LCD TVs won’t see any further development
tomsguide.com
tomsguide.com
Micro led truly aims to just have a single LED per (sub) pixel.
Gonna hit wiki.
Edit: it's not LCD hehe. I have memorized some incorrect info
Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but from the launch of the first mainstream OLED tvs several years ago, I've been hearing "OLED is just a stopgap, Microled is where it's at, and that's not far off now".
Ten years later ... oled is still where it's at, or LCD for a lot of people. I know these things take time, but the anticipation of this tech seems to have lasted at least a decade so far.
You can actually buy a MicroLED TV today, but they're huge and expensive:
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/micr...
Soon thereafter, the thrust from the cooling fans causes the tv to leave forever, but for those first few minutes it is a viewing experience beyond any other. Just last week, one was spotted cruising past the freeway at low altitude, out to sea. Some say it is still going.
Mind you, the display technology doesn't produce mind excess heat. That would be the smart-tv cpu as it loads up a barrage of ads with which to torment watchers with. Skip ad 14:56s
My point isn't necessarily that Microled is endlessly delayed, so much as that people are endlessly talking about it, have been for years, and it's still years away from even high-end consumer models. I don't remember the same for OLED, in fact I remember people getting very hyped over LCD vs Plasma, and OLED not really getting a mention as a tv tech, even when it was in phones. Perhaps it's just my memory.
For Premium tier the cost of elevating the picture quality to a competitive level (with elaborate backlight tech, multiple layers of LCD, etc.) is simply too high.
Samsung was only riding LCD in premium TVs for so long because they didnt have the technology for large-size OLED. So they spent a ton of money to establish the "QLED" brand as a new name for "LCD with yet another backlight" and started explaining people that brightness (not black-level or contrast) is the most important thing for a TV (because uniform LCD backlight can be brighter than per-pixel OLED)
1. Large-format OLED maximum brightness is very low. LG C2 peak SDR brightness is some 425 nits. A Samsung Neo-QLED QN90B does 1200 nits, and an iPhone 14 (small OLED) does 800 nits. In my experience, a room with windows facing the sun with thin curtains require 1000-1500 nits SDR to be comfortably legible. 2000 would be nice to have, but that's not available for the masses yet.
2. That SDR brightness is only maintained for a 10% window, and quickly drops off for larger bright areas. At 50%, it's only 350 nits. The QN90B does 850 nits sustained at 50%.
3. Same panel does peak 6-700 nit HDR, well below the 1000-4000 nits generally needed for HDR content. An iPhone 14 does 1200 nits, The QN90B does around 1700 nits. The high peak is needed to give proper "blinding" effect to e.g. skies or lights, as opposed to just looking like SDR-style bright white surfaces, especially outside a dark cinema room.
4. WOLED, which is the dominant panel technology for large high-end OLED panels, lose color saturation quickly as they approach their (already low) maximum brightness, due to relying on a white subpixel for raw luminance.
5. MiniLED backlight for LCD with 10k+ diming zones - while a stopgap - get dimming artifacts far enough down to be competitive on contrast, while destroying OLED in brightness and color saturation.
Large-panel OLED will beat LCD, but right now it is has many shortcomings. QD-OLED shows significant promise, with latest generations finally starting to see some decent brightness, but it's early (and rtings report both thermal throttling and some quite unfortunate burn-in behavior on those).
And yes, 1000 nits+ for SDR is retina-searing once the sun sets, but for those who have forgotten how sunlight feels I can report that it is quite bright and requires effort to outshine. Something like ambient light control is necessary to adjust throughout the day to not accidentally go blind.
Also, no amount of screen brightness can make dark scenes visible in a bright room. You have to make the room darker anyway, so why bother with a brighter screen?
Sure, to get the full cinema experience you should darken the room, or just watch at night. But having a bright and legible screen without having to close the curtains is still worth a lot.
Darkening rooms in daytime for non-cinema watching is just a workaround, which is both impractical and not necessarily preferred. 1000-1500 nits is not perceived as bright in daylight, but is perfectly comfortable and legible. A little more would be nice, but not much.
(If you are light sensitive and it hurts because of that, then this is a different topic - but that is not the norm)
Darkening the environment is the only option for displaying any dark colours and it happens to make high screen brightness unnecessary.
Maybe if your TV is facing a window that’s more of a problem, but if so I’d suggest not doing that. You’re never going to get a good experience from a TV facing a light source because of nothing else it will reflect off the screen.
I don't have walls that don't face huge windows in my livingroom, so I had to splurge for a Samsung Q90. It does well for the most part. On sunny days I still miss even more brightness.
The QD-OLEDs from Samsung which use a similar trick as their "Quantum-Dot" LCDs do, also hit similar levels: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/s95c-oled#page-tes...
Still, that's 500 for the those OLED sets vs 1200 for the QN90B.
Real scene SDR brightness is all that matters for use in a bright room, as it represents the overall brightness of the screen when playing normal content. HDR brightness on the other hand is only observed in certain scenes of particular HDR content mastered to use it - not to mention that such HDR content is more likely to be consumed in a dark room to enjoy the darker details not present in SDR.
I think the limiting factor right now on those new OLED sets is thermal throttling and power limits. But all is not bad - it shows great promise of near a future where self-emissive panels have food brightness.
My current brightness settings are at 30% when watching TV at night. "Bright room" settings bumps pixel brightness to 45%, which is good enough for a room with windows on 3 out of 4 walls. It is much brighter then a 10 year old LCD it replaced. And I had no problem using that old one until I put two screens side by side.
For reference, I have my QN95A on max brightness (with auto-dim to not be killed at night), and it's not quite as bright as I want, but bright enough to be comfortable - and I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I do have windows both left and right and can look straight at the sun from my couch position twice a day (sometimes both ways due to neighboring reflections), and for WAF reasons my curtains are the thin kind.
The main downside I can note is that the dimming zones are way too large - especially noticeable with local dimming set to High, and credits scrolling. Not noticeable for normal content though. Mini-LED backlight would have made it indistinguishable from most OLEDs in anything but the darkest of cinema rooms...
Moving bright content on dark background reveals the dimming zone resolution as the zones chase the content - credits is the main thing that comes to mind, where the text brightness fluctuates as it transitions zones. A circular loading indicator can also trip this, but the TV recognizes it after a rotation and then evenly illuminates the path.
Turning down the dimming from max would likely help, but some may be surprised to hear that credits are not my main content priority.
The brightness is great for my bright living room though, and worlds apart from the OLED sets I've seen in similar settings.
As an aside, super happy I got the 2021 - a friend got the S95B, and the newer Tizen UI is way more intrusive and more ad-filled.
