November 9, 2014 at 8:30 pm #33335
Of course I meant 2 ft 4 inches, yes. Little typo there but it seems you worked out what I meant 😉 .
So you agree that the image being clearer is a benefit when gaming. That is a massive benefit not to be down-played! The aspect ratio is indeed a key immersion factor – and since most games are HOR+ the only thing dictating the default FOV which is very important. Of course 4K/UHD gives you more useable space, that’s true. But many people are very comfortable with the pixel pitch of 27″ WQHD monitors (without the need for scaling) and having that but simply having more useable space horizontally is a big bonus for them. And that is exactly what 3440 x 1440 provides. Not everyone wants to suffer the scaling woes that are associated with 4K/UHD monitors or want to have to buy a truly massive screen to make use of the resolution without needing to use scaling. You’re looking at a 40″ UHD screen to get the same sort of comfortable but very useable pixel density as these 27″ WQHD or 34″ 3440 x 1440 displays.
There are of course other unrelated factors to consider when it comes to image quality, I couldn’t agree more with that. I personally can’t wait for real advances towards Rec. 2020. We’ve been stuck in the sRGB rut for most content for far too long. Some really nice links there for extra reading as well, I’m sure people will appreciate that. The Nanoco/TREVISTA news was supposed to be added to our Evolution of LED Backlights article as well but I completely forgot to do that 🙁 . I am personally more looking forward to things moving away from the use of backlights entirely (not something Samsung feels is financially viable for large displays at present) but also feel that there is plenty more that can and should be done to really improve the LCD viewing experience. Enhancing the colour space on displays very broadly so the designers can feel comfortable expanding their own palettes is extremely important.
P.S. It’s not true that the majority of movies are 16:9 at all. Certainly not ‘99.99%’, that is utter rubbish (like most statistics). Most films are mastered in ‘Ultra Wide’ aspect ratios such as 2.39:1 unless they are TV shows. It’s what most modern cinema screens use and is extremely popular with the big directors. It depends what you watch of course. And you can have those 16:9 films looking as they would on a 27″ monitor if you don’t like the softening. Big black bars at the sides (like in this article). Not ideal though, I won’t pretend it is.November 10, 2014 at 12:46 am #33336
Samsung is not going for OLED. Not even in 3-4 years. Never.
OLED in it’s current incarnation with organic materials will never last enough. It’s a huge marketing lie and Samsung doesn’t want to be part of it.
LED LCD with proper local dimming can show excellent results. Also take into account that LEDs will have a huge drop in prices once they start being mass produced to replace normal light bulbs, street lightning, public illumination, museums, galleries etc. and that means very cheap local dimming TVs / monitors with 100, 200, 300, 400, 500+ local dimming zones.
Take a look at this discussion between a user and a industry insider :
Insider sh4 :
“Forget OLED. Due to fast degradation, 2.5x power consumption at the same brightness vs LCD, imprints, it’s another dead tech after plasma unless its production cost will be dirty cheap. It will never be your computer screen though.
Counter comment from tomas :
you are way off with your comments… power consumption is less than LCD, if by degrade you mean the blue light half life span ..then that was resolved by LG using white and Samsung by using a larger blue, …overall OLED uses the same manufacturing process (in fact it has less steps than LCD)….once yields have increased the price will drop…it is already happening if you compare the high prices last year with the latest OLEDs launched… this is not dead tech ….once they hit the right prices and they will …the market will adopt them as it is Superior to LCD…in the long term for TV manufactures it will be cheaper ( hence bigger profit) to make OLED TVs.”
Reply from sh4 (insider) :
Don’t lose your common sense, for example in Samsung case larger blue does not fix the problem, it just align still relatively short degradation lifetime for all three colors.
