Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Panasonic Announces 1,000,000:1 Contrast Ratio LCD Panel To Rival OLED (androidauthority.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the high-dynamic-range dept.

OLED panels have always been known to have higher contrast ratios than LCD panels, but that may be about to change with Panasonic's recently announced LCD IPS display. The display boasts a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, which is up to 600 times more contrast than some of the company's conventional LCD panels that tend to offer around 1800:1 ratios, and rivals OLED specifications. Android Authority reports: Panasonic has accomplished this through the use of its new light modulating cell technology, which allows the company to switch off individual pixels in the display using a secondary control layer. Typically, LCD backlights mean that either the entire or only large parts of the display can be dimmed at any one time. OLED panels switch off lights entirely for a black pixel to offer very high contrast ratios, and this new LCD technology works on a very similar principle. This is particularly important for reproducing HDR video content, which is becoming increasingly popular. Furthermore, this new light modulating cell technology allows Panasonic to increase the peak brightness and stability of the display, which can reach 1,000 cd/m2 while also providing HDR colors. Many other HDR TV panels top out in the range of 700 to 800 cd/m2, so colors, highlights, and shadows should appear vivid and realistic. Panasonic plans to ship the new display starting in January 2017 with sizes ranging from 55 to 12 inches.

103 comments

  1. Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Manufacturers values for contrast ratio and NITS (luminosity per unit area) are generally regarded as being complete bullshit.

    I'll wait until I've seen some independent tests before I throw out my existing TV

    1. Re: Sack of salt by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mostly because they typically report dynamic contrast ratios, which really are bullshit. In this case, they basically appear to be layering on an additional LCD panel whose sole job is to control the amount of light that gets through to the regular LCD. And sure enough, if you layer two LCD panels which each have a 1000:1 contrast ratio, then you get a 1000000:1 contrast ratio.

      I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be practical apart from the increase in cost and thickness this would involve.

    2. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Videophiles could become a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if in another couple of decades there will be people who swear they need at least a 16K display with a 1000000000:1 contrast ratio, or else they see pixels and banding.

    3. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The local movie theater has digital projectors. Some films still show some grain, others are crystal clear and amazing.

    4. Re: Sack of salt by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've got a 1080p 240hz LCD set which has a beautiful picture. I went recently to look at some new TV's because we have a 47" set and would like a 55-60 inch model now that they're more affordable. I was looking at a 4K picture and it might be better than mine, hell I'm certain it is, but I can't really tell it. Considering the fact that there's very little 4K stuff available anyway I can't see paying extra but really I'm surprised how well my old 2010 set compares to newer stuff.

    5. Re:Sack of salt by Z80a · · Score: 2

      Also you need to check the other specs of the same tv.
      You never know when they make the panel have an horrid 200+ms of input delay to process the backlight switching.

    6. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could produce a lot of heat because you need a stronger light source because of additional losses of passing through an additional panel (100% "bright" doesn't mean 100% of light is transmitted through a pixel).

    7. Re: Sack of salt by sexconker · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah, gonna need a model number on your 2010 "240 Hz" LCD. (Hint: It's actually 120 Hz or possibly even 60 Hz.)

    8. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about amiga3D's, but my 2010 Samsung UN55C7000 55-incher is a 240Hz panel.

    9. Re:Sack of salt by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But this was relative 1800:1 so it seem pretty fair.

      Though isn't most IPS more like 800:1-1000:1 so maybe it's dynamic after all.

      If all it did was shutter off the back-light to create something completely black then I don't care much.

      But since someone else suggested it was like two LCDs on top of each other I assume normal LCDs can actually restrict the light-flow to varying degree considering they can show different brightness after-all and as such I guess it would actually scale the brightness through the whole range and if so it's interesting.

    10. Re: Sack of salt by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...who swear they need at least a 16K display

      And just like today, whether they're worth it or not will simply depend on the content's native rez and the optimal field of view... i.e. there really won't be anything to debate (though try telling the idiots that).

    11. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On 55 60" tv`s people can start to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content from a normal viewing distance. I doubt they would tell the differance between 1080p and 4k on such a small screen. I do have a 4k 40" but i am using it as a computer screen and sit less than 1m from it

    12. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grain mainly comes from the camera used to film, not the projector used to display.