Consumers don't trust manufavturers. If I pay 2x premium I have zero trust the product is better made or will last longer. My $300 laptop worked for 10 years, $3000 laptop has issues after 2 years.
We have a Toshiba TV that has lasted 15 years. Kinda getting to the end of it's usefull life - its 720p.
On the other hand, I don't expect image technology to advance at the same rate any more, we are at the usefull limit of resolution for example. So maybe if I was buying today, I would actually keep the TV for 20 years.
I'm confused — why are you talking about trusting "manufacturers" as a whole? Isn't the whole point of your anecdote that one manufacturer is trustworthy and the other is not?
Well maybe there are a handful, in some markets, but Miele does not make TVs
Personally, I know more about clothes. Once you switch from fast fashion (Zara, Bershka, Uniqlo) to quality brands (for me, it's Rick Owens, Margiela, Thom Krom and McQueen, adjust for your personal style), they do last a lot longer — I still wear T-shirts that I bought in 2016. However, it means that I shop much less often, own much less clothes and they're all the same style (and the same colour — full black). And I see that people pay lip service to degrading quality, but what majority of them _actually_ want is a lot of regular dopamine from shopping and a wide variety of garments.
You can eat out at fast-food everyday, or spend the same budget to eat at a Michelin-stared place once a couple of weeks (1 star; 2 or 3 stars it would be once a month or more). People tend to choose the former, but then blame "the industry" for their own choices.
I DO notice OLED burn-in, so that <<is>> a problem.
TV takes 10 minutes to load Netflix because it's part of a botnet? Better buy a new one.
It happened to me and it happened to a friend of mine, just a few months apart.
Never ever connect a Samsung TV to the Internet under any circumstances.
So if they're bricked after two years you could take it to the retailer.
But you're very unlikely to experience it compared to past technologies, even if you are displaying a static image for extremely long periods
It's a TV!!! There shouldn't be any "negligent" :-)
Some people are fine with tiptoeing around the problem, I imagine most people just don't do anything and mess up their TV.
I shouldn't have to configure FVWM for 20 days to be able to operate the appliance correctly.
The newer TVs can detect that scenario and turn the TV off automatically, unless you specifically disable that setting.
TVs are a luxury good, and there will always be ways to be negligent with anything. Leaving them out in the rain is negligent. Some cleaners will harm the screen, I'm sure. Using them in a too-hot or too-cold environment will harm them. I don't expect my TV to be battle-hardened, and I'm certainly not going to pay the price for that. Instead, I'll take care of it.
I've seen the video where the guy leaves a bright high-contrast static image on his Nintendo Switch OLED for 10,000 hours before finally seeing a small amount of burn-in, but that's not the level that should concern average users. Was just curious if typical large screens fared any worse than the new Switch.
There's lots of methods now to make this degradation more uniform on OLED, like slightly shifting the image to distribute the load onto multiple subpixels, "cleaning" the panel when its switched off, down to measuring the operating hours of individual pictures and adjusting the brightness of surrounding pixels to blend the degradation.
Overall you can choose what you want to degrade over those 10 years: The LED brightness and color-accuracy of a whole zone / backlight unit (LED-LCD), or have the OLED panel actively compensate its aging (which has gotten ALOT better in the past years)
Either way, I wouldn't put my money on QLED (which is not a technology but a brand). QLED is actually far worse on lifetime than OLED [1], but as it was driven by the marketing powerhouse of Samsung this information is barely known. Considering how expensive it is to produce and that it was basically only made by Samsung to buy time until they can produce OLED as well, I wouldn't expect it to become actually a mature technology. It's more likely that they will replace the Quantum Dot backlight with something cheaper and still keep the brand "QLED" (if they haven't done that already).
AH-IPS LCD panels with zoned LED backlight probably still provide the most stable picture quality over longer time of use, compromising on image-quality compared to OLED. But the last really good TV with such a panel was produced quite a few years ago already...
I do care about seeing ghost letters or shapes on top of the latest TV series I'm watching.
Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving.
But none of this is new. In reality, I barely heard people complain about their LCDs becoming more and more weak in brightness and color-tinted (usually yellow) each year. And yet, all of this happened to 100% of all LED-LCD panels.
> Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving.
Yeah, there's alot of research ongoing to improve QD lifetime as a foundation for new LED technology. Here's one from Dec.2022 [1], and one from as late as 2023 [2], all with the subject of solving performance stability of the technology to become on-par (!) with common LED.
> I don't care much about average panel degradation.
> I do care about seeing ghost letters or shapes on top of the latest TV series I'm watching.
Nobody cares about "luminance degradation", they just dont want ghosting
And "ghosting" are artifacts on fast movement due to a lag in panel refresh, it's something entirely different.
I think you're going too far with your statement. OLED/qd-oled and to a lesser degree WOLED all suffer from significant burn-in, which makes them pretty bad for desktop use.
Previous LCD technologies will degrade over the years by losing luminance and color accuracy, but that's a pretty minor issue compared to OLED as far as I'm concerned.
With OLED, not so much. OLED does have tech to compensate based on total pixel usage. You might see that if you tried to change a panel without the electronics. I'm not aware of how widespread it is, but I know iphones can do it.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updat...
This is a great overview demo of current panels! You can already see some very slight degradation in some of LGs OLEDs, but many of the Sony/Visio (and Samsung) OLED panels.
The others mostly look like standard LCD and DDI/Flex defects rather than burn-in so far.
The research paper describes the lifetime and degradation in a uniform setup, as it's research for foundational QD-tech, not for TV panels.
There's alot of research ongoing to improve QD lifetime as a foundation for new LED technology. Here's one from Dec.2022 [1], and one from as late as 2023 [2], all with the subject of solving performance stability of the technology to become on-par (!) with common LED.
Or something more expensive? Not sure if OLED is more expensive or not, but they are already using that as a backlight on the high-end. Specifically, blue which seems to be the issue for QLEDs if the paper is anything to go by.
If they replace it with something more expensive they usually give it a new name to sell the higher price, like "Neo QLED"
Don't organic LEDs also degrade more than their "normal" counterparts?
> Overall you can choose what you want to degrade over those 10 years: The LED brightness and color-accuracy of a whole zone / backlight unit (LED-LCD), or have the OLED panel actively compensate its aging (which has gotten ALOT better in the past years)
I'd imagine it would be FAR easier to compensate the backlight as you just need to re-calibrate one string of LEDs that all see same load over lifetime of the monitor vs somehow tracking per-subpixel usage of each OLED
Yeah, amplified due to their much smaller size, having less surface area for heat dissipation, and also depending on pixel-color in RGB-OLED setups. On TV's WOLED panels are used instead of RGB-OLED, which allows for better heat-distribution and a uniform lifetime regardless of pixel-color.
