- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,955
- 1,439
- 136
quantum dot electro luminescence. no backlight just direct stimulation of QD. supposedly very easily to scale. rgb microLED has cost/manufacture issues so this could be a rival.
Info [digital trends] Sharp QDEL display tech reveal at CES
- Thread starter gorobei
- Start date
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,955
- 1,439
- 136
follow up
one laptop from TCL demonstrating the display at ~4:44.
it seems like oled will never get over the longevity issues. but oled is the one marketing jumble that stuck in the heads of consumers, even though microLED and QDEL seem to offer better future prospects.
it seems like oled will never get over the longevity issues. but oled is the one marketing jumble that stuck in the heads of consumers, even though microLED and QDEL seem to offer better future prospects.
it has the added advantage of being available and affordable (ish)
meanwhile where can I buy a qdel display last year? this year?
Hard to blame OLED marketing when it is competing against effectively nothing yet.
OLED was supposed to be easy and cheap to produce, so much so you supposedly could make them using literal inkjet printers, so believe any such claims about it being cheap and easy to produce when its proven by products you can buy. It was also supposed to be more energy efficient, but we're kinda just now really getting to that point by utilizing multiple OLED layers.
On the flipside, as far as longevity and burn in, both seem to have been grossly exaggerated as far as them being that big of an issue with OLED. I have a 65" OLED that's like 8 or 9 years old at this point and it still easily gets bright enough that I wouldn't want to look at it at full brightness let alone with anything approaching a mostly white image. It also shows no burn in or other issues. Meanwhile, LCDs seem to have issues with longevity (RTINGS is finding them to fail under similar "burn in" tests they're putting OLEDs through). We're just now getting tandem OLED, which should help with both burn-in and longevity.
No clue where you're getting that microLED has better future prospects than OLED. It will almost certainly never be cheaper due to the inherent production issues (watch the Digital Trends video explaining that). Heck, that alone limits the ability to scale it up for mass production, meaning it'll likely just be used for commercial and very wealthy consumer video walls.
As for QDEL, I believe the holdup is that some quantum dots are made with toxic elements (they've been working on finding analogues, somewhat successfully). I think there's longevity issues there as well so if that's your concern about OLED, might need to write off QDEL as well.
No idea why you're acting like marketing is the reason that OLED is doing well while these other 2 barely exist.
On the flipside, as far as longevity and burn in, both seem to have been grossly exaggerated as far as them being that big of an issue with OLED. I have a 65" OLED that's like 8 or 9 years old at this point and it still easily gets bright enough that I wouldn't want to look at it at full brightness let alone with anything approaching a mostly white image. It also shows no burn in or other issues. Meanwhile, LCDs seem to have issues with longevity (RTINGS is finding them to fail under similar "burn in" tests they're putting OLEDs through). We're just now getting tandem OLED, which should help with both burn-in and longevity.
No clue where you're getting that microLED has better future prospects than OLED. It will almost certainly never be cheaper due to the inherent production issues (watch the Digital Trends video explaining that). Heck, that alone limits the ability to scale it up for mass production, meaning it'll likely just be used for commercial and very wealthy consumer video walls.
As for QDEL, I believe the holdup is that some quantum dots are made with toxic elements (they've been working on finding analogues, somewhat successfully). I think there's longevity issues there as well so if that's your concern about OLED, might need to write off QDEL as well.
No idea why you're acting like marketing is the reason that OLED is doing well while these other 2 barely exist.
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,955
- 1,439
- 136
oled gets the credit/win for showing up an being able to be purchased, but by that metric lcd will always win out.
the main problem is that oled will always have longevity issues on brightness and blue subpixel fade. the burn in issue is fine for tvs with decent content variation and the pixel shifting/reset features. but for monitors and other more repetitive content with static overlays(tv sports/news) the threat of burn in is still not solved.
and yes lcd has burn in but i've generally found most burn issues come down to not enough cooling to the entire panel due to the way too thin and sleek housing on the 'fancy' tvs (thick and ugly will last way longer). i think asus even put an active fan on one of their high end monitors. oled will still have blue fade just due to the chemistry and time.
the big hurdle on micro-led is assembly cost. they are just absurdly small smd with no easy/cheap way to affix to the motherglass/pcb, whereas oled is more of an inkjet process with some additional steps. both are expensive but oled has had more time to work on the cost. some novel manufacturing process could turn the cost issue in micro-led's favor.
the number of hurdles they are jumping through to get oled to be bulletproof as far as that consumer "just turn it on and never have to think or worry about it" could easily take that research money and put it into other approaches. the double active matrix layers (lcd gate for rgb + b/w lcd for luminance) on medical reference monitors that hisense was working on to bring to tv died just because the development cost vs the cheap oled panel slated for next cycle. if they had stuck it out we could have had a solid alternative with equivalent contrast ratio and brightness, good longevity(burn in and blue fade), and done with off the shelf technology. instead we are getting micro lens array and other wingdings to compensate for core oled issues.
most electronics/material eng experts i have come across will always fall back saying that good ol' led material science is just better and simpler for getting back to CRT blacks and brightness vs organic molecule.
consumers who arent going to do any research are always going to go binary good/bad. and the buzzword d'jour for 'good' is oled. they arent differentiating between w-oled or qd-oled or rgbw or any of the maker specific kludges to differentiate. so we are getting potentially flawed tech that persists because consumers cant figure out that they shouldnt buy it because "well it says OLED so it must be good".
the main problem is that oled will always have longevity issues on brightness and blue subpixel fade. the burn in issue is fine for tvs with decent content variation and the pixel shifting/reset features. but for monitors and other more repetitive content with static overlays(tv sports/news) the threat of burn in is still not solved.
and yes lcd has burn in but i've generally found most burn issues come down to not enough cooling to the entire panel due to the way too thin and sleek housing on the 'fancy' tvs (thick and ugly will last way longer). i think asus even put an active fan on one of their high end monitors. oled will still have blue fade just due to the chemistry and time.
the big hurdle on micro-led is assembly cost. they are just absurdly small smd with no easy/cheap way to affix to the motherglass/pcb, whereas oled is more of an inkjet process with some additional steps. both are expensive but oled has had more time to work on the cost. some novel manufacturing process could turn the cost issue in micro-led's favor.
the number of hurdles they are jumping through to get oled to be bulletproof as far as that consumer "just turn it on and never have to think or worry about it" could easily take that research money and put it into other approaches. the double active matrix layers (lcd gate for rgb + b/w lcd for luminance) on medical reference monitors that hisense was working on to bring to tv died just because the development cost vs the cheap oled panel slated for next cycle. if they had stuck it out we could have had a solid alternative with equivalent contrast ratio and brightness, good longevity(burn in and blue fade), and done with off the shelf technology. instead we are getting micro lens array and other wingdings to compensate for core oled issues.
most electronics/material eng experts i have come across will always fall back saying that good ol' led material science is just better and simpler for getting back to CRT blacks and brightness vs organic molecule.
consumers who arent going to do any research are always going to go binary good/bad. and the buzzword d'jour for 'good' is oled. they arent differentiating between w-oled or qd-oled or rgbw or any of the maker specific kludges to differentiate. so we are getting potentially flawed tech that persists because consumers cant figure out that they shouldnt buy it because "well it says OLED so it must be good".
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter