Would you ever go back to LCD after experiencing OLED?

[crazycrave]

What's not to love about old trek seasons? It aired for three seasons on nbc from 1966 - 1969 though I guess, not that you may not have seen it until 1974. A little before my time.

I agree, very colorful.

I was born in 1967 and people in my area wasn't very rich, the images would have never been that clear on a tube TV at 240p at best back then, seen a beta player movie once around 1979, kids beside us had a Sony VCR with a corded remote control and that was top of the line back then, we wasn't far off from TV tennis as gaming goes, Atari 2600 was earth breaking tech at the time.

 

[l88bastard]

I was born in 1967 and people in my area wasn't very rich, the images would have never been that clear on a tube TV at 240p at best back then, seen a beta player movie once around 1979, kids beside us had a Sony VCR with a corded remote control and that was top of the line back then, we wasn't far off from TV tennis as gaming goes, Atari 2600 was earth breaking tech at the time.

I was born in '77...never forget the feeling of walking into Zayers in 1981-1982ish and seeing Atari 2600 display showcasing pacman...blew our fucking minds!

Second time gaming blew my mind was playing super mario brothers on the NES on my parents living room tv.

Third time gaming blew my mind was getting my first 086, then 286 12mhz, then 386 16mhz PC and playing classic sims like GATO, F-19 Stealth all the sierra kings quest, police quest, space quest, heros quest, and leisure suit larry games.

Fourth time gaming blew my mind was the Sega Genesis with amazing 16 bit graphics and unparalled fun games like original maddens and NHL hockeys.

FIfth time gaming blew my mind was N64 Mario, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conkers Bad Fur day

Sixth time gaming blew my mind OG xbox Halo, Transworld surf, Maddens, etc

Seventh time gaming blew my mind, back to PC with Battlefield 1942

 

[jarablue]

Was born in 1975. Was 18 in 1993. Got my own first pc in 1993 the year Jurassic Park came out. I remember in the movie I saw full motion video of Newman on the dock being displayed on the monitor of the PC. Blew my freaking mind. I knew then I loved technology.

So much has changed but the one thing I hold onto is the memory of how it all felt back then. It really was....magical.

Anyways OLED IS THE SHIZZLE!

 

[crazycrave]

It has been amazing to see life move so fast in my short amount of time to what we are today, no cell phone was freedom from the NSA programs, they have no power over you without your help.

 

[l88bastard]

It has been amazing to see life move so fast in my short amount of time to what we are today, no cell phone was freedom from the NSA programs, they have no power over you without your help.

Yea but what about the rectal probes?

Don't worry kill bots and skynet will backfire on us all just like that documentary Kames Cameron produced.

 

[isp]

Anyone else interested in the XR90? I will always keep a OLED around but still have a soft spot for the HDR impact that only miniLED can provide.

 

[loafer87gt]

I finally saw my first OLED today at Best Buy playing a rolling demo video, and well, I was very underwhelmed. It was a Alienware AW3423DWF and the black levels on it seemed now where near as dark as the blacks on the adjacent monitors, the screen was dull looking, and over all I didn't seen anything that gave me the "wow" factor so many of you are describing. Maybe it was just the way it was set up, but this display certainly didn't seem revolutionary by any means, especially for it's $1300 price tag.

 

[Sycraft]

I finally saw my first OLED today at Best Buy playing a rolling demo video, and well, I was very underwhelmed. It was a Alienware AW3423DWF and the black levels on it seemed now where near as dark as the blacks on the adjacent monitors, the screen was dull looking, and over all I didn't seen anything that gave me the "wow" factor so many of you are describing. Maybe it was just the way it was set up, but this display certainly didn't seem revolutionary by any means, especially for it's $1300 price tag.

Part of that is the lighting and QD-OLED. QD-OLEDs don't have a polarizer in them, they don't need it. The advantage of that is their viewing angles are insanely wide. Like WOLED is good, but QD-OLED is just another level. Essentially perfect. The downside is that a polarizer helps tone down the reflection of ambient light. So that combined with their very light AG coating means that in bright rooms, their black level isn't as good. Stores are, of course, extremely bright. So they don't put on their best showing there.

Along the "it's a bright room" lines OLEDs don't get as bright as LCDs, particularly if you are talking computer monitors. So the LCDs can be, and often are, cranked up more and particularly in a bright room. All other things being equal, you'll prefer the brighter thing.

Really, they don't compare well on a show-room floor, they need a place with less light to really show off.

 

[improwise]

Part of that is the lighting and QD-OLED. QD-OLEDs don't have a polarizer in them, they don't need it. The advantage of that is their viewing angles are insanely wide. Like WOLED is good, but QD-OLED is just another level. Essentially perfect. The downside is that a polarizer helps tone down the reflection of ambient light. So that combined with their very light AG coating means that in bright rooms, their black level isn't as good. Stores are, of course, extremely bright. So they don't put on their best showing there.

Along the "it's a bright room" lines OLEDs don't get as bright as LCDs, particularly if you are talking computer monitors. So the LCDs can be, and often are, cranked up more and particularly in a bright room. All other things being equal, you'll prefer the brighter thing.

Really, they don't compare well on a show-room floor, they need a place with less light to really show off.

AFAIK, the lack of polarizer is to get some more brightness out of the the QDOLEDs rather than improving viewing angles (which in most cases is not a problem on any OLEDs). Traiding poor blacks for a marginal increase in viewing angles seems like a bad tradeoff.

 

[Waldorf Jr]

Asking lcd vs oled is like asking 2 door vs 4 door (car), and completely ignoring use.

while a 2 door sports car will probably be more fun than most 4 door station wagons, once you have to move more than 2 ppl and maybe a dog/bikes, it becomes more or less useless.

the same way i saw ppl coming to my shop telling me they want an oled tv because its the "best" tv, while their use (watching the "news") and location (bright room), was not what they are designed for.
and if comparing to mini/micro led units, i can have non-oleds getting identical blacks, without having issues like image retention or even burn in, and at best case at least a noticeable drop in brightness after 3-5 y of use,
when the blue start to dim and red/green output is lowered to match it.

 

[tongshadow]

and at best case at least a noticeable drop in brightness after 3-5 y of use

Where did you see that? Can you provide a link to the test?

 

[Waldorf Jr]

cant tell for last gen stuff as i havent been working in retail sales for a while now, but part of the training i had (mil channel) included talking to techs, one being the different life expectancy on organic leds,
and that to make up for the loss of blue (going out sooner), the other colors would be dropped in output as well, to keep image uniform, but impacting max output for brightness.
cant even tell if this was done by the tv, or if it got covered thru calibration, just something i know to remember, in case a customer asked.

then again, not something i worried about (in detail), as they have pro stuff like 32in oled monis, that go for 30-50 K, so i assume they know what they talk about

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

cant tell for last gen stuff as i havent been working in retail sales for a while now, but part of the training i had (mil channel) included talking to techs, one being the different life expectancy on organic leds,
and that to make up for the loss of blue (going out sooner), the other colors would be dropped in output as well, to keep image uniform, but impacting max output for brightness.
cant even tell if this was done by the tv, or if it got covered thru calibration, just something i know to remember, in case a customer asked.

then again, not something i worried about (in detail), as they have pro stuff like 32in oled monis, that go for 30-50 K, so i assume they know what they talk about

Are there any TVs or monitors sold with RGB leds that would allow for a degradation like that today? With everything being WOLED or QD-OLED with a conversion layer above the leds I don't see how that particular concern would be a thing nowadays.

 

[Waldorf Jr]

Maybe not.
But when i see 10y old hw being sold as "new" (marked by me for project, but was never used), i would check at least 3-4 reviews regarding panels used,
or if there are different V's released, so you dont end up with older tech, even if its just some value unit using a "previous" gen to be affordable.

not that i think its an issue with common brands, but when i look at some of the oled (moni) reviews, im still happy with a larger FALD unit, and probably will go miniLed, just for cost.

 

[Sycraft]

AFAIK, the lack of polarizer is to get some more brightness out of the the QDOLEDs rather than improving viewing angles (which in most cases is not a problem on any OLEDs). Traiding poor blacks for a marginal increase in viewing angles seems like a bad tradeoff.

Could be, I didn't know about that part of it, just the viewing angles, having observed that. It is amazing how wide the viewing angles are. Like WOLED is good, better than IPS, but it does drop off at the sides. QDOLED you can look at practically perpendicular and it still looks great. It is nice if you have a big living room. I noticed in our living room how good the TV looks even in some really crappy sitting positions.

 

[elvn]

if comparing to mini/micro led units, i can have non-oleds getting identical blacks, without having issues like image retention or even burn in, and at best case at least a noticeable drop in brightness after 3-5 y of use,
when the blue start to dim and red/green output is lowered to match it.

You can't get the same kind of black depth and contrast in uniform fashion on FALD LCDs. In large planes of dark or bright you can get very large values - but wherever there is mixed brights and darks (which is how most detail, depth is shown in textures, clothes, hair, architecture, geography, objects on screen in general, etc ) , or where larger planes of bright and dark areas meet in areas on the borders, the contrast on FALD LCDs drops from their huge numbers back down to 3000:1 to 5000:1 and the accompany black depths. Blacks are lifted and/or color details and brightness are muted in those areas, even if not outright blooming and rather spread across more zones like a small zone gradient to avoid it being as harsh of a delineation. So FALD are non-uniform - a patchwork of levels as their branches and puddles of tetris brickwork have to tone and blend their output in large backlights which are also "softened" across adjacent backlight levels. The do great with their compensations, work-arounds, or "hacks" to get the most out of the # of zones they are limited to and the limits of the tech in general though.

Really, for LCD, you'd need dual layer LCD with a single LCD layer acting as a backlight, even 1080p LCD backlight of a 4k screen would be 1 pixel lit for every 4 pixels on a 4k LCD screen. As it is now, most of the better FALD lcds are 1200 to 2300 FALD zones. A 4k screen, 3840x2160 has over 8.3 million pixels, so a 2300 zone fald would have one backlight for every 3, 600+ pixels. 1 thousand to 2 thousand plus backlights might not sound like that small of a number but for example, the Neo G8's 1,196 zones is only a 46 x 26 array of backlights. So a 2000+ zone screen would be something like double that which still isn't much really. (Just using Dual-Layer LCD as an example. Dual layer lcd has it's own drawbacks, esp. since manufactures haven't all invested as much in refining and improving them and though there were a few tvs in the uk and china at some point, they aren't really available in the consumer space like FALD and OLED are).

OLED also has major tradeoffs and manufacturers have to use a bunch of tricks to get the most they can out of the limitations of the tech there though, too. It comes down to tradeoffs and usage scenarios like you said, but FALD can not do OLED black depths + sbs contrast across a whole screen/whole scene. It's like having a watercolor paiting where you add water drops to mixed contrast areas, which waters down the colors and the blacks and outside of the lines/shadow masks of things.

. . .

Greater # of LED FALD zones would enable better lighting resolution potentially, but that isn't always the case in what the manufacturer delivers. For example, the hisense 85ux 85" 4k tv has 5000 zones, but according to RTings review of it:

Overall, the TV's processing keeps up very well with fast-moving objects, and lighting zone transitions aren't very noticeable, with minimal haloing. Still, small bright objects get so dim with rapid movement that they almost disappear, which is disappointing on a TV with this many dimming zones.

. . .

True micro LED is per pixel emissive rather than using a LCD backlit by an array of LED lights, so that's not the same thing as a consumer FALD. Afaik , micro LED are not consumer priced and sized yet really so not a valid comparsion there. If they were, everyone would be buying them and there wouldn't be need for threads like this OLED vs FALD one.


https://www.microled-info.com/introduction

Micro-LED vs LED​

Current so-called LED displays are actually LCD displays that use LED as backlighting units - which are always on with a liquid-crystal layer that is used to create the actual image (i.e. block the light where needed). This complicated LCD structure results in a device with serious image quality drawbacks (mainly a low response time and relatively poor contrast ratio) and also difficulties in achieving flexibility and high-quality transparency.

.

Compared to an LCD display, a micro-LED is much simpler, as the LEDs themselves emit the light and can be individually controlled. This results in displays that offer a much better image quality (contrast, response time) and are highly efficient, too, as there are no filters as in LCDs. As opposed to LCDs, micro-LEDs can be made flexible.

Micro-LED vs OLED​

OLED is the current premium emissive display technology, already adopted in many mobile devices, wearables and even TVs. In 2020 around 500 million OLED displays shipped to companies such as Samsung, Apple, LG, Sony and others. OLEDs can be made flexible, foldable and even rollable and the displays offer the best image quality currently in production.

. . . . .
. . .


https://www.yolegroup.com/strategy-insights/did-apple-just-kill-the-microled-industry/

 

[Waldorf Jr]

Sycraft
except most of the time you arent going to use the full range, just because i can see a picture, doesnt make it good enough for some ppl to enjoy, and with most oleds being <75in, you dont have as much "coverage" (say using horseshoe formed sitting area), vs 75/85in, and higher end usually have an extended range when it comes to viewing angles (vs cheaper sets), at least good enough that most watching sport still prefered using led (outside the movie room), for watching everyday stuff.
one of the reason i always asked for use/location, gaining a single benefit (over other tech) like viewing angle, might not be worth if you trading many other things (brightness, screen reflecting from sun shining into room).
i have seen it too many times, with ppl knowingly trading something good, for what they prefer (eg max HDR brightness), as not everyone weighs the benefits vs trade offs, like most here would do..

elvn
old enough to know that numbers on a piece of paper dont always tell the full story, or always "right".
on paper a 500 hp Ferrari should easily beat a 350 hp Porsche (with lots of weight in the back), but nothing on the road or track confirms it.
and someone buying a +300K 2-door sports car, doesnt buy it because its 3 times faster than a +100K car, they do because they like "that one" (so to speak).

for almost a year i had a 65in Z series mounted next to the 65A9 (oled), showing identical content on both screens, and from some exceptions,many changed their mind from initial interest,
as some realized i can watch the news in a bright room, but still have a decent IQ for a movie every other week, and others planning to purchase an led drive tv, saw the benefit of surface audio (+ ext sub),
as enough of gains to go oled, so they could get rid of some audio equipment, even if it meant trading brightness (use during the day).

and for me:
while my 50in with a few zones is better than any (single) cfl moni/tv i ever had, any min/micro led screen will still be a big improvement regarding light control, at least to the point where i dont see letter sized areas being lit,
just because there is a small bright item on a dark background..

 

[elvn]

Micro LED would be great. Afaik there are still not consumer price range and sized micro LED screens. They are like 100" plus and over $100 thousand usd.

. . .

Considering that I don't think those are a viable alternative overall just yet.

. . . .

FALD is not a microLED. FALD are "mini LED" at best, which means zones somehwhat smaller than most of the gens prior. That's still only a 46x26 grid for a 1200 zone array, or 100-ish x 50 -ish for ~ 2000+ zone arrays.

FALD and OLEDs can look great but both have major tradeoffs. FALD and OLEDs both pull out some very clever tricks to ameliorate and mask their deficiencies as best they can.

However, saying "i can have non-oleds getting identical blacks" is not true in areas of mixed contrast and on perimeters where brights and darks meet. The blacks within and around those zones are lifted (and blended across the surrounding zones so it's not a harsh delineation). Mixed contrast areas and the backlight "gradient" adjacent zones drop the contrast in those areas down to 3000:1 to 5000:1 and the accompanying black levels while more uniform fields of brights, and more uniform fields of darks as separate areas of the scene have drastically better values than that. The firmware/algorithm can also mute the color range in those types of areas depending how the fw addresses it. Instead of being as hot or as cold, you get puddles of areas and around branches that are warm.



The iso setting of the camera + SDR screen in these shots included in the quote below GREATLY exaggerate the effect in these pictures, but it shows where the lifting occurs on the uxc FALD screen, which has great HDR overall. FALD can't be uniform black , it lifts it. FALD will always be a non-uniform patchwork. The only way to get precision values with FALD is to turn it off. That said, OLED also steps down brightness or crashes it with ABL, (plus may have logo dimming on, etc) - so it's not really calibrated to 100% static levels/values either.

It's worth noting that most FALDs have a matte coating which can lift blacks when ambient lighting hits it, and look less wet and saturated than a glossy screen can. Matte is an abraded outer layer, which means it's scratched/pebbled, diffusing light and with the texture being activated by light. When direct lighting hits it, it will pollute the screen with a blob of light rather than a mirrored reflection but it's still polluting the screen and the screen parameters. There are a few falds that are glossy (like samsung's 8k 900D) , though it's rare for them to be.

FALD can still look great though overall, and like you said it can depend what your usage scenario is.

These sdr scene screen captures from a few videos below, including hdtvtest's review of the pro art ucx. The images are in sdr, compressed, and the screen shotting also affected them. The reviewers had to use different iso/camera settings to show the effect in sdr. So the images are greatly exaggerated compared to what you'd see in real life, but it highlights where the FALD is lifting the blacks and dark detail.

While FALD can get very high contrast numbers on larger fields of dark and larger fields of bright/white, in mixed contrast areas it will drop those combined areas back to nearer the native contrast of the screen, 3000:1 to 5000:1 typically. 3,000:1 to 5,000:1 were ok numbers for an edge lit VA screen in previous years, but in viewing dynamic content on a FALD you are dynamically elevating and dropping the zones so the effect on uniformity is bad. The larger fields of brights and darks remain much more solidly at their enormously greater brightness/darkness level values while mixed contrast area puddles all over a scene are lifting and dimming down to near native contrast and with fluctuating elevation. The actual video most of these images are from is linked at the bottom of the quote.

. .

. .

. .


. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .


. .




"elevated blacks and a distracting amount of fluctuating elevation"

. . .

From a different review of the ucx, capturing the lifted area around a cursor or other small detail area:


View: https://imgur.com/21tdf1f


..
From a samsung 90B FALD review (camera iso and sdr capture greatly exaggerating the effect but it shows how larger areas are lifting, (and dynamically across the screen in actual viewing).

. . .

HDTVTEST youtube video


View: https://youtu.be/v26lTJAHaFU?si=JAowkxlvhlLemrvi

Mini LED Tech Helps Asus Cram 1152 Zones into 32" Monitor, But Is It Enough? (PA32UCX Review)​

 

[xDiVolatilX]

View: https://youtu.be/jpUWsOE19Ow?si=zRxj1cBVyhtmZdr9