> I'd imagine it would be FAR easier to compensate the backlight as you just need to re-calibrate one string of LEDs that all see same load over lifetime of the monitor vs somehow tracking per-subpixel usage of each OLED
For luminance there is nothing to compensate, as it simply degrades uniformly. The peak-brightness is simply reducing over time.
Color-shifts cannot be re-calibrated that well because the shift happens due to the chemical decomposition process of the phosphor in each LED, which causes the color of the light going INTO the color-filter to shift (the base light that is filtered for RGB is no longer white).
Once it starts it's not a binary process, the color keeps shifting. Manual recalibration often has no real benefit then, as the color-shift continues and is not uniform across the whole display.
But you can change white balance of most monitors right ? So they at the very least need cold white and warm white LEDs, just change balance of those. using RGB LEDs in backlight could also allow for that correction.
Most all mid tier LCD TVs currently use QD (whether in the backlight or the color filter layers). They don't use Blue QD (only longer lifetime Red/Green), but crystal InGaN in the Blue backlight. Other lower end LCDs use RG phosphor instead of QD to produce white, which also has long term burn-in issues, but as you mention they are not individual to pixels. Color shift of the (global backlight) screens over years can be compensated, but since environmental lighting has a bigger effect on perceived color, I'm not sure why you'd bother (mini-LED can be worse).
Even the very best currently shipping OLEDs (not yet phosphorescent Blue) have visible burn-in at ~2000hr even with image shifting de-contrast techniques. Early 2014 QD (Red/Green) have visible burn-in at ~7khr and modern ones about 20khr. They're about 10x better than OLEDs, but you could still see it several years in (rather than months in for OLED).
I've got no great love for QLED, but R/G QD just doesn't have the same level of burn-in problems that fluorescent Blue OLED does, and neither do Blue InGaN LEDs.
https://en.tab-tv.com/samsung-has-released-recommendations-f...
I'm including this link, because the SID.org papers are all paywalled.
I frankly don't know how you technically define "visible burn-in" in context of QD (do you mean actual pure QD tech or Samsungs mixed use of the tech for QLED TVs?).
If we can agree, that: 1.) The jargon "burn-in" on OLED describes the luminance degradation of individual sub-pixels (i.e. a weaker red because the operation hours of a red sub-pixel were much higher than its neighbours).
2.) Samsung's "QLED" is a brand for a LCD panel with the backlight created using R/G QD and blue LED (instead of blue/yellow LED). The backlight on standard QLED is separated in ~700 zones of the display, so you have huge clusters of pixels using the same backlight zone.
Then: What is the equal meaning of "burn-in" then in the context of QLED? The luminance degradation of the whole zone?
Or is it the "legacy" meaning of burn-in on LCD: The occurence of weaker/dead pixels due to issues in the TFT layer (broken/weak transistors no longer properly rotating the crystals)?
Either way, I can't confirm and don't agree that OLED TVs will see a visible "burn-in" after ~2000hrs of normal use. First-gen models yes, but definitely not currently shipping models.
Similar to standard definitions of Mura a method of defining visible burn-in, you'd have to define the burn image (16pix B&W block or CNN Logo?), the detection image (64 Grey?), viewing distance (30deg FoV?), and visible contrast (+/4 MND?). I guarantee you all the OEMs have a spec.
Here's a set of modern 20hr/day tests at 6 months (posted above) where OLED has visible degradation (mostly Sony/Viso but also Samsung and LG). The new ones are definitely better!
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updat...
And for exactly the same reason most people buying high-end computers and phones won't — the tech will have moved on in 5 years to such a degree that newer products will be significantly better.
I have a 15" Samsung CRT TV from the 90's that still works great. I use it for retrogaming.
> vast majority people buying bleeding-edge OLED TVs (yours truly included) will not use the same TV for 10 years.
IMHO people mostly upgrade their TV because a bigger one comes out. At some point we will reach the maximum practical size for a home TV (kinda like CD drives maxed out at 52x) and then I think people will buy them less. TVs are already kinda cheap and boring and if they don't keep getting bigger, the average consumer will eventually treat it as a commodity item (and maybe it will be priced that way too).
I'm not saying those people don't exist — they clearly do!
But those are not people who buy the most expensive/best TV's on the market.
But even in those areas I'm confident that its existing tech, I doubt that there's alot of investment going on.
WOLED panels are on a trajectory from Premium to High-Tier with production volume increasing each year, with RGB-OLED increasing in panel-size each year as well. The window for investing into R&D for a large-volume LCD-panel which outperforms OLED in accuracy but at a lower price has already closed.
Mine still works great, although it still draws ~200 watts of energy.
I expect the industry realizes 6k is basically the stopping point so they're intentionally approaching it very slowly.
Edit: Updated with ppi specs to draw focus to pixel density of desktop displays.
"4k" means ~2000x4000 pixels and "8k" means ~4000x8000 pixels.
It is 8k and reasonably priced at $1000 new / $752.99 used
It's close enough for the marketing department, and now that's what it's understood to mean.
Now 4K refers to image roughly the width of 4000 pixels according to wikipedia [1]
They moved to measuring the long side AND exaggerating by rounding up in the same generation, stealing the name of a slightly-better existing standard in the process.
You're right that 8k makes sense so long as you accept 4k, though.
Do they?
A lot of laptops still don't support HDMI 2.1, and DP 2.0/2.1 only just came out (and I don't know if any displays are using it yet). There's also the bullshit the HDMI forum pulled where they relabeled HDMI 2.0 as HDMI 2.1 (years after HDMI 2.1 was out and established as "the one that can do 4k120hz no chroma subsampling" (a lot of implementations were around 40Gbps instead of the full 48Gbps because it was cheaper, and they didn't need the full 48Gbps for 4k120hz 10bit)), despite them having hugely different specs.
Displayport 2.0/2.1 is also a clusterfuck because they decided that it would max out at either 40Gbps or 80Gbps depending on the implementation (DP40 and DP80), and companies don't generally tell you what their implementation actually supports.
Macbook Pros only got HDMI 2.1 this year, iirc base and airs still don't have it. Intel iGPUs only do HDMI 2.0 and DP 1.4, AMD's Zen4 laptops can do HDMI 2.1 and DP 2.1 (idk what bandwidth). For dGPUs, AMD's 6000 series is HDMI 2.1+DP 1.4 (but there are issues with DSC), while 7000 series is HDMI 2.1 and DP 2.1 (DP80). Intel Arc dGPUs are DP 2.0 (DP40) and HDMI 2.1. Nvidia's 30 and 40 series are HDMI 2.1 and only DP 1.4.
edit: Also, people don't realize just how fucking huge an 8k framebuffer is, and you need multiple for a swapchain. Even for just basic 8bit colour you're looking at ~133MB per framebuffer.
