OLED TVs

Sean_sl said:

Yeah, I have my HDTV connected to my PC via HDMI as a second monitor too. I rarely play PC FPS games (usually just stuff like Halo or Third Person Shooters on consoles, also Far Cry 3 recently), but did play both Borderlands and Borderlands 2 on it on PC and I never noticed any of that either. Input lag is pretty non-existent anymore and I don't notice the Response time black-white-black stuff at all.

I've never used a LED set though.

According to the documentation, the TV has a 5ms Response time and the Monitor a 6ms Response time, for reference.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately those 5/6 ms response times are gray to gray, not black to white, you usually triple those values for black to white. As for input lag, you shouldn't notice it unless you're playing fast fps's like quake or it's something stupid like 30+ms (which is possible if you lookhere).

I agree that there's no reason to go up to 4k on tv's unless they're in the 70-100" range but for computer monitors, I have a 27" 2560x1440 IPS (108 PPI) and I'm already dreaming about a 30" 3840x2160 monitor (146 PPI). For comparison the retina macbook has 15.4" 2880x1440 (220 PPI) and a 70" 3840x2160 TV would have 63 PPI. You can play with different valueshere.

Hate to harp on this, but stop calling them LEDs. They're LCD displays with LED backlight instead of CCFL and there's only minor differences between them (unless you have very high end shit with RGB leds or dynamic local dimming). It's all a marketing ploy to make people think you're buying a new display tech when you're actually just getting another type of backlight. Moar infohere.

gogusrl_sl said:

Unfortunately those 5/6 ms response times are gray to gray, not black to white, you usually triple those values for black to white. As for input lag, you shouldn't notice it unless you're playing fast fps's like quake or it's something stupid like 30+ms (which is possible if you lookhere).

I agree that there's no reason to go up to 4k on tv's unless they're in the 70-100" range but for computer monitors, I have a 27" 2560x1440 IPS (108 PPI) and I'm already dreaming about a 30" 3840x2160 monitor (146 PPI). For comparison the retina macbook has 15.4" 2880x1440 (220 PPI) and a 70" 3840x2160 TV would have 63 PPI. You can play with different valueshere.

Click to expand...

I haven't played something as fast as Quake since well, Rocket Arena. They just don't make them like they used to. I really do not notice the stuff that "Response Time" affects on any of my displays in any game type or video type. There's just not going to be some "omg OLEDs are amazing" sentiment happening and people actually noticing anything because of response times - at least not for typical TV usage. That was my original point. OLEDs will be most noticeable for their Form Factor.

And yeah, I would fucking love a 3840x2160 4kx2k 30 inch monitor. That's where the resolution matters most. 4k, now rebranded to "Ultra HD" or whatever, is snake oil when it comes to TVs. Even 70-100s really for the normal distance that you would watch them that. It's not really until you get to the 110-115+ range where you're sitting at a distance vs size that you can make out the difference. At least, according to the math and normal human vision. Math > Sony.

Seems like laptop screens would also have been a better market, since OLEDs consume less power, in addition to not requiring a backlight, which would also make it consume less power. That is the big advantage on phones, as well. The display eats up nearly all of the battery on a high-end smart phone. Anything that reduces power consumption is as a premium in those markets, no one cares if TVs consume slightly less energy and people are not willing to pay twice as much for a TV.

The Master_sl said:

OLEDs consume less power

Click to expand...

Not sure that's true right now.

Also, if OLEDs are prone to image retention (and I think they are), then they probably won't be great laptop screens.

They consume roughly half the power of normal LEDs. This wasn't true when they were in development, but that was in 2006-2007, they've been a power improvement since 2009. Which is why they are on cameras, smart phones, etc., now. My point was they should go to laptops next, not TVs, where power is again an issue. The new popularity of Ultrabooks for PC laptop users would be the perfect application.

Burn-in is still an issue with OLEDs, though that has been minimized the last generation or so, the larger issue is they eventually have color drift. No solution to that yet, though given how long your average consumer uses a high-end laptop for (and these would be high-end laptops) it also might never become an issue.

The Master_sl said:

They consume roughly half the power of normal LEDs. This wasn't true when they were in development, but that was in 2006-2007, they've been a power improvement since 2009. Which is why they are on cameras, smart phones, etc., now. My point was they should go to laptops next, not TVs, where power is again an issue. The new popularity of Ultrabooks for PC laptop users would be the perfect application.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out that OLED is a completely different technology than what marketing people are calling "LED". The RGB pixels are not made of little LED's, they are LCD's with LED (as opposed to fluorescent) backlighting. Just going out on a limb, but the reason we do not see true LED displays is because there is no way to manufacture large displays made of conventional inorganic LEDs (typically a weird alphabet soup of materials such as InP, GaN, GaAs, etc) economically because they are created on wafers. OLED displays can be printed on any substrate to arbitrary size.

That said, my phone has an OLED display and it's magical how, in a dark room, I cannot tell where the edge of my screen ends and the black frame begins.