    13. Re: Sack of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize there's no such thing as 240Hz content, right? If, in fact, the panel is really updating at 240Hz (and it's not complete bullshit marketing) then it's going to be tweening frames - and it will be lagging at least one full frame behind the content to be able to do that.

    14. Re: Sack of salt by thsths · · Score: 1

      I have a 4k TV as a PC screen, too, and I can see every single pixel. So clearly for this application, 8k would be a massive benefit, and even higher resolutions may still show a better image.

      Of course the same does not apply to typical TV use, where even 4k is beyond what most people can really appreciate.

    15. Re:Sack of salt by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Why would you throw out a perfectly good TV just because there is something better on the market?

      Oh... looks like the independent lab has shown that the TV is better than mine... time to throw my TV in the garbage...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    16. Re: Sack of salt by Matheus · · Score: 1

      You realize that most of the 240Hz TVs that were sold were designed for 3D capability? 120Hz for a mono image is a nice round number because it can support both primary content frame rates evenly. For a stereo image (how most 3D TVs work) you get half of the available frame rate per eye so to get that optimal 120Hz per eye you need a 240Hz TV.

    17. Re:Sack of salt by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Oh... looks like the independent lab has shown that the TV is better than mine... time to throw my TV in the garbage...

      Don't throw it out - put it on Craigslist so I can buy it, cheap. Got my last 55" 1080p LCD that way for $150. The guy wanted the lower latency of a newer model for gaming. Cool. That works for me. Then holler when the new tube is outdated. I'll be ready for a "new" one by then, too.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    18. Re: Sack of salt by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You don't appear to understand that the 240hz is the scan rate. Higher means less motion blur. It doesn't really affect the picture otherwise. I got it because I like to watch sports. Truly it's not significantly better than 120hz but is quite noticeable compared to 60hz. I did the research before I purchased it. I considered a Plasma display at the time because they are even better, 600hz if I recall.

    19. Re: Sack of salt by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What does it matter though if the content to the TV is in 60 Hz, or in some cases even 30 Hz? Sure, the panel might be able to refresh that fast, but either the panel is refreshing the same image 3 times for every time the image actually changes, or the TV is playing some processing games with the incoming signal to interpolate frames that don't actually exist. I'd prefer my display to just be a display myself.

    20. Re: Sack of salt by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It refreshes the screen more often making motion smoother. That's really the only benefit to it. Pictures that are in motion getting updated at a faster rate simply appear smoother loosing the blur that you often get at slower rates. The difference between 60hz and 240hz is obvious to the naked eye. 120hz vs 240hz is less so although on sports events I can tell it pretty easily.

  2. Wow! Can't wait!! by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    Panasonic plans to ship the new display starting in January 2017 with sizes ranging from 55 to 12 inches.

    Wow! Can't wait for my new 4K Ultra-high definition HDR.... er 12" TV...?

    1. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by ThePangolino · · Score: 1

      12" is way too big for a smartphone though. :(

      --
      My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
    2. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by epiphani · · Score: 1

      This isn't a bad thing. One of the more annoying things with oled at the moment is that while I have a gorgeous, 55" oled panel mounted on my wall, I can't get anywhere near the color and black levels on a desktop monitor without paying more than I paid for my TV.

      --
      .
    3. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'd like a 12" smart phone. Just slap a handle or strap or some shit on the back.

      It would still fit in the pockets on my slacks, too.
      Not these pants, and not on my jeans, but my beige pair and my brown pair of slacks with full size pockets. I can hide a Christmas ham in there if I need to.

    4. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      But that's an appropriate size for a laptop computer... oh! nevermind, nobody cares about laptops these days.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    5. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Large tablet then. Some people still care about those. It would make a nice display for the Surface Pro 5, which is expected to be released next spring.

    6. Re:Wow! Can't wait!! by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

      Based on the article it looks like the smaller sizes are targeting industrial applications, like car displays - that's where a good contrast ratio is very needed so you can see the displayed info even if it gets direct sunshine.

