but they share common technology, namely LCD.

 

[JasonHa]

I took issue with the use of "LCD TV", not "LCD". "LCD" continues also to be used to refer to a display technology. Since the time LED TVs came into common use, a TV with a LED backlight has not ordinarily been referred to as an LCD. It's a LED. Outside this forum, I have never ever encountered a LED TV being referred to as a "LED LCD TV", so I don't think you are right about the facts. If you want to be clear, use terms the way others do.

All of those are LCDs, regardless of what they're commonly called. Hopefully people are educated by visiting these forums. Some folks think LED and QLED mean completely new technology different from LCD. If we're just going to parrot corporate marketing speak, we can shut this place down and visit corporate websites.

 

[imagic]

On the AVS homepage now...

direct link... Seeking Samsung Q7 TVs to Measure and Calibrate for Free Near Philadelphia

 

[audacious nick]

No, they aren't. LCD, LED, and QLED are all different, in general usage, and people are reasonably clear what they mean. This continued appeal to archaic terminological niceties is just irritating. To people who haven't followed discussions here, it's just a stealthy way to advocate your personal favorites among consumer display technologies. It's not your language -- you don't get to say how the rest of us use these terms.

Yes, they are. Is a hatchback no longer considered a car due to the shape of the storage area? No, it's not. And a QLED does not stop being an LED-lit LCD because they slapped a name on it due to a change in the panel. In the end, it's still an LCD. You are fallaciously presenting modern terms as "archaic," which in itself is asinine. LED TV is short for LED-lit LCD TV, and there is nothing archaic about using the full name, just like calling me Nick instead of Nicholas doesn't mean my full name becomes archaic. Same thing for QLED. Just because there is a shortened name does not mean the full name is archaic.

Hope this helps.

 

[wmoss35]

My local BB finally put these out. Interesting they had them close to the ks9800 along with the 8000 models all scattered around the same place running the same loop. The Q7 had noticably better color and brightness, especially when viewed slightly off angle then both the 9800 and 8000 series. Granted we have no idea what settings are used on both, also looked at the sony x930e.. both that one and the q7 looked really good, q7 with much better colour reproduction IMO.

 

[Rudy1]

Though I think some posters are guilty of overthinking this whole matter, I will admit that manufacturers have gotten lazy since there's little competition around to spur the development of new display technologies. I'd like to see a little more real innovation and a lot less fancy branding from the whole lot of them...not just from Samsung, but from LG and Sony as well. And as for the whole DV vs HDR10 fake "format war", you just know something's not right when bargain-basement brands boast that they have Dolby Vision onboard when not one of their displays have what it takes (deep blacks, high brightness, and wide color gamut) to actually make good and proper use of it. Sony threw tons of money at Beta, which was far superior to VHS, only to have everyone end up supporting the lowest-cost format. But I don't blame Dolby Labs one bit...they have a highly-recognizable brand and they are well justified in making as much money as possible off it...especially when they've proven they can deliver the goods. If I were them, I'd jack up the royalty payments every year for the next five years.

 

[New24K]

No, they aren't. LCD, LED, and QLED are all different, in general usage, and people are reasonably clear what they mean. This continued appeal to archaic terminological niceties is just irritating. To people who haven't followed discussions here, it's just a stealthy way to advocate your personal favorites among consumer display technologies. It's not your language -- you don't get to say how the rest of us use these terms.

LMAO - Kellyanne Conway is that you?!

More "alternative facts"?!

 

[cah95046]

Though I think some posters are guilty of overthinking this whole matter, I will admit that manufacturers have gotten lazy since there's little competition around to spur the development of new display technologies. I'd like to see a little more real innovation and a lot less fancy branding from the whole lot of them...not just from Samsung, but from LG and Sony as well. And as for the whole DV vs HDR10 fake "format war", you just know something's not right when bargain-basement brands boast that they have Dolby Vision onboard when not one of their displays have what it takes (deep blacks, high brightness, and wide color gamut) to actually make good and proper use of it. Sony threw tons of money at Beta, which was far superior to VHS, only to have everyone end up supporting the lowest-cost format. But I don't blame Dolby Labs one bit...they have a highly-recognizable brand and they are well justified in making as much money as possible off it...especially when they've proven they can deliver the goods. If I were them, I'd jack up the royalty payments every year for the next five years.

On the contrary, DV was designed to make HDR look good on cheap more limited consumer displays. With DV, the film grader has the ability to make decisions that make the best use of a consumers display's more limited capabilities.

The closer your display is to the grading monitor, the less you need DV.

 

[losservatore]

On the contrary, DV was designed to make HDR look good on cheap more limited consumer displays. With DV, the film grader has the ability to make decisions that make the best use of a consumers display's more limited capabilities.

The closer your display is to the grading monitor, the less you need DV.

Yes of course is for cheap displays . My Oled cost me $3,600, very cheap right?

The Sony Z9 is also a very cheap display .