That's not a lot for people in the market for 8K monitors. 24G VRAM in the form of used 3090 cards is way cheaper than high end monitors. But yeah lack of DP2.1 support on current-gen cards like the 4090 is a problem
> you need multiple for a swapchain
There should be just two with variable refresh rate
People want 8k for better PPI for text rendering, not for games, meaning they want to use it with their work laptop.
> There should be just two with variable refresh rate
There's still a lot of software out there that's using DXGI blit model instead of DXGI flip model, and a triple buffered vsync+windowed blit app means you're looking at 5? framebuffers in flight at once. (ignoring any additional intermediate buffers for each app, and potentially having multiple overlapping windows drawing onscreen at one time).
It's for large monitors. I run a 43" 4k tv as a monitor. I would absolutely benefit from a similar sized tv in 8k. And people who run closer to the 50" size would benefit even more.
I think you're probably right about traditionally sized monitors, though.
I’m a bit surprised we don’t see point-to-point ethernet cables doing this. They are standardised, reliable, and carry a lot of data. My napkin math says an 8K display at 40 bits per pixel and 60 fps is about 18 Gbps, well into the range of fancy ethernet.
And, if consumer electronics can drive down the costs of these interfaces, everyone wins.
Anyway, with compression it should be a piece of cake. I never quite understood why HDMI even streams pixels and not refresh instructions.
Thanks to Moore's Law, computer power has been growing exponentially since forever. Single-core performance has stagnated, sure, but total performance is still following the curve. Graphics is easy to parallelise, so throwing more cores at it is not a problem. In fact, this is precisely what GPUs do.
In other words, the available "operations per pixel per second" have gone up over the years, despite the increasing resolution!
In fact, we're at the point now that we can even do real time ray tracing, which was unthinkable at any typical resolution just a decade ago. Top-end RTX 4090 GPUs can even do ray tracing at 4K, which is just crazy.
Vertical scaling is of course possible, but it’s not really useful for driving a higher resolution monitor in your living room because of bottlenecks being completely elsewhere.
Nitpick: Moore's law is about number of transistors on microchips not performance.
The original general-purpose GPU, the NVIDIA 8800 GT had 112 cores. The RTX 4090 has 9,728! Each core has pretty much remained the same: a 32-bit arithmetic/logic unit (ALU).
So are you saying that we should go back to "just wait for the picture to render..." era just because we can have higher density?
Top-End RTX 4090 cater for a niche market.
Data from sensor and to display are usually (but not always) raw and uncompressed.
To go beyond 8k 120fps we will need fiber, or better compression.
We have good codecs to move data online. And specialized ASIC to do live encoding with good quality.
The current compression defined by HDMI is very rudimentary.
Quite ironic to complain about waste at the same time as making this pointless and aggressive comment
Maybe you don't realize you're on a worldwide forum where anyone can respond to anyone else for any reason? I'm perfectly entitled to respond to your comment as someone who does not game. The person you replied to isn't the only person in this entire thread. And suggesting that it's strange for me to reply to your comment is just strange in itself.
There isn't a world where a 5k or 6k tv ever makes sense. Monitor, yes. But not for TVs.
Only now do some manufacturers start to put out taller monitors, but they're still rare, at least in my market.
So, while the pipeline might not run at more than 4K, the source material ideally is at a higher resolution.
And you need to make sure it still looks good on lower quality displays.
Besides which, we took a big step back when we switched from 35mm to digital. Digital has only recently reached par quality.
(Yes, I know that you do X on your Y machine without problem, but my point is that it’s easy to forget to account for all these little costs, and they pile up! Especially for professional workloads where people love to push the bar higher and higher.)
Cloud-based After Effects render farms do help significantly though.
So, let's actually look at that. For a "low-budget" 8K pipeline you'd first need a camera that can shoot at 8K or more. Ideally you'd want more so you can crop-in or do stabilization in post. So you'd be shooting on the Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro 12K (~$6k) [1].
Usually you're using 5-10% of the material that you shot in the final edit, for some movies that can go as low as 1% (e.g., Apocalypse Now [2]), but let's calculate with a 45min documentary and 7.5% material used.
That means you've now got 30 TB of raw material [3]. You'll obviously use proxies for editing, but at least for color grading and for delivery you'll need access to the full material.
So now you'll need to store 30 TB of raw material somewhere in the cloud accessible to the machine that's doing the delivery. Even assuming you've got a symmetric fiber connection so we can disregard potential traffic limits and transfer speeds for initially uploading the material, you'll still need to pay for the cloud storage.
Creative Cloud has a storage limit of 100 GB for individuals or 1 TB for business plans [4], which is obviously far too limiting, so you'd need to use something like LucidLink. As you'd be working with large video files, you'd need high-performance storage, so you'd have to calculate with their performance plan, which is another $80 per TB per month, so $2400 per month just for this one single project [5].
________________________
[1] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1578059-REG/blackmagi...
[2] https://books.google.de/books/about/?id=wB7cAAAAMAAJ
[3] https://www.braw.info/capacity/
Even with Gen 4 NVMe storage you'll quickly hit bottlenecks at those resolutions.
A lot of that is on Adobe more than anything else, mind you. Same with Premiere, too. These tasks can be a lot faster than Adobe software allows them to be. But there is a limit, of course
But realistically, a lot of work happens on Adobe or other (Autodesk, Houdini, etc...) products that also have their own issues.
A good high-quality 1080p export will have significantly higher perceived quality than a "4K" (UHD) video on YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime or Apple TV.
I've decided that I'll produce all content in 1080p at the current time, even though I'm recording video in DCI 4K oversampled from a 6K sensor. No viewer is ever going to see the difference anyway.
Customers are also not as willing to pay for 4k as those invested in UHD would like to think. It's a "nice to have" and having big numbers makes people feel good, but it doesn't actually make them love the content more.
A lot of people are watching content on their phones, for one thing.
I create some travel video content and up until last year, most of my clients weren't even fussed about 4K. I had been shooting at 5.1K for most of last year and then dropped to 4K this year because no one has needed it, but the storage and delivery costs are higher.
It is not just replacing one screen for another on client's side.
Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes.
But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability.
A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible).
This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this.
Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it.
Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there.
I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either.
I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there.
Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears.
Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?
When you mic a big orchestra (or any orchestra) clearly, you can capture the stereo image (which is generally done with non-instrument ambient microphones), too.
Mixing this ambience into the final stereo mix can increase the instrument placing when done correctly, but needs a good room with good acoustics. This is why we have Atmos and other tech. It allows you to virtually position channels in a room, and increases this separation, in theory. Nice when done subtly, ugly when done overboard.
