3D LED backlit monitor
- Thread starter graycbr
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,072
- Location
- North Shields
No idea. Personally I prefer a monitor that includes IPS technologys as you generally get a far superior picture.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Cheshire
Hi there,
If you are mainly using the monitor for photo editing, then please bear in mind that the vast majority of PC 3D monitors use TN panels to achieve the 120Hz refresh rate - which in turn allows 3D to be displayed (at 60Hz per eye).
For photo editing you should really aim for an IPS or VA panel type monitor - as these offer much more accurate colours and wide viewing angles (the colours don't shift if you move your head slightly off-centre). Unfortunately, with current technology there are no commercially available IPS 3D monitors in the UK and the only ones which have been announced, use the passive 3D technology - which only gives you half the vertical resolution (per eye) - compared to active shutter 3D where each eye receives a full resolution image.
Therefore I would personally suggest going for an IPS monitor like the Dell U2312HM, Dell U2412M or Hazro HZ27WC depending on your budget - as these offer excellent colour accuracy and image quality (so great for photoshop) but also rather responsive - so they do well with games and video. If you really have your heart set on 3D then I would suggest perhaps investing in a 120Hz monitor alongside an IPS panel monitor - so one is for work and one for play. However, if you really just want a 3D monitor as your primary (with all that TN panels entail) then I would be happy to recommend you one, though I would need to ask what graphics card you currently have (since monitor choice depends on whether the graphics card is AMD or Nvdia, also you need a rather powerful card to run games in 3D well - since you need to render each frame twice)?
As for LED backlighting, due to the way it is implemented on consumer PC monitors (edge lit LED backlit) there really isn't any image quality benefit going for LED vs CCFL backlighting. The real benefits come from reduced power usage, faster turn-on and thinner profiles. Therefore, I wouldn't restrict your choices for a monitor to just LED ones - go for the best looking one (LCD or LED) which fits your needs.
If you are mainly using the monitor for photo editing, then please bear in mind that the vast majority of PC 3D monitors use TN panels to achieve the 120Hz refresh rate - which in turn allows 3D to be displayed (at 60Hz per eye).
For photo editing you should really aim for an IPS or VA panel type monitor - as these offer much more accurate colours and wide viewing angles (the colours don't shift if you move your head slightly off-centre). Unfortunately, with current technology there are no commercially available IPS 3D monitors in the UK and the only ones which have been announced, use the passive 3D technology - which only gives you half the vertical resolution (per eye) - compared to active shutter 3D where each eye receives a full resolution image.
Therefore I would personally suggest going for an IPS monitor like the Dell U2312HM, Dell U2412M or Hazro HZ27WC depending on your budget - as these offer excellent colour accuracy and image quality (so great for photoshop) but also rather responsive - so they do well with games and video. If you really have your heart set on 3D then I would suggest perhaps investing in a 120Hz monitor alongside an IPS panel monitor - so one is for work and one for play. However, if you really just want a 3D monitor as your primary (with all that TN panels entail) then I would be happy to recommend you one, though I would need to ask what graphics card you currently have (since monitor choice depends on whether the graphics card is AMD or Nvdia, also you need a rather powerful card to run games in 3D well - since you need to render each frame twice)?
As for LED backlighting, due to the way it is implemented on consumer PC monitors (edge lit LED backlit) there really isn't any image quality benefit going for LED vs CCFL backlighting. The real benefits come from reduced power usage, faster turn-on and thinner profiles. Therefore, I wouldn't restrict your choices for a monitor to just LED ones - go for the best looking one (LCD or LED) which fits your needs.
I don't really have much to add after that excellent post by cmndr_andi. He has covered all of the key points very well. For accurate and consistent colour reproduction it is really the IPS panel monitors in particular that you are wanting to go for. Depending on the nature of the photography and 'level', if you will (i.e. hobbyist vs. professional) you may find a 24" VA panel satisfactory. In particular if you are doing any 'close up' work with gradients VA panels can really offer some benefits. I would tend not to use TN panel monitors for this kind of thing really although it does depend on the nature of the editing. There are some 120Hz VA panel monitors hopefully on the way for 2012 which should provide a 'proper' 3D experience and will give you the colour reproduction benefits you crave. Another thing I quite like about the current VA panel monitors is that the screen surface is relatively smooth compared to non-glossy IPS panel and TN panel monitors. This enhances the clarity of the image and makes the most out of the excellent contrast of the modern VA panel. So it may be worth waiting and if this is not possible buying multiple monitors may be on the cards. As I said you may be able to get away with TN panel monitors but do be aware of the limitations.