Proof of my words is in non-existence of hi-end OLED monitors. Nothing was fixed, the life span was just extended from completely unacceptable still being not even close to the one of LED backlit LCDs. The numbers so far were in the range of 4000 hours for OLED. Even if this will be 10000 that is still 3 times short of LED LCD
james also wanted to say something about sh4 comment :
‘I agree with s4h if OLED is not capable of providing adequate screen life span in comparison to existing technology the price will be irrelevant as the OLED market will suffer as a consequence of bad consumer reviews. The market always determines the adoption of technology not the manufacturers, the only proviso would be if commercial incentive was behind superseding a well established LED market to future proof OLED investment for the movie and entertainment industry especially with the potential of 4K video streaming.”
All in all from the second you use it the OLED starts to deteriorate and it will need multiple calibrations during its short lifespan. LG is using people for experimental testing with devices like TVs that are supposed to work, let’s not say 25-30 years like old quality CRT, but at least 10-15 years, and in reality they last 4000+ hours.
Probably the best LEDs last 50000 hours and cheeper LEDs around 30000
In case of the 50 000 that would mean :
12 hours per day 11.4 years
8 hours per day 17.1 years
When LEDs in a TV / monitor become too dark since they don’t die but actually slowly lose brightness over time you can simply replace them and fix your TV / monitor.
With OLED you throw your piece of expensive art directly into the trashcan.
Have you seen the Vizio P series from USA : http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/vizio-p652ui-b2-p-series-4k-led-tv-review
50 inch model priced at $ 999 4K screen direct led with VA panel and full array local dimming with 64 zones.
Definitely better than LG 34″ 21:9 3440 x 1440 for immersive entertainment (moderator comment: matter of opinion – the FOV in games is more important to some people and so is decent motion performance. And 50 inches is verging on ridiculous for a computer monitor. Immersive, perhaps, but also impractical for most – even 40″ is pushing the boundaries. The pixel pitch on that would be similar to a 25″ Full HD screen as well, definitely not for everyone and hardly the sort of UHD experience many computer users strive for).
Fortunately Vizio might come to Europe too next year because of this :
“The TTIP free trade agreement could be finalised by the end of 2014.” ( meaning free trade between US & Europe )
A separate proposal for free trade between north American continent [US, Canada, Mexico] and Europe is also under way.
However there are also negative reactions to this corporate mega power trade deal : https://stop-ttip.org/November 10, 2014 at 8:57 am #33337
I don’t share your pessemism regarding OLED at all. And know nothing about the credentials of this so-called ‘industry insider’. And rather than being an armchair theorist, you’re speaking to somebody with very relevant industry contacts who follows this sort of technology extremely closely. Being privvy to some information I can’t share here (or here), you misjudge Samsung’s intentions. They have not abandoned the OLED (or more correctly, backlightless) path – far from it. They have temporarily cut off production of their larger panels. Their strategy for RGB OLEDs is not economically viable at present for some of the reasons covered in our article and that discussion you posted.
But that isn’t the end of the story. Great strides are being made to improve lifetime of the organic compounds of all colours. A lot of what goes on behind the scenes isn’t public knowledge – and since it involves a highly competitive industry, for good reason. And of course LG are still very much in the game – they chose to use an entirely different design for their OLED which allows each pixel to become an independently controllable light source. Much better than even zonal dimming control on a backlight (which is a nice development in itself and I agree is becoming increasingly viable). But this still relies on a colour filter, just like an LCD matrix. Zonal control has actually been experimented with on higher end monitor prototypes and it simply doesn’t work properly unless the screen is very large. I do feel this technology has a future in monitors and will be improved for smaller screen designs.
It isn’t just about contrast and uniformity though, important though such factors are. It would be nice to do away with the response time limitations of the technology as well. This is particularly true when considering your much-loved VA panels. No matter how beautiful you make the image, once it comes to motion performance they always fall short. There are always problematic transitions which bug the heck out of some users. Given your enthusiasm towards Quantum Dots, which I certainly share, I’m surprised you didn’t consider the obvious alternative to both OLED and LCD that they provide. It is of course possible to use those brilliant and stable little dots as both the light source and ‘colour filter’ (i.e. pixels). This is definitely something that’s being kept under fairly tight wraps, but it would be naive to assume that using films of these things as a backlight is the end of the story.November 10, 2014 at 2:20 pm #33338
Armchair theorist or not there are many versions and ways to build a cool new type of panel.