Also, speakers' sound rendering has something with it. For example, the Celans I have can fill a room with positionally correct instruments fairly impressive. What's more impressive is, Creative Gigaworks speakers also capable of doing this while being desk speakers (yet they have kevlar cones and silk tweeters too).
There's a sensible upper limit to pay for audio systems. Mine is neither top of the line, nor too cheap to be true. It's a powerful, yet vintage all analog powerhouse, and I have it for 30 years or so.
After some point, even if the resolution provided by the system is justified by the money it requires, finding sources to saturate is impossible to find. So, when you find something you like for the first time, you stop there. I plan no changes in my audio system for example.
There are infinite number of variables in audio (system, source, room, placement, etc.), but sound resolution and soundstage are not placebo effects. If it was, a $4 headphone would sound the same wth $44 or even with $440 one, yet they don't.
Same for speakers, amps, etc. Until a certain point as I said.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_the...
Then again, the frequency response of the loud speaker is not flat so I dunno if the sampling filter cutoff frequency matters.
According to Wiki the absolute max an amazing(?) ear can hear is 28kHz. You can maybe hear aliasing of higher frequencies too?
I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and faster sampling, but we can't refute it on purely theoretical ground.
And 24 bit is nice purely because you can regulate volume in software without losing fidelity (if DAC is good enough). But again, no such requirement on source, just the processing pipeline
So yes, for that reason alone you need more.
But for the final delivery, there's no need to ever go beyond 48kHz at 24-bit.
24 bits is useful for mixing various sources, but otherwise it is a waste of space.
Is the half sample per frame at 44,100 Hz and 24 fps really an issue? DVDs support 48kHz, but they only support 25 fps and 29.97 fps. You're going to run into so much NTSC content that I'm not sure even divisibility is a thing.
e.g. I've got a 48" UHD TV at 2.5m (8') distance, and a 27" UHD monitor that I use at 60cm distance, and while the TV is beyond the resolution limit of my eyes, the PC monitor isn't.
there is also AI upscaling which can upscale content to higher resolution
There's also the type of content and your personal visual acuity. If you're young, your eyesight is probably quite capable of resolving much finer details than normal 6/6 vision. I can tell the difference between 4K and 8K at a normal sitting distance on a 65" TV.
However... the difference isn't enough for me to care. I'm much more interested in brightness, colour, framerate and a load of other things over another resolution bump.
4k does not exist because it's optimal for the human eye. It's dominant right now because anything higher carries a really significant bandwidth penalty, which would be hard to do for both streaming and optical media.
If we lived in a world where blu-ray disks could hold 1TB, and global internet speeds were 10x what they are now, 8k TVs would be the norm.
"You can't tell the difference between HD and FHD." FHD and QDH. QHD and 4K. 4k and 8K. 60FPS and 120. 120 and 240. A higher resolution texture. Higher resolution audio. A higher resolution mesh. Etc.
Every single time someone makes the claim it makes no difference, yet we do it regardless.
For something that seemingly makes no difference, people sure seem to continue improving it regardless. And shockingly, consumers seem to really enjoy the products too.
https://www.techhive.com/article/578376/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-co...
What about images that use HDR10+? Or Dolby Vision? What about completely un-compressed lossless video? What about common compressions like X264 and X265? What about on an 80-inch screen? What about in dark vs bright scenes? Or even environments? (Human eyes handle images differently at low vs high brightness)
I'm not saying the data is worthless because it's not, but I am saying that I think it's too sweeping to say it's completely un-noticable. Not enough data for that conclusion. Vision and display technology are both very complicated topics and there's always room for improvement IMO.
The only reason it will ever stop is if we hit major technological or even physical barriers. And even then, we'll most likely just move onto another technology that allows yet higher resolution.
Don’t seem any point going past 5k for 27” monitors though, that truly is overkill.
The human eye can resolve way, way past 220PPI. Even at distance.
I'm sitting here typing on a surface book with a 13" panel that is 267PPI and I would adore it to be double that. I run at native resolution with no scaling.
For the "average" human eye (20/20 vision) it's something like ~338ppi at 25cm right? If you have better vision (my corrected vision is 20/10 which is near the theoretical max for a human (20/8 I think is the max~?).
It's aggravating that people are like "over 300PPI is the max so screw improving". It's literally just the "max" at being able to discern the spacing between pixels accurately. Higher PPIs/DPIs still lead to an increase in objective clarity and crispness as you are able to improve aliasing etc.
Some of my old devices had PPIs in excess of 520PPI and I absolutely adored it (Note Edge). I would kill for a desktop monitor with similar PPI.
SO yeah, I guess "diminishing returns" is a thing but I wish it was at least a readily available option. I would adore a 27-30" monitor that was ~500ppi.. sighs
You do realize that without apple pushing the others froward, most laptops would still be 1366x768, right?
220 PPI on a TV screen that you're sitting 8 feet away from? More than most people will ever notice. 220 PPI on a monitor that you're 18-24 inches away from? Probably the ideal density. On a phone or tablet? Meh. On a VR display? Absolutely unusable.
I still use HP Z27q bought in 2016. I wonder why the industry has so few offers for 27" 5120p monitors.
On phones, maybe. 4K 32" monitors are nowhere close to retina
I do see individual pixels on retina screens but I don't notice them on more organic stuff like movies on my screen. I guess computer content is just perfect squares and then perfect circles and fonts with some jaggy edges where they're rounded off, which is really not that hard to spot on retina screens. The difference between 4K and 8K in my opinion is that you can better see little glimmers, textures and things like that. But the 8K demo movie of course was highly optimized to show exactly that.
What I really like is HDR on true black OLED, killer feature.
But what I want more than anything is a "compression" feature on the audio of movies. I mean I just want to hear what people are saying to each other without the neighbors calling the police when going into a scene with explosions and/or music. I'm using subtitles in English for English movies nowadays FFS!!!
Why the disconnect?
I can easily isolate brightness pollution by closing door and sun shades. But isolating sound is difficult.
At this point, going to cinema is the only solution to enjoy high dynamics audio.
https://smyth-research.com/ works pretty great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJtb2YXae8
It boils down to a combination of:
- Actors speaking naturally instead of projecting toward a microphone
- Smaller microphones
- Dynamic range - big explosions have to sound loud, so dialog gets pushed quieter
- Downmixing from Atmos to 7.1, 5.1, stereo, mono
- TV speakers have gotten smaller and mounted on the back due to thinner TV's (and also poor quality speakers on devices)
I guess the solution is to buy a surround sound system and hope it's good enough.
Yet many people opt for a soundbar which has similar issues with the physics of thin/small speakers. I personally have a set of restored Bozak B-302As from 1958, big box speakers that are a solid meter cube, and they sound great :)
This made a huge difference for me. I went from TV > Sonos Beam > Sonos Beam + two surrounds. I've tested going back to just the Beam (I wanted to use the surrounds as stereo music speakers) but the huge decrease in my ability to understand dialog made me keep the surrounds. It's particularly problematic on TV shows where background music is used a lot. Having that come out of the surrounds and dialogue from the Beam made things so much better.