  3. Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew that turning off the light to create darkness was the best way to make a pixel Black? Genius!

    This should lead to another TV-replacement cycle, as we all throw out our old OLED TVs from Black Friday and buy buy buy!

    1. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You almost certainly didn't buy an OLED TV on Black Friday. You bought a back lit LED TV. The OLED's are too expensive.

    2. Re:Black is the new Black by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plenty of OLED models were deeply discounted (in the sense that there are plenty of OLED models at all, which there aren't). They weren't $300-$600 like a lot of the deals on crap people got excited for, but still, many were marked down 50% or more.

      Of course, a Black Friday or Cyber Monday price isn't really that good anymore. You can find deals as good as or better than those days throughout the year if you just wait and watch.

      OLED doesn't sell because it's expensive and LCD TVs are marketed deceptively. "LED" on a TV means "LCD with X zones of LED back lighting" and "Full LED" or "Full Array LED" means "LCD with full array local dimming", which really means "LCD with many zones of LED back lighting".

      Throughout all of 2016 we've seen a huge fire sale on 4K TVs for 3 reasons:

      1 - Sales needed a boost. 4K wasn't as enticing as HD was, just like BluRay wasn't as enticing as DVD.
      2 - The 4K sets out in 2016 don't fully support the new UHD spec with HDR profiles and Rec 2020.
      3 - The Vizio P series shat on Samsung, Sony, etc. The budget shit brand Vizio put out better 4K TVs than the big boys at less than half the price.

      I don't know what Samsung is going to do for 2017 when they truly support the new shit. They've already jumped the hark by calling their shit Super Ultra High Definition (SUHD). Maybe VSUHD or SUHD+ or XSUHD+ v2.0 PRO GOLD?

    3. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 - The Vizio P series shat on Samsung, Sony, etc. The budget shit brand Vizio put out better 4K TVs than the big boys at less than half the price.

      I had never heard of Vizio, but this made me interested. None of the price comparison sites I tried listed any products from this company, so I doubt it had any significant influence on the market.

    4. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's...odd. Are you outside of the US? Here, I can walk into any store that carries televisions (Sears, Walmart/Target/Kmart, CostCo, Cam's Club, Best Buy, etc) and have multiple Vizio models to purchase. They started out making cheap, bare-bones TVs, but they actually make some quite nice stuff now.

    5. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm in The Netherlands, but I also checked a few German websites, since I frequently order things in Germany because of lower prices or better availability. It seems that no shop over here carries any Vizio products, which explains why I hadn't heard of them before. I am somewhat surprised there are apparently still regional brands in consumer electronics. I take it in the US they are as common as Sony, Samsung, LG, Philips, etc.?

    6. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already jumped the hark by calling their shit Super Ultra High Definition

      This is starting to sound like an English translation of a Japanese kids show isn't it.

    7. Re:Black is the new Black by Hodr · · Score: 1

      I would like to subscribe to your angry tv tech newsletter.

    8. Re:Black is the new Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 - The 4K sets out in 2016 don't fully support the new UHD spec with HDR profiles and Rec 2020.

      You need to go read ITU Rec. 2020.

      No TV set will EVER support Rec.2020. Notice how the color primaries are all on the pure color (zero linewidth) curve? That means those colors can only be produced by a theoretically perfect single-mode laser, in pitch darkness, directly into your eye. It is standardised precisely as a transport format because it exceeds what will ever be possible.

      I'm not saying TVs will not get better, that's the whole point of Rec.2020, it allows a future proof format that allows TVs to display better color without new source material.

      The relevant state-of-the-art color standard right now for displays is SMPTE DCI P3. There are several monitors, televisions and DLP projectors that exceed 100% of P3.

    9. Re:Black is the new Black by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Vizio is a US-based company; they design the products here though a lot of the manufacturing is done in China. They are well known in the US (though not as well known as Sony and the like) and have a strong reputation for high performance at a less-high price. TVs are their main product, but they have also made some tablets and laptops. Vizio also sell products in China and other Asian markets, including a line of mobile phones that they don't sell in the US. So far as I know they have no presence in Europe.

