Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Claims Its New QLED TVs Are Better Than OLED TVs (theverge.com)
Samsung recently unveiled its latest flagship televisions at CES 2017, the QLED series. The company is challenging the notion that OLED TVs represent the pinnacle of picture quality in the living room. According to Samsung, the QLED TV represents its best achievement in image quality and viewing experience yet. The Verge reports: Of course Samsung would say that at an event meant to showcase said product. But the company insists it's made very real improvements compared to the flagship TVs it unveiled only a year ago. One of those upgrades pertains to brightness. The QLED TVs reach a peak brightness between 1,500 and 2,000 nits -- up from the 1,000 peak from 2016's lineup. Color reproduction has also been improved. The QLED sets handle DCI-P3 "accurately" and are capable of reproducing "100 percent color volume" -- something Samsung claims to be a world first. "This means they can express all colors at any level of brightness -- with even the subtlest differences visible at the QLED's peak luminance -- between 1,500 and 2,000 nits." Samsung says all of this is possible because it's using a new metal material along with the quantum dot nanocrystals. On the software end, Samsung's 2017 TVs are still powered by Tizen and feature basically the same user interface as last year. But there are some new additions like a sports mode that aggregates scores and other content from your favorite teams and an expanded Music section that lets you Shazam music as it's playing in a TV show and immediately launch that track in Spotify another streaming services. Samsung is also looking to clean up how its TVs look in your living room. New this year is a clear-colored "Invisible Connection cable" that runs from the TV to an external breakout box where you'll find all the HDMI ports and other critical connections (besides power, which is a separate input).
...it's both overscanning and underscanning at the same time.
What's so hard about showing the picture as it was originally intended?
even if they can reproduce a larger subset of the color gamut than other TV they can't make all possible colors, using only a select green, blue and red prevents that.
Shock waves reverberate around the planet as Samsung claims it has better products than its competitors. This revolutionary marketing technique is sure to catch on with other companies and before long no one will admit they make second rate products publicly.
QLED = LCD screen using an LED backlight and quantum dot phosphors
Just a week ago I visited the closest to my apartment mall and compared 2016 SUHD Quantum Dot Samsung TVs and LG's OLED TVs.
And you know what? LG's blacks are just mind boggling, I mean the contrast ratio of LG's display was head and shoulders above what Samsung can manage.
Maybe Samsung can claim and does have higher brightness (not sure if it's relevant since most people have their TVs at apartments/houses and usually watch them in the evening/at night) and a wider gamut, but when it comes to darkness/dim lights, OLEDs are miles better. I'd have deeper blacks over higher brightness/wider gamut any time, please.
I'm finding it difficult to find meaningful information on this, but it seems the quantum dots are electroluminescent, being lit up directly by the driving circuitry, rather than being excited by an LCD-filtered backlight.
Then they'll delay any fixes 'til forever, cancel and discontinue apps that were key features of the TV, etc, etc.
I've got a JS9000 (2015), and I'm still waiting for them to update their HDR code - they've been promising the updated firmware since before the 2016 series came out. The latest promise was that the update would roll out in December - now we're in January and still nothing.
Samsung was great 8 years ago, now they're just pumping out shiny new equipment with features that only partially work. They're the Korean Apple.
If it doesn't have 0 latency on displaying the image I can't really use it the way I want... Game Mode on my Samsung TV still has around 24ms latency
Twinstiq, game news
Seriously, TV display acronyms are getting out of hand.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Not long:
http://4k.com/news/samsung-unv...
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Organic LEDs (OLEDs) are electroluminescent. Quantum dots are fluorescencent. They require a backlight of some sort to produce light.
In fact, SCO's claims of copyright infringement are generally accepted as mostly correct.
Not by anyone other than SCO's former management and their lawyers, they're not.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Nope don't believe it.
Its fundamental that a properly controlled light source (OLED) will necessarily give better results (especially contrast) than any kind of full-spectrum light source behind a controlled filter (LCD) ever could.
Ordinary quantum dots, as used by Samsung in their previous TVs, are indeed photo-luminescent, requiring a backlight and an LCD filter.