 

[amnesia0287]

Though I think some posters are guilty of overthinking this whole matter, I will admit that manufacturers have gotten lazy since there's little competition around to spur the development of new display technologies. I'd like to see a little more real innovation and a lot less fancy branding from the whole lot of them...not just from Samsung, but from LG and Sony as well. And as for the whole DV vs HDR10 fake "format war", you just know something's not right when bargain-basement brands boast that they have Dolby Vision onboard when not one of their displays have what it takes (deep blacks, high brightness, and wide color gamut) to actually make good and proper use of it. Sony threw tons of money at Beta, which was far superior to VHS, only to have everyone end up supporting the lowest-cost format. But I don't blame Dolby Labs one bit...they have a highly-recognizable brand and they are well justified in making as much money as possible off it...especially when they've proven they can deliver the goods. If I were them, I'd jack up the royalty payments every year for the next five years.

On the contrary, DV was designed to make HDR look good on cheap more limited consumer displays. With DV, the film grader has the ability to make decisions that make the best use of a consumers display's more limited capabilities.

The closer your display is to the grading monitor, the less you need DV.

This is false. DV allows for a number of different things such as improved compression / increased bandwidth.

What about DV is not beneficial to better displays?

 

[cah95046]

This is false. DV allows for a number of different things such as improved compression / increased bandwidth.

What about DV is not beneficial to better displays?

A display that matches the grading monitor doesn't need any special adaptation (tone mapping). Intelligent tone mapping is only necessary when the consumer display doesn't match the grading monitor.

Unless you are talking about 10,000 nits and 12 bit color. These DV characteristics are not met by any display, even grading monitors?

DV is more beneficial to lower end displays than it is to high end displays.

I'm not aware of any way DV has anything to do with compression/bandwidth. Please explain what you have in mind.

 

[cah95046]

Yes of course is for cheap displays . My Oled cost me $3,600, very cheap right?

The Sony Z9 is also a very cheap display .

DV is more beneficial for displays less capable that your OLED. However, since your OLED doesn't match the grading monitor DV is beneficial.

Consider a scene with an APL of 400 nits and a bright object of 4000 nits on the grading monitor.

How does a display with a maximum of 1000 nits display this?

option A: keep APL at 400 nits and bright object at 1000 nits. (maintains scene brightness but clips highlight)
option B: reduce APL to 100 nits and bright object at 1000 nits. (maintains contrast ratio but dims the scene)

DV allows the grader to provide input at to which is preferred rather than just letting the tv decide.

If the display can do 2000 nits (e.g.Z9) then the trade-offs are not so severe. Consider a 500 nit consumer display. Here the trade-offs are quite severe and intelligent tone mapping (e.g. DV) is very beneficial.

 

[losservatore]

cah95046 I owned a 2015 top of the line Samsung JS9500 , I much prefer the Oled PQ. I'm waiting for the Qled emmisive or the high efficient organic blue light with QD.

if you wonder why then I can show you all my LCD returns since I sold my VT60s plasmas on February of last year. it wasn't fun at all.

I have heard great things about the Sony Z9 but that display cost almost $6 for a 65".


The future is clearly moving towards emmisive. we will see Sony cledis , Qled and Oleds.All emmisive...



Samsung will bring something pretty cool in 2017.

 

[cah95046]

cah95046 I owned a 2015 top of the line Samsung JS9500 , I much prefer the Oled PQ. I'm waiting for the Qled emmisive or the high efficient organic blue light with QD.

if you wonder why then I can show you all my LCD returns since I sold my VT60s plasmas on February of last year. it wasn't fun at all.

I have heard great things about the Sony Z9 but that display cost almost $6 for a 65".


The future is clearly moving towards emmisive. we will see Sony cledis , Qled and Oleds.All emmisive...



Samsung will bring something pretty cool in 2017.

fine. so what.

the subject was DV effect on low end consumer displays

 

[MilesSouth]

Lower end TVs don't have the high peak brightness, wide color gamut, color volume, true 10 bit display, advanced bit mapping, and higher contrast ratio, and advanced backlighting of higher end displays, so I don't see how they would benefit more from Dolby Vision than a TV that has all of those things.

 

[imagic]

Lower end TVs don't have the high peak brightness, wide color gamut, color volume, true 10 bit display, advanced bit mapping, and higher contrast ratio, and advanced backlighting of higher end displays, so I don't see how they would benefit more from Dolby Vision than a TV that has all of those things.

It's more about the degree of benefit derived from the format. Because Dolby Vision remaps to the capabilities of the TV, less capable TVs get a greater benefit from it, even if the overall viewing experience is not as good as with a better TV showing DV.


That reality does not take away from DV's qualities when it comes to better TVs. But with better TVs the gap between DV and HDR10 shrinks.

 

[cah95046]

Lower end TVs don't have the high peak brightness, wide color gamut, color volume, true 10 bit display, advanced bit mapping, and higher contrast ratio, and advanced backlighting of higher end displays, so I don't see how they would benefit more from Dolby Vision than a TV that has all of those things.

Because DV is a way to intelligently tone map scene by scene the orginal to the less capable display.

A high end display, in the limit as good as the grading monitor, will be quite good without DV. So the impact of DV will be less.

The consumer grade with DV will of course not be as good as the high end display with DV...but it will be much much better than consumer grade without DV.

 

[cah95046]

It's more about the degree of benefit derived from the format. Because Dolby Vision remaps to the capabilities of the TV, less capable TVs get a greater benefit from it, even if the overall viewing experience is not as good as with a better TV showing DV.


That reality does not take away from DV's qualities when it comes to better TVs. But with better TVs the gap between DV and HDR10 shrinks.

This is what I'm saying. If you can understand Mark's explanation easier, then go with it.