      Vizio was bought this year by a Chinese company, LeEco, which has its own brand of TVs that are also known for value. They plan to continue to run Vizio as a separate subsidiary, but I wouldn't be surprised if some common design shows up in the two lines of TVs.

    10. Re:Black is the new Black by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      QLED. Samsung stopped making OLED and is focusing on their new QLED (which should be out late 2017 or 2018), as they seem to think it can be cheaper and easier to produce than OLED and get a picture that rivals it too.

      --
      -
    11. Re:Black is the new Black by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You need to go look at actual sets and reviews.

      Rec 2020 coverage of high end sets right now is only around 60-65%. It can and will be much higher over the next few years. Most people expect the 2017 models to provide a significant jump in coverage.

      Further, Rec 2020 is only half the story - most of the sets out now don't support the HDR profiles properly (either Dolby Vision or whatever the other shit is, as far as I know there are only two relevant ones). Usually they'll see it and read the signal but not truly display it. Anytime a 4K set goes on sale people spaz out about whether or not the Xbox One S will show "all green checkmarks" in its 4K display test, and then you'll get more people yelling at them about how that doesn't mean anything with regards to what they're actually seeing. You need to dig into some deep reviews to find out how "HDR" content is actually displayed and what the panel and display controller is actually doing.

      Going to rtings.com is a good start because they have consistent tests for many of the latest models, with metrics for both Rec 2020 and UHD (really 10-bit gradient) support, but even then you'll likely need to hope someone at avsforum has probed the shit out of one if you want the hard truth on the finer details.

  4. Don't LCDs already come with 1M:1 contrast ratios? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get the feeling the summary is missing something.

  5. two stacked LCDs? by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading between the lines, it sure sounds like they just stacked two LCDs and bumped the brightness of the light source. Mind you, that's a very good idea. The new underneath layer probably only needs single R/G/B group resolution in order to achieve the claimed specs, making it somewhat easier to manufacture, although alignment is still going to be important to get right, as will appropriately close bonding of the two planes to control leakage from one luminance cell (for want of a better word) to the neighboring RGB cells in the color layer.

    A highly-motivated enthusiast might be able to get close to the same results by merging two existing IPS monitors and bumping the light source brightness.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:two stacked LCDs? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. Super bright light source with a color-neutral LCD on top of it, and color LCD on top of that. Simple idea but can't imagine it was too easy to do.

    2. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Super bright light source with a color-neutral LCD on top of it, and color LCD on top of that. Simple idea but can't imagine it was too easy to do.

      On the downside, this will also double the rate of LCD failure/defects. i.e. you've got a line down panel one, and a dark spot on panel two, and that gives you both the line AND the dark spot on your screen. I'm also wondering what this does to viewing angle, since the two LCDs would presumably only be in perfect alignment for direct viewing, and the more off to the side you get, the more out of alignment they are. Will this cause halo artifacts?

      As always, I guess I'll just wait for the reviews to roll in.

    3. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's somewhat trickier. You also need an extra polarizer between the LCDs.

    4. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      LCDs don't work like that. They work by orienting two polarizers. The first is a fixed polarizer, which cuts the backlight's brightness to 50% and polarizes the light. The second is a polarizing liquid crystal layer whose orientation can be controlled electronically. Orient it parallel to the fixed polarizer and all the light going through the fixed polarizer is let through. Orient it perpendicular and it blocks (in theory) all the light going through. (In practice the polarizing is not perfect, so there's a little leakage. Which is why black pixels are not entirely black on an LCD.

      However, adding a third polarizer does not help. At best, the same amount of light is blocked as with two polarizers perpendicular to each other. At worst, it allows more light to go through than two polarizers.

      Whatever extra layer they're using, it's not a polarizer, so it can't be an LCD. It's probably some sort of electrochromic glass whose reflectivity (and thus opacity) can be controlled electrically. And they've figured out a way to divide the effect into zones which coincide with the pixels or groupings of pixels on the LCD. It probably doesn't have as much fine granularity of partial opacity as an LCD does (else they could just use it instead of LCDs since LCDs always block at least 50% of the backlight), LCDs have gotten good enough to where we can use them to generate 1024 shades (10-bit, though most panels are still 8-bit or 6-bit), while last I heard electrochromic glass was binary.

    5. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That video is useless, he has the two polarizers at 90 degrees, then inserts a third one between them. By putting it between them, he can only have the third one 90 degrees to at most one of the other two.

      To see what happens with three polarizers, you need to have the two outer layers at zero degrees, so that the middle layer will be 90 degrees to BOTH of them.

    6. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LCDs don't work like that.

      Yes, they do.

      They work by orienting two polarizers.

      Yes.

      The first is a fixed polarizer, which cuts the backlight's brightness to 50% and polarizes the light. The second is a polarizing liquid crystal layer whose orientation can be controlled electronically.

      Which LCD design would that be?
      TN, IPS and MVA all use fixed polarizers either side of the LC cells. The LC layer *changes* the polarization of light passing through.

      However, adding a third polarizer does not help [youtube.com]. At best, the same amount of light is blocked as with two polarizers perpendicular to each other. At worst, it allows more light to go through than two polarizers.

      That video is so misleading, it has to be intentional.
      Of course if you have the outer polarizers at 90 deg, inserting another between won't do much of anything.
      Now compare |- to |-| to |-|- to ...

      Whatever extra layer they're using, it's not a polarizer, so it can't be an LCD.

      Yes, based on your detailed knowledge on the physical construction and operation of LCDs and use of YT videos as authoritative sources, you're clearly qualified to make absolute statements like that.

      *facepalm*

    7. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh... so they're adding another layer of two polarizers, then? Seems pretty straightforward, why did you assume another layer meant something that obviously wouldn't work?

    8. Re:two stacked LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two IPS panels stacked won't work, at least not without some serious mods first.

      First - you need to reverse the polarization of one of the panels.
      Second - you need to remove the color filters from one of the panels.
      Third - you need to defuse the light going between the panels to get rid of the dual screen door effect, without screwing up the polarization.

      See this for details...
      https://www.google.com/patents/US20120224121

      JG

  6. How many bits? by petes_PoV · · Score: -1
    To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

    Now, I'm not conversant with the niceties of contrast ratio marketing (though I don't doubt it IS just marketing). But could this actually be usable, given the bit-depth of TV electronics and the dynamic range of digital video content?

    It would also require a viewing room where the ambient light level was below the darkest "dark" from the screen, or the contrast ratio becomes (even more?) meaningless. I do hope this TV doesn't come with an illuminated on/off indicator, as that would surely make a mockery of any real-world experience.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:How many bits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

      Shave and a haircut, 2 bits

    2. Re:How many bits? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

      20 bits would be required for a gradient, but you could still accomplish a 1,000,000:1 ratio with a 1-bit monochrome image.

    3. Re:How many bits? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If it was a 12" 4k display 1,000,000:1 at 1-bit would still be pretty interesting. Everything could be half-toned pretty well.

      I was the last nerd to upgrade from a paperwhite grayscale VGA monitor ("256 shades of gray") to color. Also probably the only person to run Windows 3 on an IBM EGA graphics card in 'Monohcrome Graphics' mode on an MDA monitor. (better aspect ratio than Hercules Graphics)

    4. Re:How many bits? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You're one of the 10,000 people today discovering floating point numbers!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:How many bits? by swillden · · Score: 2

      To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

      4K video uses 36 bits per pixel, 12 bits per color. So you couldn't get a million intensities of one color, but it seems likely that the color gamut easily includes a million intensity levels.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:How many bits? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Would terms like Dolby Vision or HDR-10 support allow readers to understand the results?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:How many bits? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

      Wrong in 2 ways. First, learn about gamma. Second, the lowest brightness level can be defined to be zero, not one.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:How many bits? by Thagg · · Score: 2

      I work for Dolby Laboratories, and am deeply involved with high-dynamic-range content creation and hardware.

      We created the SMPTE 2084 standard HDR EOTF (electro-optical transfer function.) It turns out that human perception is such that by choosing the luminance for code values to be just barely indistinguishable from the adjacent ones, you can get 0 to 10,000 nits (10x as bright as this Panasonic display) with only 12 bits. SMPTE 2084 is what all HDR TVs are using today.