However, these new displays use QLEDs (aka QD-LEDs), which are actually electro-luminescent very much like OLEDs - they're stimulated by electrons instead of photons, so they don't need a backlight. It also means they can be directly turned on and off like OLEDs, so they don't need an LCD filter and you also get those wonderful perfect blacks. QLED TVs are a lot like OLEDs, only brighter.
Unsurprisingly there's some confusion about the terminology, even among reporters, and Samsung isn't helping much. But if you look up earlier articles on QLEDs, and look at the comparisons vs OLED that Samsung has been doing, you'll see how much of a jump QLEDs are.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The world isn't digital limited to 8, 16, 24, 32, or even 64 bits. Good luck trying to express all possible colors using a limited amount of pixels with a limited subset of colors. Squids have 16 different color receptors, not just red-green-blue for most humans, and 4 base colors for quadrachromic-sighted humans.
Well one day maybe we can build TVs for squids. Right now TVs are a long shot away from being able to display all the colours HUMANS can see, and this is well and truly a step in the right direction.
Looks like those are ordinary quantum-dot LCD panels like Samsung's TVs from the last two years. That's a different technology to these new QLED panels, which are emissive like OLEDs and don't use LCDs at all.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'm going to nitpick here. While OLED screens look great there are a huge number of used phones out there with screen burn-in issues this is a problem LCD displays don't have nearly as good contrast ratios and black isn't really black.
Not everyone can afford to buy the newest phone. So making sure that when the used price drops in a couple years 90% of what's available has angrybirds burned in to the screen does not help matters.
This is great for people that can afford to buy new devices every two years but it really hurts the resale value.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Is there a colorimeter-based solution that one can actually put on the screen to measure a TV's output and verify any of these claims? E.g., with a "pro" color accurate monitor, you can calibrate it and the software measures and then confirms that the display is operating within the requested parameters. It sure seems that we are counting an awful lot on buzzwords from the marketing shills that these expensive TVs really are "better," but there's no way for the public to measure their performance to be sure.
I can't wait to watch "The Housewives of Atlanta take on the Kardashians" in 100 percent color volume!
QLED = LCD screen using an LED backlight and quantum dot phosphors
Q.E.D.
RTFM:
> Samsung’s QLED TVs still require backlighting and those crystals don’t self-emit light in the same way that OLEDs do. This isn’t some reinvention of display technology.
These aren't actually QLED displays (QLED would be self-emissive), so they're just using QLED as a fancy marketing name for quantum dot LCDs designed to trick the consumer into thinking they're like OLED via the similar name. It's like how DSL and cable companies try to pretend their copper is fibre, with Bell Canada going so far as to call their DSL service "Fibe".
Basically they have a regular backlight and a regular LCD panel, but instead of using a colour filter layer, they use the light from the backlight to excite the quantum dots, and modulate it with the LCD panel.
As long as they're still relying on an LCD, at the very least they will still suffer from the comparatively slow response time of an LCD panel.
It's true that real QLED displays could compete with OLED in many regards, but these aren't QLED displays.
What, then, of the LGBTQ-LED?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
It's just more marketing hype. It's like trying to claim that the latest LED TVs are better than the top-end plasma TVs from a few years ago. Just BS to sell a product that is cheaper to make.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yeah that may indeed be the case - a lot of articles are contradictory, but the more I read the less these TVs look like real QLEDs. But if so, why they would label these TVs as "QLEDs" when they're apparently working on genuine QLED TVs is beyond me.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Because real QLEDs are likely some way away, and they'll sell more of them if they can convince consumers that somehow their displays are better than OLEDs.
If I were a display manufacturer I would secretly have my panels display colors that attract bees but that humans can't see.
Everyone will wonder what the buzz is all about.
It's like, "How much more black could this be?" and the answer is, "None. None more black."
Trying the old "repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed" bullshit?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You will see the compression artifacts, flickering and pixelation with more colors now. Awesome.