Samsung also invested in this company : http://www.oled-info.com/israeli-company-develops-bio-organic-led-displays-compete-oleds ( bio-organic LED displays to compete with OLEDs )
OLED also needs some black frame insertion or some other methods to solve motion blur issues.
“Despite boasting insanely fast response time, the current generation of OLED televisions are driven by sample-and-hold method, so their motion characteristics resemble LCDs instead of impulse-type displays such as CRTs and plasmas. ”
Alternative to both OLED and LCD ? Are you referring to QLED?
As far as i see they also have blue problem and are even more expensive than OLED.
“However, blue quantum dots require highly precise timing control during the reaction, because blue quantum dots are just slightly above the minimum size. Since sunlight contains roughly equal luminosities of red, green and blue, a display needs to produce approximately equal luminosities of blue, red and green. The human eye requires blue to be about 5 times more luminous than green, requiring 5x more power”
I doubt that they won’t degrade. It could be marketing you know. They always say how they will make them last 10 times more but there is no device that was tested that long.
What we are going to see next year will be : http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/what-we-do/applications/display
A question : if they use Quantum Dot film will they still need to use back-lights such as GB-LED ( instead of conventional blue diode coated in yellow phosphor GB-LED combine blue and green diodes with a red phosphor ) in order to reach Rec.2020 ?November 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm #33339
I wasn’t calling you an armchair theorist, incidentally. I value your opinion and the excellent discussions you bring to this forum far too much for that. This very thread is testament to that – some really fantastic discussion going on here and some really interesting concepts being explored. I couldn’t agree more that there are lots of interesting ways to build panels and backlight systems – and the more options the merrier as far as I’m concerned.
When it comes to OLED, though, it’s something I follow extremely closely. I stripped some of your links away in the previous post as we have our own ever-expanding resource on the topic. When that article was first conceived 4-5 years ago the website you mentioned (OLED-info) was instrumental as a source of reference. And indeed a reference of references. Since then I have built up relationships with many contacts – manufacturers, their PR teams, engineers and more. I have also been fortunate enough to discuss some emerging technologies (including new fabrication processes for OLED and even new organic materials yet to be seen commercially). A lot of what I now know can’t be discussed. It isn’t in the public domain and it isn’t necessarily all something to look forward to in the immediate future either. It does allow me to say with certainty that dismissing OLED as a useless/dead technology for computer displays is foolish. And Samsung most certainly haven’t abandoned the technology (they’ve invested far too much time and money for that). Although they may be considering some changes of direction whilst things are… How shall we say… Ironed out. In the somewhat shorter term they might just be a bit more interested in LG’s WRGB-OLED designs that they let on.
And yes, the responsiveness of OLED is of course limited by the refresh rate and frame rate unless the pixels use strobe illumination (impulse) rather than sample and hold. It is certainly good having a highly colour-capable display that can provide a nice 120Hz+ output without overdrive artifacts or trailing from slow pixel responses, though. That is all covered in another of our articles. 😉
For Quantum Dots as self-illuminated pixels I was referring to QLED, yes. They are not organic so are much more stable than OLED materials. The technology is so tightly under wraps and most of what is known (including what I know) on that is shrouded by a fog of marketing – you’re right about that. There are definitely hurdles to overcome with all of these potential alternatives to LCD, but I’m optimistic it’s a question of when and not if those hurdles can be overcome.