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    9. Re:How many bits? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      To achieve a one million - to - one ratio, requires 20 bits.

      No. Imagine you have a candle and an airplane's landing lights. You only need 1 bit.

      0 == 1 lumen
      1 == 1,000,000,000,000 lumens.

      That's a trillion to one contrast ratio with one bit. If you want to be really pedantic contrast ratio isn't actually interesting because while 1:1,000,000,000,000 is a high contrast ratio, it's actually impressive because of the dynamic range not the ratio.

      0 = 0 lumens
      1 = 1 photon

      That would be an infinite contrast ratio. And also expressed by one bit but not what most people think of when they think of high contrast ratios.

  7. Goodbye battery life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    1. Re:Goodbye battery life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you running your 55-inch panel on batteries? Maybe as an advertising or art installation with solar panels.

      You can improve power by turning the backlight way down, this of course gives up contrast ratio. The 12-inch version of the screen probably is competitive with most other LCDs on the low end of user cases as the backlight energy is the dominate power user for a color LCD.

      What's more difficult than large contrast ratios is to have a panel that can operate both with and without a backlight and have good color accurate when operated with a backlight.

  8. Plasma by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Is this another Panasonic thing where they try to compete with an old technology (e.g. Plasma) while everyone else is switching to the new type?

    1. Re:Plasma by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. But LCD is still better at some things than OLED.

    2. Re:Plasma by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Next year Apple will finally come out with their OLED gadget, and Samsung and the others will be developing gadgets with these high contrast LCD displays.

    3. Re:Plasma by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      What things are those? The only ones I know of (that prevented me from buying an OLED black Friday) were:

      1. Cost. Thousands of dollars, LCD equivalents are now $600 for 55-65" 4k set
      2. Input lag. While the physical panel is near instant, for whatever reason, the chipsets the current OLED manufacturers are using have more input lag than low input lag LCDs. Unacceptable.
      3. Longevity. The LCD backlights are down to 80% brightness at 25,000 hours and will probably remain usable displays for perhaps 100k hours, give or take. (most like a capacitor will fail before the backlight does). At 25k hours the oled dyes age at different rates and the blue will be shot at that point.
      4. Maximum brightness - harder to make the thin layer glow as hard than it is to throw in bigger backlights behind an LCD.

    4. Re:Plasma by kimvette · · Score: 1

      And people will go up to the ATM machine and punch in their PIN numbers to withdraw the cash to pay for these LCD displays!

      Sorry you made it too easy! ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What things are LCDs better at than OLEDs?
      I would think the only possible thing is lifespan with a LED backilt LCD but even LCD panels lose their gamut as the color dyes bleach out over time.

    6. Re: Plasma by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You may have been thinking of buying an LED TV. But and LED TV is not in any way the same thing as an OLED TV.

    7. Re:Plasma by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Also, I would agree with most of the things you list. Particularly, the color aging on an OLED.

    8. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The later plasmas were quiet good but LCD ultimately won because it was much cheaper. They still have contrast ratios and motion characterisics that only high-end LCDs touch.

      Plasmas are heavier, require more sturdy chassis (Big delicate glass vaccume cavity), high voltage electronics, more expensive raw materials. Modern LCDs are mostly made of layered plastic.

      LCD development, though, has improved greatly. Even cheap panels are pretty damn good.

      OLED, though, will win in the end because it will be cheaper. Despite being cheap, LCD requires many layers of specially prepared plastic. Light diffuses, polarizers, etc. Not to mention a backlight. OLED is a single layer. Fewer parts, easier assembly, simplified electronics. Once the cost of making the OLED array itself comes down it will be over for LCD. Just plastic back board and electronics (Single SoC and a power supply) in a little pocket. Thats it.

    9. Re:Plasma by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Is this another Panasonic thing where they try to compete with an old technology (e.g. Plasma) while everyone else is switching to the new type?

      OLED is still too expensive for the majority of people, creating better LCD is definitely a positive. Just like some of the best displays for years after LCD came to dominate were still plasma's I expect we will see some excellent LCD screens for a long time to come.