Face it, no matter how great the TV, as long as networks compress the signals badly enough to make YouTube look like HD in comparison, it will still suck.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nah. On a scale of white to black, this is at best Mexican.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The claim is "they can express all colors at any level of brightness".
Currently every shipping consumer television (inorganic LED or OLED) can only display the DCI-P3 color primaries, making the entire color gamut a triangle substantially smaller than "all colors".
Newer sets are able to receive color information in a container based on ITU-R Rec. 2020 color primaries, however no sets can actually display the colors outside of DCI-P3 but inside ITU-R Rec. 2020. Moreover, even the gamut of Rec. 2020 is not "all colors."
To have a container for all colors with three primaries, you have to have color primaries that are not realizable, such as the CIE 1931 XYZ space or the ACES color space.
However no one has yet invented a display system that can display colors that are not realizable, because they are not realizable.
No system can display "all colors" additively, unless you use a system with color primaries based on all of the monochromatic colors (i.e. much more than three primaries - thousands). Four or five color primaries added together can get close. Allowing subtraction as well as addition of color primaries can help, but that is difficult to realize.
I'm a CRT and Plasma man.
I will not be upgrading my plasma until there's a superior option, it's as simple as that.
OLED does sound good but burn in (like plasma, and yes, plasma does burn in, even the final models)
I'm patient, she's still humming along ok, I think I'll get another 3 years out of my Panasonic 65".
I want exceptional blacks, fantastic colour range, a non flickery display, movement that doesn't look weird. I want interpolation which can be disabled.
Considering where the TV market has gone the past 12 months and game consoles, I pretty much 'demand' HDR as well as 4k.
So, I'll wait, I'll wait a long time until they sort it all out.
P.S all this "but this new LCD / LED trick makes them amazing!" yeah no. Just no. The blacks don't cut it in a dark room, not even close.
Let's be honest, it's an open secret that the Linux kernel contains large sections of copyrighted code from SCO UNIX.
Let's be honest: that is a lie. When given the chance to present any evidence, SCO has refused. What was uncovered by the open source was revealed to be 1) not from SCO or 2) not in Linux.
For those familiar with both collections of source code, it was generally assumed that SCO would win their lawsuit, and simply a question of what the fallout would be.
For those familiar to the collections of source code, that is another lie. When SCO commissioned a study before the lawsuit to compare their source code to Linux, their own analysis revealed nothing.
Although dismissed out of hand by IBM and members of the open source community who were constantly moving the goalposts, SCO did provide a comprehensive list of source files and line numbers in Linux that matched portions of SCO UNIX.
Lie #3": Judge Wells dismissed 2/3s of their case because SCO did not provide specificity.
The fact is, SCO's claims of copyright violations by Linux developers and users were valid, factual, and completely legal.
Lie #4: Novell was found to by a court be the copyright holder of Unix and thus SCO did not have standing to sue. Thus it was not legal in any sense.
To this day, the Linux kernel contains large sections of copyrighted code that came straight from SCO UNIX.
Lie #5: Considering that the trial has not revealed these "sections" are I would have to rely on IBM's expert testimony that said SCO botched their code comparison tests when they said lines that remotely were not similar were similar, I'd have to think SCO is lying.
The open source community generally is vocal in favoring the "little guy" against large corporations like Microsoft and Google, whose motives and actions are frequently called into question.
Considering Google is a frequent contributor to Linux, I would say you don't know what you're talking about.
It's bemoaned that the so-called little guy is unlikely to stand a chance against the massive and well-funded legal teams retained by large corporations.
Lie #6: SCO sued IBM. It was not the other way around. At the start of the trial most Linux experts and insiders looked at SCO's claims and declared them bullshit because SCO accused them of stealing code when they had wrote most of it themselves.
This is for good reason, that everyone should be entitled to the same rights, regardless of their ability to afford top notch legal teams.
Lie #7: SCO hired a top notch legal team: they simply had no case.
SCO was the little guy compared to IBM, a small company with limited resources simply trying to ensure their copyrights were protected.
Again, SCO hired a top notch legal firm and were suing for rights they didn't own as Novell owned them.
