Slashdot Mirror
LED-Based LCD Display Tested
vrioux writes "Tom's Hardware reviews a pre-production NEC SpectraView 2180WG-LED, a new type of LCD display using LumiLED technology, which is a mixture of LED arrays and lightguides. The technology provides near-perfect (98% accurate) color reproduction and uniformity with no apparent downside. This new backlight technology seems like a clear winner for future LCD panels." From the article: "The 2180WG-LED's superiority is overwhelming. 98% of the colors were perfect; and all were at least correct. The result you see is for calibration for the sRGB standard. Unfortunately, the on screen display (OSD) on the model we got from NEC wasn't finalized, so we weren't able to test at other color temperatures. We've asked for a production model so that we can get a better idea of how it performs at 9300K and 5000K."
It uses the LEDs as backlighting for the LCD display.
Money for nothing, pix for free
They are in use, but still only for small displays such as phones and mp3 players. Expect to see the same trend for any new display technology, as it is much easier to manufacture small displays than large ones.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I've seen one of these in action before; color reproduction/quality was amazing. It was the first time I'd seen a non CRT display that I'd be willing to use for photo work.
The big thing of the this is not that its as good as CRTs (every manufacturer has high end LCDs with integrated colour correction that are as good, no matter what ignorant ./ groupthink people always claim without anything to back it up).
This particular device blows CRT out of the water. Due to the fact that it uses indepentend sources for reds/blues/green, it can shift the colour temperatur without any need for recalibration the lookup tables.
Because the light source is solid state, it can cover more then the whole adobeNTSC colour space (while CRTs CANT. There is a limit to what you can make phosphor emit by hitting it electrons in terms of spectral cleaness and range)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
...and the 36ms latency. For some applications, that's a downside.
Um... no.
CRTs flicker because they use a single electron source to scan over all of the pixels on the display, it takes a while (1/60 of a second in the case of a 60Hz display) for it to scan over every pixel and start over at the first pixel, and the pixels slowly dim as they wait to be rescanned and get a sudden surge of brightness as they hit their turn in front of the electron beam.
If each pixel had it's own dedicated electron source that could always be on, there would be no reason for a display to flicker.
It's still and LCD because that is the technology that displays the picture. In this case, the LEDs replace the lightbulb that sits behind the display. LCD crystals do not generate light, they need a light generator behind, or in front of them. Using LEDs instead of light bulbs is better for: less heat usage, less power usage, longer lasting, and apparently better colour representation.
It'll be interesting to see where display tech goes in the next 15 years -- maybe some sort of sheet of micro-LEDs that emit light for individual pixels.
You just fairly accurately summarised the way OLED displays work. They've been used in phones and MP3 players for about 2 years now, so real-world use in standalone displays shouldn't be more than 5 years away.
There's also SED, a sort of hybrid of CRT phosphor technology with LCD-style individual pixel control, which was mentioned by another poster. Again it emits light from each pixel rather than shining a backlight, which is, as you said, sub-optimal. Looks like it's a much longer timeline before they hit the market though.
ACtually, you could have a meaningful picture, showing the screen in some sourounding, provided that the photo aren't editet it should show now natural like and bright the picture can get. A setup could be a plant in good lighting with the screen showing the same picture below. If you've ever tried photographing a screen you know that it's a major difference.
You wouldnt be able to produce a display like this in oled-style but with normal leds for 6_0_k$.
The problem is: you cant make one master and put red/green/blue diods on it for normal led processed, because those different colours need different dotations, and base substrates.You cant produce them together. Thus a "LED" display would only work if you would assemble and wire millions of individualy produced diods... And thats not economic in ANY scale.
Thats why oleds are so nice: with organic substrates emitting the light, its a matter of mixing the correct chemicals and then just put the right ones where the pixels should be (simplified). Thus one can produce the displays "per pannel" and not "pixel by pixel".
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I quote: ...By the way, the "WG" in 2180WG-LED stands for Wide Gamut, and now we know why....
Its superiority is overwhelming. The SpectraView 2180WG-LED covers more colors in the reds and greens, and it's just as good for blues. In fact, the SpectraView 2180WG-LED is one of the rare monitors that can claim to fully cover the Adobe RGB color space, which is much more demanding than the traditional sRGB.
End quote.
Most CRTs cannot handle the whole Adobe RGB.... pretty good for a 6,000 lcd! LCDs that could handle that kind of range cost many 10s of thousands of dollars, and are mainly only used in the medical field. I would say this monitor is quite a price breakthrough for this level of quality.
The one major drawback with OLED monitors at the moment is their lifespan. The blue OLEDs have historically had a tendency to die before the others, which isn't a problem for a MP3 player screen but pretty much ends a video display. That said, what's the oldest display you've got?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?