    10. Re:Plasma by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      Burn-in is the issue for OLED displays. It's not a problem for watching movies but I wouldn't buy a current-gen OLED for a computer monitor or for video games.

      Another OLED issue is that the blue pixels wear out faster than the red and green, leading to a colour shift over time.

      I give very little weight to anecdotal evidence on these issues, and there's plenty around. I want to see specs from the manufacturers or, even better, from independent testers, that give brightness reduction numbers for each of red, green and blue.

    11. Re: Plasma by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      LED TVs are LCDs.

    12. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longevity.

    13. Re:Plasma by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Yep, I got a plasma in 2009, a bit late for the technology, but it was still superior in a lot of ways to the next best LCD at that point. I just replaced it with a 4k LED LCD.

    14. Re:Plasma by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah.

      Samsung will so totally copy-cat Apple and use OLED displays once Apple have started using them! ...

    15. Re:Plasma by swb · · Score: 1

      25k hours after manufacture or 25k hours of use?

      After manufacture would be something of a problem, that's just under 3 years.

      Of use would seem to be something less of a problem, that's 8 hours a day, every day for 8.5 years. Telly turned on at 4 pm every day and left on until midnight.

      There's some segment of home users that might be affected and some institutional use cases, but that's a lot of on time and frankly in most settings where I see a TV that's been on that long it looks like shit anyway and that's non-OLEDs.

      For most people it would seem like the technology would age out well before the set did.

    16. Re:Plasma by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Its hours of use. For use as a computer monitor, that's 14 hours a day for 4.9 years. I would rather the equipment either lasted longer than that or were inexpensive enough that I can easily swap it. At $1500-3k for a 4k OLED TV, that's a bit too expensive to throw it away that often.

    17. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same, I have some friends who actually bought spare plasma's for some of the final gen Samsung or Panasonic plasma's as it was obvious they were going to be superior to anything an LCD could offer for many years to come. Quality of picture was definitely not one of the positives for LCD at the time, even now they are only just getting the same quality as some of the best plasma's.

    18. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The switch to OLED has barely started and LCDs still offer better quality and likely longer liffespans at the moment, so it likely makes sense to do a small investment in the existing technology if that makes it better than (almost) anything else on the market.

    19. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be that certain about longevity being an issue any more, especially blue going out fastest. There are no classical RGB OLED panels on the (mainstream) market today. LG is using white OLED tech they bought from Kodak and color filters similar to how LCD panels do.

    20. Re:Plasma by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Your assuming the replacement cost is the same as the purchase cost. For almost any IT thing I have ever seen in the last three decades the replacement cost is *ALWAYS* lower than the purchase cost. The idea that a 4k OLED TV will cost the same in 8 years time as it does today is a frankly ludicrous suggestion.

      I would love to buy and OLED TV, problem for me is the smallest sized ones are still way to big for my lounge.

    21. Re:Plasma by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Ok, sure, but it's still $1500 for something that I won't be able to use in a few years because of bad color balance.

      When LED backlit computer monitors get dimmer, you can just turn up the brightness to compensate (since you run them at about 50% of their maximum potential brightness generally at the beginning). You can't do this forever - but the lifespan is probably 100k total hours which is 20 years if nothing else fails.

    22. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LCD TVs have shitty response times too. Which is why my next TV will be a large computer monitor plus an HDMI switch.

      It's pretty annoying to be trying to get lap times below four minutes in Gran Turismo (Circuit de la Sarthe), then switching to a CRT and doing a nice 3:20.

    23. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burn-in is the issue for OLED displays

      Burn-in is an issue on every display.

      I've personally seen burn-in on CRT and LCD monitors. Plasma was known to be notorious for burn-in (though some say it was an exaggeration). Heck, even CFL "low energy light bulbs" lose brightness over time.

    24. Re:Plasma by Chelmet · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the blue pixels fade faster only in RGB-OLED displays. The current generation of LG OLEDs don't use RGB-OLED, they use W-OLED (which they've got patented so only LG have them), which suffer from none of the fading or burn-in that older sets did.

      Still, they're expensive, but the downsides of the early models are affecting perception of the current models, despite the current models exhibiting none of the earlier issues.