Using Quantum Dots as a backlight is covered in this article. It includes Nanoco’s latest CFQD developments as well. These replace the phosphors on the backlight entirely and give potentially ‘extreme’ levels of green and red energy once excited. The blue component comes from the usual InGaN blue diode (or others such as ZnO@TiO2 and other bizarre compounds) and it’s that which both excites the Quantum Dot film and provides the blue energy as required. This is exactly due to the limitations with blue Quantum Dots that you’ve already touched upon. When I spoke to Jeff Yurek of Nanosys he was quite confident that Rec. 2020 would be achievable using this technology in the future, with 97% coverage a fair estimate in the near-term. His blog (dot-color) is extremely interesting, you’ve probably come across it already. You can see he is a big proponent of the technology and some of the sorts of concepts we’re discussing here.November 10, 2014 at 10:51 pm #33348
I enjoy talking to you PCM2, you have a great character and that is the most important thing in a person.
I definitely support Q LED or Quantum Dot Displays, as i always enjoyed things that last over time – things well made not just with profit in mind and short product cycles.
For 2015 i speculate we will see :
1. High dynamic range with dynamic back-lighting ( the screen divided into many rows and columns of cells, with each cell composed of groups of RGB LED clusters. By independently controlling the light output of each cell (based on the image content), dynamic backlighting improves the image contrast ratio. As backlight and driver costs come down, the next-generation high-end TVs could apply the dynamic control to each RGB LED cluster within a cell for an even finer-grain control of the backlighting. All that the system has to do is monitor the video content and feed a control signal back to the backlight controller to dynamically adjust the LED brightness in each cell. )
But will this cause more PWM ?! I always wanted a PWM free TV.
2. Wide color gamut Rec.2020. But will this be usable with normal LED + Quantum Dot film or will it need GB-LED + Quantum Dot film to cover Rec. 2020 color space ?
3. True 120 Hz / 100 Hz panel (not done internally) with true 10 bit for both Full HD & 4K.
For 2016 : Quantum Dot Displays should be introduced to replace LED and OLED altogether in all panels.November 19, 2014 at 4:58 pm #33390
Just like 21:9 was surprising a new format may be surprising too in a good or bad way : the 1:1 format.
Eizo EV2730Q comes with a 26.5″ panel with 1920 x 1920 resolution ( 102.46 PPI or 0.2479mm )
The important question is what is the best display format considering our own human visual system ?
Is it 21:9, 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, 5:4 or 1:1 ?
Humans have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. The vertical range of the field of view in humans is typically around 135 degrees.
Binocular vision, which is important for depth perception, covers only 114 degrees (horizontally) of the field of vision in humans, the remaining peripheral 60–70 degrees have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the field of view).
A very good read (read the comments too) : http://www.sundoginteractive.com/sunblog/posts/why-16-9
So 4:3 is the best choice for what the eyes can actually focus on. But wider takes into account peripheral field of view and is more pleasant.
What is your opinion over this matter ?November 19, 2014 at 5:12 pm #33391
I’ve known about the 1:1 LG panels for a while and actually saw a very similar Samsung ‘square monitor’ prototype a few years back. I think that it’s nice to have different options there to suit different uses and preferences, but for me personally I would find both the resolution and lack of physical width too restrictive. These 1:1 panels were initially designed with a very specific use in mind – to be put together in a way that would allow for great flexibility in a digital signage situation.
For my own uses I find the use of peripheral vision very important, and of course your field of view at any one time is only one small consideration. The eye is full of muscles to allow it to move – and indeed it does so constantly when tracking movement on the screen. Whether or not you can see all of the content on a screen at once isn’t really the be all and end all.November 19, 2014 at 10:33 pm #33394
Let’s consider :
34″ 21:9 2560×1080 ( 81.72 PPI ) & 32″ 16:9 2560×1440 ( 91.79 PPI )
For the sake of it lets just ignore PPI since the 32″ can come in 3840×2160 (137.68 PPI ) and the 34″ can come in 3440×1440 ( 109.68 PPI ) or more in the future.
The 32″ 16:9 has a 4.54% larger area than 34″ 21:9. In other words the 34″ 21:9 has a 4.34% smaller area than 32″ 16:9. (negligible many would say)
Which one in your opinion generates more satisfaction of the human visual system while looking from the exact same distances ?
Do you think that the 21:9 trend will replace eventually 16:9 screens in both monitors and televisions ?
Or is the lack of height a huge detriment in terms of vertical field of view ?November 19, 2014 at 10:47 pm #33395
For me, personally, I prefer the UltraWide model with all else being equal. Not because of the physical size difference (that isn’t all that great, as you demonstrated) but because you gain a greater FOV in most games. I found this FOV difference to make a real difference even on the 29″ models, at 34″ from a similar viewing distance it’s stepped up further.
I think this one really comes to to personal preference a bit as well. I personally find the 34″ curved UltraWides to be particularly comfortable on a visual level if you sit quite fairly centrally (otherwise the curve is quite odd).November 20, 2014 at 9:25 am #33396
I think 21:9 will be limited to IPS. I can’t stop wondering how bad the viewing angles will be on the VA version like Samsung S34E790C. Not to mention it’s curved meaning even less viewing angles if you are not in the center but slight better viewing angles if you are in the center.
Also the Highest transitions on VA are simple horrible.
Except Rec 2020 color space the year 2015 looks to become a boring year for LCD panels unless some major improvements will be made.November 20, 2014 at 10:11 am #33397
I was quite impressed with the Samsung model when it comes to viewing angles. Although my trained eye could identify it as VA pretty much immediately the colour shift wasn’t as pronounced as you might expect from a monitor of the size. And I say pretty much every time I even mention VA technology that they struggle with certain transitions – if that limitation could be overcome then it would be revolutionary.
I don’t necessarily think 2015 looks to be a boring year for LCDs at all, I simply think people have become spoilt by all of the choice at the end of this year. I can assure you that people have become overwhelmed by the sheer choice of temping monitors at the moment. As for next year, some people are really looking forward to that Samsung (and don’t think for a moment that panel will be restricted just to that monitor, either). And of course Adaptive Sync has a lot of people interested as well. Say nothing about the increasing affordability and range of UHD/’4K’ models and the advent of ‘Windows 10’ – although I think people overestimate the difference that any scaling improvements in the OS could make to legacy applications that don’t support it properly. Oh and the 144Hz AHVA panel has turned a lot of heads as well, same goes for the 23.8″ and 25″ 2560 x 1440 models.November 20, 2014 at 10:11 pm #33398
Were these 144Hz AHVA panels really insider information or just speculation ? There is a benefit to 144Hz vs 60Hz even if you don’t reach those fps because you get intermediary frames faster.
In all possible ways the M270HVN02.3 still has the biggest potential of improvement in VA just like GW2760HS was before it – that brought wider viewing angles (more domains).
1920 x 1080 being less demanding has the biggest chance of improvement in faster pixel transitions ( response time ) of any VA.
I also think it will be the last 1080p monitor from BenQ on 27″. Everyone is now on a PPI race and there are good reasons for that but scaling needs urgent fixing.
From the looks of it i speculate : http://www.panelook.com/M270HVN02.3_AUO_27.0_LCM_parameter_23625.html it may come to market in Q1 2015 with a Quantum Dot film able to reproduce Rec. 2020 color space.
However if GPUs won’t evolve we will be stuck at 1080p for a very long time. ( and they won’t because below 20nm is very expensive to produce ) . 28nm generation is already 3+ years old !
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8738/benchmarked-assassins-creed-unity/2 ( unplayable at 1440p & 4K on best GPU )November 21, 2014 at 8:38 am #33399
No speculation on the M270DAN02.3, it was confirmed by AUO. It’s also in production now – http://www.panelook.com/M270DAN02.3_AUO_27.0_LCM_overview_23628.html.
The benefit of the elevated refresh rate is quite slim unless you’re pumping out a high frame rate (>60fps). You get lower latency if you are a VSync user but otherwise the experience is much as it is on a 60Hz monitor.November 22, 2014 at 10:56 am #33400
Samsung plans to launch FreeSync compatible monitors in March 2015, starting with Samsung UD590 23.6-inch and 28-inch models and UE850 23.6-inch, 27-inch and 31.5-inch models.