IBM squashed them like a bug, not because the lawsuit was invalid.
False dichotomy: IBM squashed them like a bug because SCO's case was weak.
In fact, SCO's claims of copyright infringement are generally accepted as mostly correct.
Lie #8: No one following the case thinks that.
Rather, IBM had the legal resources to draw out legal battles and win a war of attrition against SCO, no matter the validity of the claims.
Lie #9: The record shows SCO was the one using delaying tactics. In fact, judges in their cases called them out repeatedly for trying a number of tactics like claiming that Oracle and Intel did not provide deposition testimony before deadlines: Oracle and Intel responded that SCO properly served them requesting depos
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
OLED, QLED... gosh, only 24 letters remaining!
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
But we missed PLED ! What happened to them ?!?
No release date or price, so this is just a fluff piece, really.
Surely since we have three colour receptors in our eyes three colours at the peak frequency for each would be able to reproducce all colours? (excepting the small number of women who have two types of cone
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/oled-explained-incredible-tech-but-what-about-cost-and-content/
Samsung has another technology in the works to counter OLED's rise, and it's called quantum dots. Though backlit, these Samsung panels will emit a blue backlight, as opposed to the whiter lights in LED panels. When the screens' dot arrays are hit with that blue backlight, they light up with specific red, blue, and green values. The idea, Samsung says, is that these dark-blue frequencies are far less perceptible to the human eye, which could get the screens' lowest-black value somewhere close to that 0.0005-nit threshold mentioned earlier (which the Ultra HD Premium certification calls out).
The latest LED TVs ARE better than top-end Plasmas from a few years ago. If you stop cherry picking your specs to suit your pre-conceived biases then you'd have thrown away Plasmas a long time ago.
...could you please give us better TV programs ?
Probably the same thing that happened to Preparation G.
Try doing a side-by-side. Stand off to the side - plasmas still kick ass at all angles.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Okay, I'm not even remotely knowledgable about such things, but whenever I see Star Trek-like technobabble like this, my woo alarms immediately start firing.
Is this actually a thing, or most more marketing bullshit?
Can you elaborate?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Q = Distraction from Exploding Batteries
Had to. Sorry.
Typical. Everything has "quantum" in the name to sound new and super high tech.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I can't wait for 2018, the year of the RLED displays. or 2020, the year of the SLED displays. But what's going to be really amazing is not the TLED displays, but the XLEDs. Those XLEDs are going to be amazing!
And the XXXLEDs? They'll fucking blow your socks off, among other things!
A nit is the egg of a louse. Thus these TVs are lousy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It's all downhill when you get to SLEDs.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Let me quote myself for you since you didn't understand the first time:
stop cherry picking your specs
If viewing angles were all that was important to you then you'd have no problems with a well manufactured H-IPS LCD panel.
I have been observing experiments at SIGGRAPH several decades. Pixels resolution has gotten close to reality. Color systems like Samsungs are getting good. Six colors add some. What is really mindblowing is good dynamic range- capture bright light sources and deep shadows. A good HDR display starts to look like that desired window. Its not just the monitor. The full system requires a compatible camera and encoding protocol. The recently announced HDMI standard upgrade helps.
Well, quantum dots are actually a thing, and they are appropriately named (they're very small, with the size of a particular dot determining the colour they emit) and this display does use them... it just doesn't use them how their marketing name of "QLED" implies they're using them.
It'll certainly be great once the various MPEG standards are upgraded to support a color system that isn't ultimately designed to translate to and from RGB.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's not all that's important - but it's definitely a factor - and LCDs, even IPS, are still second-class.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That is exactly what I mean. I think it should be illegal to have deceptive marketing like this.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
What's wrong with RGB? An good screen with great primary colour reproduction can produce most of what you're capable of seeing with a red a green and a blue, and the conversion between the colour spaces can be done in a lossless way if the recording is done in a wider space than the playback.
RGB isn't the limiting factor yet. It's a long way from that point. Using a colour space that is designed for a common screen is.
At the start of the SCO lawsuit, it was not.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.