    25. Re:Plasma by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Another OLED issue is that the blue pixels wear out faster than the red and green, leading to a colour shift over time.

      The colour shift is a solved issue based on panel design, and controllers that compensate for the shift.

      Burn-in is the real issue, as is dimming over a long period.

      Colour shift / colour reproduction is not, and given the choice I'd prefer an OLED panel for colour critical work.

    26. Re:Plasma by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Colour aging isn't an issue. That can be compensated for much the same as high quality panels compensate for backlight fade or backlight differences.

      Burn-in is an issue. I wouldn't buy an OLED for a computer monitor. I would for a TV. I'm on the fence about a TV with a Playstation or Xbox, but I don't need to be on the fence because the cost makes it prohibitively expensive in its current form.

    27. Re:Plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a sore spot for me.

      id buy a modern 4k panasonic/pioneer plasma in a heartbeat.

      generally, plasmas handled motion better, were fine with non-native resolutions, had better black levels, better response times, etc etc blah blah blah

      but they ran hot, used a lot of power, werent super thin, could have visible "noise", and burn-in/image retention could be an issue on some sets.

      i miss em.

  9. I want Plasma back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad I got my plasma when I did in 2014 - excellent picture for the price. I just wish others appreciated picture quality over a race to the bottom so that there would be enough demand to sustain a production line....

  10. I'll take this over OLED by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    OLED looks great the first year, then starts yellowing. I'd rather have a panel that looks good for the 7-10 years I'll probably use it. This sounds good to me.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:I'll take this over OLED by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      OLED looks great the first year, then starts yellowing.

      Yeah I agreed with you. Past tense. It's not 2008 anymore, and OLEDs last significantly longer now.

      Is it good enough for a TV? Time will tell. But the "dies after a year" meme should go the way of the George W Bush memes.

    2. Re:I'll take this over OLED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Samsung tablet disagrees with you. Does not die in a year, I never said that, but the colors change

    3. Re:I'll take this over OLED by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Get a current one, and maybe get a clue that a lowest cost panel in a device designed as a computer is not the same thing as a large quality panel designed specifically as a panel.

      I mean shit based on my experience with LCD based phones, that technology is just not ready for the prime time on big displays.

    4. Re:I'll take this over OLED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 5 year old Samsung S3 Galaxy shows no signs of yellowing.

      Of course I don't urinate on my screen every day like you do, so ymmv.

  11. Fuck TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go outside. Live.

    1. Re:Fuck TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need a feature that displays a running total of your time watching: "20y4m3d5h - Congratulations. Life well spent!"

  12. Contrast test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LCD display manufacturers keep showing all kind of contrast ratio numbers, and no matter how many zeroes, they fail this simple test:

    When gaming in the middle of the night, I switch on the screensaver set to "blank" (e.g. xlock -mode blank), but NOT powersave. If the display gives off enough light to allow me to go to the bathroom without tripping over things, it has a terrible contrast ratio[1].

    [1] Technically, black level. Enough light to go to the bathroom vs runway lights is still a huge contrast ratio, but a home display with that kind of contrast ratio is rather useless.

  13. Not new, HDR LCD has been around for a while by gatzke · · Score: 1

    This has been out for a while. Dolby bought BrightSide which first pushed individual LED backlighting for HDR LCDs AFAIK.

    Maybe they have now gone to individual pixels instead of white LED? Same idea, just higher res and probably lower cost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrightSide_Technologies

    2005 BrightSide Demos
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/8

  14. So... by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    basically we are finally getting close to previous CRT contrast levels?

  15. Sorry, I just had to respond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429

    Classic troll, classic comeback

  16. Contrast Ratio is a meaningless measurement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is no official, standardized way to measure contrast ratio for a system or its parts, nor is there a standard for defining "Contrast Ratio" that is accepted by any standards organization so ratings provided by different manufacturers of display devices are not necessarily comparable to each other due to differences in method of measurement, operation, and unstated variables." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio

    Which makes their claims all hype. Bigger numbers look better, woohoo! They figured out how to use an lcd panel as a backlight filter under the IPS panel. Maybe we'll get to see in a consumer model before OLED prices come down.