PCM2 you might want to change your signature. QLED is the future 
. I would recommend a top spec Hazro monitor, superb picture quality, response times etc. Blows my old BenQ out the water and I thought the quality on that was immense when I had it.
. I would recommend a top spec Hazro monitor, superb picture quality, response times etc. Blows my old BenQ out the water and I thought the quality on that was immense when I had it.PCM2 you might want to change your signature. QLED is the future
Certainly a very important field but thus far is less advanced than OLED. I don't see why these two technologies can't coexist side-by-side much as different panel technologies do. Perhaps a better example is PDP coexisting with LCD. So far the largest QLED display I'm aware of being anywhere near commercial viability is 4 inches. OLED is closer to 50 inches but I must stress there is some way to go for both of these technologies. I certainly don't think LG, Sony and Samsung are wasting their time investing billions of dollars and many man (and woman) hours building up their OLED production infrastructure for nothing.
In short - no need to change the signature.
QLED TV's will be ready for late next year apparently and without doubt will obliterate picture quality of OLED. They've been working on it since 2000. They wouldn't waste there time and the big names have already bought the lease for it from the UK team who designed it. OLED might be the thing now but QLED will without doubt be the clear winner when released commercially.
Technically 'they' have been working on OLED technology since about the 1950s. And why do you think LG and Samsung are spending billions of dollars on new 5.5 Gen+ factories and fabrication methods for OLED panels and haven't thrown in the towel yet? I am fully aware that LG in particular are extremely interested in QLED technology and are also spending a lot of time and money investing and forming partnerships for this. I'm not sure where you have heard this rumour regarding a QLED TV, though, and also why you think that it will 'obliterate the image quality of OLED'. Both technologies are absolutely yet to prove themselves and at the moment OLED is looking the more developed technology. There's only so much you can actually improve over the image an OLED screen will produce - I have actually used these myself and and also follow this technology very closely.
Time will tell but I would put big money on the fact QLED will be significantly better not just for image quality but for cost, power usage and colours will look vastly better.
Pure Color – Today’s printable saturated QLEDs essentially match or exceed NSTC color standards for displays without the need for color filters (see figure below). The excellent color performance of QLEDs ultimately translates into a 30-40% luminance efficiency advantage over organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) at the same color point. Current OLED displays require lossy color filtering to achieve a similar color performance.
Low Power Consumption – The luminous power efficiency of any LED is inversely proportional to its operating voltage. QD Vision’s recent advancements in materials and device structures have led to very low operating voltage QLEDs, exhibiting turn-on voltages at the bandgap voltage of the material. Based on our measurement and analysis, when the exceptional color purity and low voltage operation of QLEDs are factored into the overall display power efficiency, QLEDs have the potential to be more than twice as power efficient as OLEDs at the same color purity.
Low-cost Manufacture – QD Vision is developing quantum dot printing techniques with high material utilization to realize low-cost, full-color active-matrix displays and lighting devices. The ability to print QD emitters using a simple QLED device structure, without the need for color filters or a backlight, greatly simplifies the bill of materials for a QLED display. By not requiring glass or additional optics in future solid-state lighting devices, the ability to print large-area QLEDs on ultra-thin flexible substrates will reduce luminaire manufacturing cost.
Ulra-thin, Transparent, Flexible Form Factors – Today’s LCD displays and LED chips are fabricated on glass and crystalline substrates making them inherently expensive and fragile for mobile and large area applications.QLEDs are only a couple hundred nanometers thick making them virtually transparent and flexible, and highly suitable for integration onto plastic or metal foil substrates as well as other surfaces. These attributes will enable product designers to develop new display and lighting forms not possible with existing technologies.
Pure Color – Today’s printable saturated QLEDs essentially match or exceed NSTC color standards for displays without the need for color filters (see figure below). The excellent color performance of QLEDs ultimately translates into a 30-40% luminance efficiency advantage over organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) at the same color point. Current OLED displays require lossy color filtering to achieve a similar color performance.