Btw. I do actually prefer LESS contrast in video sometimes, just as I prefer a compressed dynamic range in audio. This has a lot to do with the environment I'm watching / listening in, and the quality of my screen and headphones or speakers.
And finally, using dynamic range to "enhance" the sound of detonations is just awfully childish. If you are watching a movie just because the detonations are loud in it, I would argue you are watching the wrong movie...
That seems to be more "they can get away with more at 24fps" and so using same techniques but just upping FPS results in more of it looking "fake" and I lot of "it doesn't look to movies I'm used to".
You'll understand right away
Also, I haven't been shopping for things like Blu-Ray players and Rokus/Fire TVs/other media boxes in a while, do things like that really do Bluetooth pairing?
I'm not sure if any of those do bluetooth pairing these days. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have said "most" sources will do the pairing themselves. Some will.
I'm probably going to buy one because the ethernet port in my TV recently failed and I had to switch it to WiFi. Streaming on the TV seems to be less reliable and an AppleTV would fix that as well.
This is due to the (misconfigured? buggy?) way that 5.1 surround audio sometimes gets mapped to 2-channel output. Dialogue in a film is usually carried on the centre channel, which in a proper cinema will be pretty powerful and loud set of speakers. Music and surround effects are carried on the other channels.
But for whatever reason, sometimes when down-mixing the centre channel comes through way too quiet and gets drowned out by the others. This seems to have gotten better in recent years (Apple TV, Netflix, etc are either good at down-mixing or the streams come with good 2-channel audio), but some TVs still make a mess of it.
> “We made carefully considered creative decisions,” Nolan explained. “There are particular moments in this film where I decided to use dialogue as a sound effect, so sometimes it’s mixed slightly underneath the other sound effects or in the other sound effects to emphasize how loud the surrounding noise is. It’s not that nobody has ever done these things before, but it’s a little unconventional for a Hollywood movie.”
After all, (Tenet aside) we don't experience these problems at actual cinemas, where the centre channel is a huge speaker stack behind the screen, and the surrounds are relatively small by comparison. But I agree that it's a common issue on on home setups.
Older movies made so many things so much better. Sound 'friendliness' is definitely one of them.
Meanwhile phones (and apple's VR thing) have massive pixel density, but PC displays are more like scaled down tvs than scaled up phones.
Things I care about:
- More HiDPI laptops that are not 16:9, preferably 15"-16".
- More 4K Monitors in the 22"-24" size range, preferably not 16:9.
Having more of those things would have a much bigger impact on my daily display usage than a 5K TV. Apparently, the market doesn't share my preferences in displays very much. We're finally getting 16:10 and 3:2 alternatives in the laptop space, after more than a decade of enduring 16:9, but other than that, almost everything 4K is 16:9 14" and 27"-32".
If you do code or anything that has text in it, the vertical space needed is infinite.
And even if you edit 16:9 video content, you need extra space for your controls.
Incidentally, on a 16:10 monitor you can have a 16:9 movie or game take up the whole upper part of the screen and still have your dock or task bar visible.
And with window title bars, tabs, url bars, bookmarks, headings and sub headings the first jira issue appears more than halfway down the screen
The top feels too high for me then. Most ergonomic advice says your eyesight should see the top of the monitor horizontally doesn't it?
Also you will run into some web interface that was designed with landscape in mind sooner or later.
I have a friend who keeps two 16:9 monitors, one landscape and one portrait. That may work.
> That said, widescreen is quite useful for two 8:9 windows side by side, which works less well on more square ratios.
Matter of taste. I prefer multiple smaller monitors so i can keep a full monitor in my field of view. What you describe requires a monitor so large that you can't look at it entirely from programming distance.
It’s fun when websites assume I’m using a mobile because I’m on a rotated 1200x1920 display.
I think this is mostly due to software support, e.g. for ultrawides (21:9) you often can have it pretend to be two or three separate monitors. At that point the only difference between multiple smaller monitors and one wide one is whether you have bezels.
That said, in my opinion the problem is not the aspect ratio but the number of pixels. For example, I could take my 2560x1440 (16:9) display and put a black bar on the right to make it 1920x1440. That would be a "better" ratio, but having the extra horizontal pixels does not hurt (e.g. for a dock). The problem is that Xx1080 is just not enough vertical pixels, period. No matter whether it is 1920x1080 or 1080x1080.
There are no 4k 16:10 monitors that I know of - one day I'll have to make the jump.
I haven't tried either of them, but there are (expensive) options.
And at a quick glance the Huawei Mateview has too many "features" to call it a monitor as well.
The real limiting factor is display size at the current densities. I can always use more real estate. A 49" super ultra wide is still fairly expensive (but getting cheaper quite quickly) even at not 4k densities.
Even with phones, Apple pretty much nailed it with the Retina display. The only thing I notice with newer displays is that the colours are better. In terms of smoothness, I can't tell the difference.
For content viewing, 4K is probably the upper limit of what you want, and if you game there probably isn't much benefit for going above 1440p.
Surprise
My DSLR takes pictures bigger than 4k for a few years already. Guess what? You can see a difference between the 4k 27" and a retina display.
And no for this use case you don't need a magic GPU.
And yes I also see a.difference in resolution on my 4k OLED between 4k and 1440p.
What does this mean? The "retina" resolutions are all over the place and depend on the device size and type. Also they seem to always be somewhere in the middle of pc options, e.g. for the macbook air 13 you have 1920x1200 (average pc) < 2560x1664 (air or expensive pc) < 3840x2400 (overkill pc). For your example at 27" that seems to be 4k (average pc) < 5k (studio display) < 6k (dell etc.) < 8k (overkill).
For me retina means my Mac book pro 14" which should be 3k x 2k.
Side rant: Yeah, apple makes great stuff, but the naming is obnoxious. It is not "hidpi" it is "retina", not "high refresh rate" but "promotion" and then you have to look through the marketing material to figure out how '14" retina' compares to a normal UHD+ display.
My canon 80d has a resolution of 6k x 4k.
I also can perceive the sharpness of text.
I don't mind to not run 8k IF driving the display pixels consumes too much energy. The argument of Performance though should not really exist. It's much more pixels true but there are plenty of technics to separate this technically.
Even on gaming they have adaptive rendering but the display resolution itself stays the same.
The GPU bit was purely about games and how many pixels you are pushing in games vs cost for a minimum quality and performance level. For content consumption or creation use it isn't a problem.
That said I wouldn't see a huge amount of point in going far _beyond_ 5K at that screen size, and 27" is about as big as I want to go for a screen, so for my purposes we've hit the limits (albeit only expensively).
Maybe this is so for desktop size screens, but for larger things, the big advance in the last 18 months is real 8K 60Hz displays at 65 to 80 inch diagonal size going from "absurdly incredibly expensive" to being priced similar to where 4K displays were when they were introduced. 8K displays are absolutely viable now.
There is obviously a lack of real high bitrate 8K content unless you're shooting it yourself.
Anyway, the next frontier is (has been?) VR, which needs / needed high DPI but small screens.
We really should have taken the middle ground between 8K and 4K and settle on 6K. Instead we now have 4K that is good enough but not the best for most people.
EU has new energy efficiency requirement which basically means 8K in EU market wont happen unless there are substantial improvement in technology. 8K has more exposure in Japan mainly because they were the first proponent of the technology.
I much rather we settle on 6K and HDR10, and leaves room for 60Hz or 120Hz for different types of video which requires those framerate.
There's also nothing physically stopping engineers from designing more efficient 8K displays that are sub 90W (in fairness they generally are more than double that atm, though)
I'm working on a 27" 2560x1440 screen. I can see pixels, but that really doesn't matter. Text is readable, nothing is blurry, I can do my work and get on with my day. Screens are good enough, they work, and there is not much to gain by having higher resolutions.
I would more than welcome higher density and crispier text any time. I'm on 24" 1080p and unhappy of that.
I'm gonna buy a widescreen 34" at much higher pixel density soon.
The reason the pixel density stagnated in TVs is because it's simply useless to go beyond 4k.
That's a lot data, for which content needs to be continuously rendered, read from VRAM and sent over a link during scanout and finally processed by a fast enough display controller to update the pixels. High-end systems can do this, but for the resolutions to become the norm you need to be able to do this from a low-power media boxes and entry-level laptops. Only then will such displays become the norm and prices go down.
Take an Xbox series X pulling some 200 watts as example - it can technically drive 4k@120, but most content won't render at that speed or resolution.
Now look a power budget of 20W for a laptop, or singular watt for a phone.
And that's at 4k. This thread is about higher resolutions. To give the same meh performance at 6k, the phone would have to be more than 2x as fast in every metric. At 8k, more than 4x as fast. All while staying within the same power envelope.
That's a lot to ask for in a generational bump.
If I had a pet owl, they’d probably be the only ones in the house to be able to tell content apart by resolution.
Even for my 27” desk monitors, it’s almost pointless to go beyond 5K.
The steam hardware survey says most gamers (a market infamous for their tech) still use 1080p displays. The latest survey puts 64% of gamers at 1080p.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/?sort=c...
As a PC gamer, you take your GPU into account when choosing a monitor. Doesn't help to buy a huge screen, even if it‘s relatively cheap, when you can't afford the high-end GPU you need to drive those pixels.
The TV buyer doesn't face this problem at all. Usually no signal source is connected to the (smart) TV anyway, and the internal streaming apps have no problem to play 4k content, as long as the subscription allows it.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247334/4k-ultra-hdtv-us...
That's an order of magnitude increase over current displays today.
https://wccftech.com/apple-vision-pro-retail-units-have-lowe...
Oculus Quest 2 has about 800 PPI at roughly 1/12th the price.
* better linearity
* smaller size (that is, the light comes from a tiny pinpoint in the middle of the pixel rather than a whole rectangle being lit up). This actually helps make the display look a lot sharper.
Edit: By small pixels I mean a low pixel aspect ratio(area of lit pixel vs total area per pixel). If you consider this as a DSP problem(instead of a time series problem, a brightness value over distance or angle), there's effectively no reconstruction low pass filter. You can think of small lit pixel area with larger distance between like zero padding. This can make some things appear sharper, but by doing so it'll appear less like the image source wants it to.
And it doesn't mean the bright part of a pixel should be as small as possible, no, it should be tuned for bandwidth.
Even eye receptors (cones) approximate sinc() in the same fashion.
It's really not something I'd be concerned about.
There's also the first revision PlayStation Vita that had an OLED screen and is a similar age. I have heard of yellowing on some models, unsure how prevalent burn-in is. Of people I know with a Vita or several, most got a second gen only, or switched to a second gen and so the old one didn't get used as much.
Much less old, there's the Switch OLED, and WULFF DEN on YouTube has one he's leaving constantly turned on to see what happens to the screen. I think we're 1.5 years in or so and he's done a handful of videos showing what it looks like now.
It's absolutely bizarre how luddite HNers can be when it comes to keeping even remotely current on hardware.
Though my primary monitors are newer, I have monitors that are coming up on a decade old that get used as secondary monitors because I don’t need anything fancy for that use case… it just needs to be a functional screen. Some people have similarly undemanding needs for TVs.
Everything else is fine; it's got local dimming so the contrast is really good, and viewing distance is such that higher resolution would do nothing.
Response and refresh are essentially a non issue for movies -- it can handle 24Hz content just fine.
Why should I throw a perfectly good box full of hazardous waste in the trash?
I also want a 0-width bezel, so they can be tiled seamlessly. Why? I want an entire wall to be a display.
I want, I want, I want, ... :-)
and a pony.
I'd upgrade to a 4K TV if I had a viewer for it.
I'd pony(!) up $200 for an app that did that. I don't know if other people would, but I would.
I find it strange that Roku comes with an app to play movie files, display jpgs, play song files, but it won't display a pdf. I've searched Roku for such an app, and googled for it, but came up empty.
Of course this doesn't solve the problem of reading them in bed! Or would it?
At least in the LazyBoy you could have a portrait mode monitor on an Ergotron arm and that would work pretty nicely?
I wrote about this in more detail here:
There's probably something similar for Android TV.
Roku doesn't really have a third party app ecosystem
1: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pdfontv/id1071669734 , https://apps.apple.com/us/app/easy-pdf-reader-for-all-cloud/... , https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pdf-viewer-for-tv/id1661646958
There seem to be a lot of 3rd party apps for it! I even have the SDK for it.
Lots of people have Rokus but not very many people are developing for them.
Maybe it doesn't matter much for the files you'd be viewing, but if roku could display PDF files they'd be doing the same thing there as well. Sadly, the more things roku can display for you, the more parts of your life they can siphon and use to stuff your dossier.
1. it only works after dark
2. fan noise
3. I have to constantly fiddle with the focus to get it crisp across the screen
4. you cannot have anything in the room in front of it
5. running wires to the ceiling mount is ugly
6. you gotta point the remote behind you, not at the screen (I know, I'm such a whiner)
I'm using projector screen cloth. It doesn't get much better than that.
I've never seen anything that came close to an active display.
