Nature review article about display technologies

[OCASM]

That post is far mellower than your position to date and everything everyone has argued about - you have categorically asserted that burn-in happens and is a threat, without moderation. When presented with people suggesting it might not be a problem in practical use, or a problem of less impact to viewing than the problems of LCD, you have repeated that burn-in happens. This post of yours is exactly true, and the position everyone else in this discussion is entering from, and what everyone else has been wanting to discuss, only to be side-tracked by you constantly returning to the 'does it happen' discussion instead of the 'how much does it happen' one.

Hopefully now we can discuss the technical limits of the different display technologies having reached consensus on what exactly is being discussed.

On that matter, I haven't read the whole article yet but it has pointed out to me that mobiles use different OLED tech to TVs, so don't offer a direct parallel (plus of course totally different usage patterns). OLED TVs themselves are too new to offer much field testing, and the technology is progressing rapidly, so even if an older set suffers burn-in, it's hard to predict how a newer set might fair. I think it safe to say there will be image degradation over several years use, if just the colour shifting slightly across the picture. But of course this will probably be imperceptible in use, which is where the arguments come in favour of OLED, that the perfect blacks and clarity across the whole spectrum of content brightnesses are worth a display that'll lose a percentage of its prowess over time.

For gaming, motion blur is a big factor too. What good is a display capable of brilliant stills if everything is a smeary mess in motion? That's an aspect I haven't heard discussed about OLED versus LCD.

That's some nice revisionism you've got there but I'm happy to indulge it if that means you'll stop strawmanning my positions

On the topic of motion blur, the article mentions a higher framerate severely reduces it so that's an incentive for developers to make 60fps games

I dont trust anyone who hypes the contrast performance of TVs when there were televisions with a 10 times higher contrast 10 years ago.

If one watches the same channel 20 hours a day for 6 months, then he should buy a LCD.

If their conclusions don't agree with your preconceptions they're not to be trusted, empirical evidence be damned. Very reasonable.

 

[Jupiter]

4000:1 is a very low contrast ratio there is nothing to hype about that. Such contrast rates weren't special even 10 years ago. I also own measuring instruments myself and their measured results are often wrong. No specialist knowledge (set the TV incorrectly etc.) or good equipment seems to be available. They measured e.g. 0.011cd/m2 where many experts and I always measured something like 0.004 to 0,005cd/m2. That is already a gigantic deviation.

 

[BRiT]

Is that native or dynamic contrast ratios?

 

[Scott_Arm]

VA panels should be typically above 4000, I think. Not TN or IPS though.

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
For gaming, motion blur is a big factor too. What good is a display capable of brilliant stills if everything is a smeary mess in motion? That's an aspect I haven't heard discussed about OLED versus LCD.

An OLED will have basically zero ghosting caused by pixel transitions, but they are sample/hold displays so they have motion blur just like LCD. Some OLED tvs can do black frame insertion to reduce motion blur, but they're typically already low brightness displays, so it's a larger compromise than on an LCD that has BFI or backlight strobing. But LCDs more commonly suffer from ghosting, because of slower pixel transitions, especially VA panels which are typically the type found in TVs. TN panels have the least ghosting, but they have terrible contrast and colour accuracy. IPS panels have great colour accuracy, and can have fast responses for low ghosting, but they have garbage contrast.

 

[mrcorbo]

VA panels should be typically above 4000, I think. Not TN or IPS though.

It's fairly common to see native contrast over 5500:1 now. The "stopgap" TCL P607 I bought last year was measured at 6437:1, which is oddly much higher than this year's model.

Edit: Changed number down from 6000:1 to actually be in the "fairly common" range.

 

[OCASM]

4000:1 is a very low contrast ratio there is nothing to hype about that. Such contrast rates weren't special even 10 years ago. I also own measuring instruments myself and their measured results are often wrong. No specialist knowledge (set the TV incorrectly etc.) or good equipment seems to be available. They measured e.g. 0.011cd/m2 where many experts and I always measured something like 0.004 to 0,005cd/m2. That is already a gigantic deviation.

According to the article the perceived contrast ratio depends on ambient lighting. In perfect darkness (or very cloe to that) OLEDs win but with some ambient lighting that changes in favor of LCD displays.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Contrast may increase with LCDs in brighter lighting, but in dark shots, you still get ambient reflections ruining it, so you decrease room brightness to see the film/game in all its glory - same as cinema (which has lousy contrast ratio!). The article is about displays in all their uses - for gaming, we can ignore various benefits like flexibility of screens.

 

[OCASM]

Contrast may increase with LCDs in brighter lighting, but in dark shots, you still get ambient reflections ruining it, so you decrease room brightness to see the film/game in all its glory - same as cinema (which has lousy contrast ratio!). The article is about displays in all their uses - for gaming, we can ignore various benefits like flexibility of screens.

There's bias lighting in which no reflections are added since the lighting is positioned behind the screen.