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?
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.
They told me a Monster Cable would fix this problem.
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.
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."
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"?
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.
That's how TV develops. We watch less and less watchable programming on better and better systems, until we will have the most realistic experience of an experience we don't want to have.
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.
The genericised form of the headline is actually:
$vendor announces $newthing for TV, better than $oldthing
with a subhead of:
Everyone throw away your six-month old $5,000 TV and buy a new $5,000 TV that's exactly the same, only different.
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.