3) the awesome newly affordable technology is lasers - because of physics, there's no longer focusing to do.
5) Running wires to a TV is ugly too, unless you run conduit. Bugs the hell out of me to have dangling cords
6) I've always wondered about this. The remote should have the IR LEDs pointed backwards, like a V shape because it just makes more sense.
I'll add a 7. The blank space on your wall when not in use.
Either you have a screen that comes from somewhere, or the wall just has an empty space, but, quite obviously, the space the projector projects on needs to be free of stuff. I can't hang any art there, so there's glaringly empty space, at which point I might as well put a TV there. And the art frame tvs, like the LG LS03B is actually really quite nice.
It's amazing how much sunlight gets past the smallest gap.
> the awesome newly affordable technology is lasers - because of physics, there's no longer focusing to do.
Huh, I didn't know laser projectors were available now.
I’m planning to paid it with an Apple TV. https://www.projectorcentral.com/ProjectorCentral-names-2023...
While true, my purchase from blinds.com included a L shaped piece of plastic to block out the gap between the wall and the blind so it's dark enough to use my projector during the day.
If their resolution is good enough for reading I could see using it.
Wouldn't it be cool to have "wallpaper" that is whatever you want it to be? Like the view from Mt Everest? or the Amazon jungle?
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-surface-pixelsense-...
For TVs, OLEDs are fantastic. But for now I feel they're too limited for desktops.
Still, it's an exciting time for display technology. So many advancements made in the last 10 years.
If I have to micro-manage or change my usage of the computer at all to accommodate the display, the technology isn't there yet imo.
Luckily Apple still sells the iPhone SE with LCD. I really don’t know what I will do once LCDs are gone.
Perhaps a simpler explanation is just contrast? Both OLEDs and CRTs can produce much higher contrast than LCDs.
Maybe in Europe? But 100Hz is a terrible thing to do with 60Hz signals. Possibly US bound HD CRT TVs did 120Hz? But I don't recall hearing about those ever.
I love my LG OLED TV, with a full matrix (RGBW at every pixel). Phones, using something like PenTile, usually have half the number of red and blue subpixels, and in funny arrangements at that. Phone OLED displays make my eyes hurt, especially when anything is scrolling.
Samsung especially likes to mess with this, these days they are using triangular pixels for some reason.
Also badly driven LCD backlights can flicker badly too.
24-bit color is pretty good, mind you, yet there are everyday cases where we would appreciate the ability to view a more nuanced transition between adjacent colors on certain images and videos.
Moreover, this content often comes with dynamic tone mapping to allow access to many more colors in a movie, whilst remaining limited to 30-bit color per frame (or usually, per scene)
Dolby Vision has 12bit colour channels, but it's reportedly not such great a leap as going from 8bit to HDR.
iPhones(12 onward) apparently support this standard, so anyone with such a device can see for themselves.
I have been using only such monitors for more than a decade (e.g. I am still using a pair of relatively cheap Dell U2720Q; now there are newer, better models).
However most monitors by default display only 24-bit sRGB colors. Many users never change the default settings, so they never see the full color range of those monitors.
An annoying fact is that there are many programs, even expensive professional programs, which come with installers written in Java, and those installers crash whenever they see a 30-bit monitor, regardless of the operating system.
As a workaround, it is usually enough to temporarily change the monitor colors to 24-bit during installation, as the actual programs do not care about the color resolution, so they work after installation.
Color spaces larger than DCI P3 (e.g. that of Rec. 2020) can currently be displayed only by laser projectors.
Is it mostly an entertainment thing or do you actually do work with it?
Hows the pixel density? Does a virtual monitor look as good as a real 2k screen?
Both. I just got a steam deck and my current plan is to sell my MacBook and just use Steam Deck and some AR glasses as my set up for everything. I can use the desktop mode of Steam Deck along with Distrobox and Podman for dev work and then I can play games, watch Netflix etc using the game mode. The other alternative I was thinking of was getting a Samsung Galaxy and using Dex with some glasses and then using a linux cloud machine for maximum portability but I'm leaning more towards the Steam Deck at the minute because it's a lot of fun and being able to play/code locally regardless of internet signal is a major plus.
> Hows the pixel density? Does a virtual monitor look as good as a real 2k screen?
It's only 1080p so if you're used to a MacBook screen or a 4k monitor it's not going to be anywhere near as clear. That being said, the ergonomics are sooooo much better that, in my opinion, it is worth the screen clarity sacrifice. No matter what monitor set up I had going on, (chair, monitor height, position etc) I would always end up hunching. With the glasses you get none of that. You can fix the screen in the air if you use the Nebula app but I prefer to just have it move with me (which is the default) so you literally have zero shoulder/back pain throughout the day as the screen just moves with you. As for the lack of clarity, I just stick the zoom level to 110% and everything is fine.
The Xreal does have a few other flaws:
- brightness levels are pretty low, so daytime use can sometimes be a pain. you'll definitely want to use light mode during the day and then will probably switch to dark mode at night.
- there's a faint halo ring on the periphery. doesn't interfere with the screen at all and I can ignore it but it's still annoying when you notice it.
- You can get a painful pinching on the sides of your head when you wear it for a while. Oddly, you can completely eliminate this by wearing a thin polyester running headband underneath. Why this works I don't know, we're literally talking a very thin bit of material here and it completely stops it, it's very odd.
- They don't have an accessory available that allows you to charge your device and use the glasses at the same time, you have to purchase either the Nubia Red Magic Gaming Dock or the Viture dock.
Like I said, I am willing to put up with all of these issues because the hunching has got to the point where I think I'm getting the beginnings of kyphosis and I'm going to have to do some work in the gym correcting it.
Personally, I think I'm going to be selling the XReal and purchasing a competitor, the Viture glasses, as they look to be a superior product. Reviews I've seen say they eliminate all the above pain points (far higher brightness, no halo, no pinching, accessory available for passthrough device charging - I've actually already bought this and it works a dream with the Xreal) as well as offering diopter adjustment and the really cool ability to just magnetically snap prescription lenses on to them rather than having to faff about like you do with the Xreal. I don't need these yet but could see it happening in the future as I get older so would be nice to have the easier option if need be. They just seem to have thought about the whole setup a bit better than Xreal have including a cool Android neckband accessory, magnetic power cable etc. There's also Rokid, but the styling puts me off. Links to all here so you can do your own comparison:
It's a really exciting time at the minute, I don't think it'll be long until we get someone releasing 4k glasses in this space at which point they will be the clearly superior option to monitors.
Update: https://www.techradar.com/opinion/come-in-regular-oled-tvs-y...
The Phoebus cartel deliberately made a then current and unlikely to be replaced anytime soon technology deliberately worse. I can’t see any commonality at all.