Hopefully we will see Freesync on 1080p monitors too and maybe even on 21:9 format ?November 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm #33403
Yeah I really hope that Samsung extends Adaptive Sync support beyond just their UHD models. I would also be happier if Nvidia ditched ‘G-SYNC’ so all users could benefit from Adaptive Sync but they’ve invested too much time and money into their proprietary technology to do that. But who knows, perhaps in the future the technologies will merge.November 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm #33447
World’s thinnest bezels finally 1mm. IPS.
16 : 9 ( 23.8″ ) http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2450/index.html
16:10 ( 24.1″ ) http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2455/index.html
What is your opinion on Eizo ? Their monitors are quite expensive. Are they manufactured in Japan and so there are high import taxes in Europe ? Or are they build in China/Taiwan but simply use high quality components. Is Eizo the highest rated monitor company ?
About these two models maybe they use true 8 bit panels. 16.77 million
They also stress the fact why there is a need for higher LUT even on true 8 bit even for PC normal users.November 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm #33449
Don’t get tricked by clever marketing. Those monitors use the same panels as the Dell U2414H and U2415, respectively. The smaller one is certainly 6-bit + FRC and the larger one likely uses that as well. Furthermore they do not have a ‘1mm edge’ if you include the all-important panel border. They have a 1mm hard plastic surround, which EIZO are calling the ‘bezel’ in this case, but also have a ~4-5mm panel border.
EIZO are a very reputable company for their higher-end models (particularly their ‘ColorEdge’ and ‘DuraVision’ range as well as other specialised models). They built up a reputation for outstanding quality control and careful craftsmanship for their higher end models, but unfortunately that doesn’t transfer down to their consumer lineup (FORIS, FlexScan etc.) They outsource to countries outside of Japan to cut manufacturing costs, just like other Japanese display giants such as Panasonic and Sony. That doesn’t necessarily explain the poorer quality control on their cheaper models, but they are just like most other manufacturers in the end. In my opinion they are somewhat overpriced and in some cases have fairly gimmicky features or features that really don’t make much difference to the general consumer.December 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm #33527
Thank you. You are right !
You have good eyesight PCM2 better than 20/20. Can you tell me what is the distance you have to be from a 27″ 1080P in order to stop seeing the pixel grid ?
I wan to see if i understood something right.
I also have a top of the line 17″ CRT Samsung SyncMaster 797DF 17″ (16″ visible area)
On 1024 x 768 resolution it would get 80 DPI ( 0.3175mm Dot Pitch )
A 27″ visible area with 1080p will get 81.59 DPI ( 0.3113mm Dot Pitch )
But in the specification the CRT has Horizontal Dot Pitch 0.20mm. The CRT is able to reach : 2048 x 1536 resolution meaning 160 DPI ( 0.1588mm Dot Pitch ).
Even if i use 1024 x 768, 1600 x 1200 ( 125 DPI, 0.2032mm Dot Pitch), 2048 x 1536 or any other value in between the actual grid is and stays extremely small. (you have to put your eyes near the screen and use a magnifying +4 lens to see it)
That is why i am thinking that there is a huge difference between 27″ 1080p that can display only 1920 x 1080 at 81.59 DPI ( 0.3113mm Dot Pitch ) and a 17″ (16″ visible area) CRT that actually has 160 DPI ( 0.1588mm Dot Pitch ) or maybe just 0.2mm as stated in manual ?
I mean the 27″ 1080p pixel grid can be seen just by going very close tot he screen right ?
Thanks you.December 7, 2014 at 1:45 pm #33536
Hi, didnt want to start new topic so i just ask here if its ok. I am waiting for gtx 960 to build new pc for 1080p gaming, movies, office, adobe flash etc. I was considering Samsung LS24D390/LS24D590 but no vesa or good stand’s just kills the deal for me, the next obvious choice would be Dell U2414H but now with all new dell monitors like S2415H, U2415… can i expect for something like U2415H or U2515H is the new “u2414h” and i should not expect nothing very new in 1080p ips range?
p.s. sorry for my broken english 😕
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.