Low Power Consumption – The luminous power efficiency of any LED is inversely proportional to its operating voltage. QD Vision’s recent advancements in materials and device structures have led to very low operating voltage QLEDs, exhibiting turn-on voltages at the bandgap voltage of the material. Based on our measurement and analysis, when the exceptional color purity and low voltage operation of QLEDs are factored into the overall display power efficiency, QLEDs have the potential to be more than twice as power efficient as OLEDs at the same color purity.
Low-cost Manufacture – QD Vision is developing quantum dot printing techniques with high material utilization to realize low-cost, full-color active-matrix displays and lighting devices. The ability to print QD emitters using a simple QLED device structure, without the need for color filters or a backlight, greatly simplifies the bill of materials for a QLED display. By not requiring glass or additional optics in future solid-state lighting devices, the ability to print large-area QLEDs on ultra-thin flexible substrates will reduce luminaire manufacturing cost.
Ulra-thin, Transparent, Flexible Form Factors – Today’s LCD displays and LED chips are fabricated on glass and crystalline substrates making them inherently expensive and fragile for mobile and large area applications.QLEDs are only a couple hundred nanometers thick making them virtually transparent and flexible, and highly suitable for integration onto plastic or metal foil substrates as well as other surfaces. These attributes will enable product designers to develop new display and lighting forms not possible with existing technologies.
I think you've read too much into the hype and haven't done any proper background research. That is from the QD Vision website - obvious biases there. OLEDs are also very capable of producing the 'pure colour' which is referred to above. Note that it is drawing the comparison in this field with backlit technologies such as LCD which use colour filters. OLED, like QLED, does no such thing. The efficiency claims are also based on much older interations of OLED which is improving with much greater pace with recent research from the likes of DuPont. And this still hasn't pointed me or anywhere else to this mythical QLED TV .
I'm not trying to take anything away from QLED technology but I think your scope is a bit narrow on this one. I have no doubt that if QLED can become a commercial viability it can only mean great things for PC monitors and consumers. The same is true for OLED which is less theory and more action at the moment.
P.S. Google QLED monitor. Guess who wrote the first result that comes up?
.I'm not trying to take anything away from QLED technology but I think your scope is a bit narrow on this one. I have no doubt that if QLED can become a commercial viability it can only mean great things for PC monitors and consumers. The same is true for OLED which is less theory and more action at the moment.
P.S. Google QLED monitor. Guess who wrote the first result that comes up?
I just cant see how OLED is the future when it clearly isn't. I have viewed OLED displays and have seen picture quality just as good on IPS panels. OLED is over-hyped and very expensive. Even if QLED is 3/4 of what it is in theory it will be the better technology.
It is palpable from the above that there are some fundamental gaps in your understanding of OLED and QLED technology. If you understood how they work to produce light and how they would create an image on a screen you would see that the end result is essentially very similar. And you talk about 'over hyping' things whilst basing the entire premise of your posts here on something that thus far is nothing but hype. I have no doubt that if you had actually had a proper go with OLED displays of a decent size the differences and advantages over an LCD display would become palpable. If you don't believe these differences exist then your whole argument for QLED offering what are essentially the same advantages over LCDs falls apart. Even people who have seen a tiny and inefficient OLED smartphone display (even one using the limited Pentile matrix) would see that there are overwhelming differences in contrast and black depth compared to any LCD - especially IPS. Obviously this is no way to judge a technology once it's scaled up and has the added flexibility of some proper driving electronics.
Last edited:
I have had a decent try of an OLED, I used my friends for a few hours. Yeah the picture was superb but far from blown away by it. OLED AND Quantum Dots are completely different so I cant fathom how you say they are similar. Anyway we wont know till a year or two anyway. Show me a OLED display that is flexible and then I'll believe you on how they use similar technology.
Flexibility was one of the main original advantages touted for OLED displays and is still a source of great potential (google flexible OLED for example). And don't give the whole "show me this" and "show me that" when you are talking about QLED displays which haven't been demonstrated in any meaningful capacity at all yet. You're quite right, things will become clearer in time - and my signature was indeed devised before QD Vision began their ramp-up of publications. I can't really say anything more without being patronising, but I will let others contribute to this now derailed thread if they feel the need. If you can't see how OLED and QLED displays are very similar in their operating principle and advantages over LCD displays then you are a bit out of your depth and shouldn't be dismissing OLED technology whilst promoting QLED.
Last edited: