tunejunky:

back on topic... as discussed Samsung's "OLED" is not equal to LG's OLED, it's a work-around at a lower cost of manufacture. technically, i find it very interesting and a "tip-of-the-hat" to the Sammy engineer who first brought this up. i'm very curious about what the energy level in the QDs is before the excitation state and whether or not that it's fully beyond perception because i'm uncertain whether or not things i've seen are artefacts or not. also way-to-go Samsung for rescuing your orphan child of OLED technology (of course, after none of the metaphorical spaghetti on the wall has stuck otherwise). it isn't to the full spectrum standard of LG OLED, but if the QDs work well enough to lure Sony (currently using LG OLED) i'll look at it. it could also be equally true that this is for a lower price point than the Sony LG panel with greater margin

user1:

qd-oled looks to be a straight forward improvement, the quantum dots are applied as a filter layer, this could be used to reduce or eliminate the reliance on certain oled compounds that may be more unstable, improving the lifespan of such displays at least in theory, could also be used to improve the color gamut of such displays too though I doubt there would be much point. Im pretty sure samsung didn't invest as much into oled, mainly because its basically a dead end technology, the brighter you make them , the shorter they last, and burn-in will pretty much never be solvable completely for a reasonable cost anyway. samsung put more money on the quantum dot stuff from the beginning.

tunejunky:

so many errors... Samsung invested way more in OLED than qd, FACT. OLED is NOT a "dead end" AND they do not need to be as "bright" because they have black. "brightness" is a false value driven by false contrast ratios that never started with black. all filter layers have their own effect, which affects the end result (especially that "brightness" you crave) and may introduce their own artefacts. Color Gamuts are intrinsically superior in (LG's) OLED, because they have black AND because the (LG) panels are full spectrum panels. All TV's die at some point and as an owner of a pixel perfect 10 y/o OLED (without "burn-in") i can say if and when my set dies it will have lead a long and productive life - AND it's lasted longer than my old Sony XBR (HD crt) from the nineties.

kapu:

Sadly we don't have oled monitors . That g7 was closest best i could get Oled tv are of course top. But i seen hdr on them, looked unrealistic to me. Especially in dark room was crazy bright. Without hdr was realistic enough...

user1:

samsung has put more money into qd than oled IMO (strictly for research anyway), its hard to quantify because you can't really separate it from their other r&d since its mixed with lcd and oled , but is clear they have a heavy bias toward quantum dot https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/blog/qled-vs-oled-tv-display-technology , samsung doesn't even sell oled tvs , they pretty much only use oled for phones/tablets , qd filter layers aren't to be confused with other types of filters, its more similar to a phosphor coating in its function(charging then re-emitting), I don't think that oled is a "bad" technology , but it does have short comings, some applications it is ill suited for, things like 24/7 operation. displays aren't just for tvs that are on for ~4-6 hours a day, burn-in can be mitigated , but it doesn't change the fact that other display technologies like lcd, essentially do not suffer from that problem at all. its mainly the blue diodes that are the problem, they just kinda suck(bad efficiency,short lifespan ect). when I say "dead-end" That is assuming self-emissive quantum dot makes it to market on schedule at the predicted cost ( and people actually buy them ), oled would be gone with-in 10-15 years, since hypothetically it offers no advantages over qned/qled , it won't even be cheaper to make.

tunejunky:

Samsung invested in OLED technology at the same time with the same resources as LG. they've spent years and well over $100m (just for the fab) long before the idea of quantum dots. Samsung is a company whose scale goes beyond what we're used to in the west (or east) as they would be considered a monopoly in the US or EU with their vertical integration. they have a world class research park as does LG. i'm not slamming Samsung in any way. but their OLED process was fatally flawed and didn't and can't make a full spectrum OLED panel. enter the Quantum Dots... a very, very clever reimagining of the phosphors that used to line CRT monitors. i'm all for them at the lower price point of IPS where they're necessary to approach certain color gamuts. i'm very curious about the application on an OLED panel. but people have made faulty assumptions (not you in particular) that panel life and alleged "burn-in" would somehow be different when that's not the case. the semi-chromatic OLED of Samsung would be just as prone to those overstated issues and there would also be an issue of visual comfort as the higher frequencies (blues/violets/UV) are triggered by an overdriven panel just like CRTs which have a pronounced UV problem.

tunejunky:

Samsung invested in OLED technology at the same time with the same resources as LG. they've spent years and well over $100m (just for the fab) long before the idea of quantum dots. Samsung is a company whose scale goes beyond what we're used to in the west (or east) as they would be considered a monopoly in the US or EU with their vertical integration. they have a world class research park as does LG. i'm not slamming Samsung in any way. but their OLED process was fatally flawed and didn't and can't make a full spectrum OLED panel. enter the Quantum Dots... a very, very clever reimagining of the phosphors that used to line CRT monitors. i'm all for them at the lower price point of IPS where they're necessary to approach certain color gamuts. i'm very curious about the application on an OLED panel. but people have made faulty assumptions (not you in particular) that panel life and alleged "burn-in" would somehow be different when that's not the case. the semi-chromatic OLED of Samsung would be just as prone to those overstated issues and there would also be an issue of visual comfort as the higher frequencies (blues/violets/UV) are triggered by an overdriven panel just like CRTs which have a pronounced UV problem.

user1:

I still disagree about the amount of R&D, you can't use numbers for the production plants, because there are no strictly qned/qled facilities yet and only just in the last year or 2 have they made any investments into mass production, its just barely out of the research stage..

Loobyluggs:

Mildly agree. What R&D does one need for this tech? It doesn't appear any more complex than slapping two well known and researched pieces of tech together. OLED back-lighting, with an LCD layer, and a colour filter to spread the diffusion of light, making the viewing angles wide and the backlit emissive layer punchy and pixel-level. I think the research was shorter than is needed for a brand new piece of display tech.

user1:

while not quite as old as oled(~1960s), quantum dots(~1970-80s) require some pretty advanced chemistry, physics , and manufacturing techniques, if it was easy we would have seen it long ago, much like oled. both ideas/principles have been researched for 40+ years at this point, though im not sure they are directly comparable , since there are far more applications where quantum dots are useful beyond led use. edit as far as led use, I found this patent from samsung from 2004 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090039764A1/en so this has been in the works for quite some time. a samsung patent for an oled is a little earlier from 2001-2002 https://patents.google.com/patent/US6902834B2/en?assignee=OLED+samsung&page=1 while this isn't perfect, I think its fair to say that samsung has been researching qled/qned for a longer period of time without a return on its investment than oled, that much I can say with relative confidence.

Loobyluggs:

I think the best tech was Plasma for so long, but my god the manufacturing costs and large scale viability for that tech was just too much for the market to stomach. I still got my old Panny Plasma for like 12 years ago, still excellent, and the reason I mention Plasma is, I think it helped forward the current tech for OLED, LED, MiniLED, MicroLED, QD and now this mixup of tech. That might be stating the obvious; that Plasma was its own worst competition and priced itself out of the market years ago.

kapu:

Sadly we don't have oled monitors . That g7 was closest best i could get Oled tv are of course top. But i seen hdr on them, looked unrealistic to me. Especially in dark room was crazy bright. Without hdr was realistic enough...

user1:

I liked plasma too, however its biggest issue was pixel density, it just doesn't scale down well at all. I think it probably could've continued to compete at the high end if it didin't fall behind on that front, after all it did survive the onslaught of cheap lcds for about 10 years before they stopped making them,

tunejunky:

to User1: i can use numbers from production facilities because you are postulating a "chicken and egg" argument. OLED's didn't appear out of the head of Zeus. test fabs had to be built and at great expense (my greater than $100m). Samsung didn't have the insights that LG did re:OLED but that wasn't known at the time, what was known is the great promise for per pixel illumination at a high pitch (small diameter of pixel). my $100 million number is very conservative considering they were simultaneously working on large panels (easier) and phone/tablet screens (much harder). then there's the man-hours spent (wasted) trying to make their OLED full spectrum which was a period over a decade. reading white papers is all well and good, in fact i encourage it. but, as in life context is king.

kakiharaFRS:

a brighter oled ? 😱 you must be blind like Linus Tech Tips that so love garbage HDR to want that current oleds are already so bright that once I physically held my arm in front of my eyes as if trying to block the sun because of those stupid eye piercing ultra white completely irrealistic and vision destroying lights HDR movies have who wants that ? you must have some kind of Icarus complex to want or need more than a soccer field ligthing in your face on your tv and don't tell me you know better you really don't

HDR reminds me of video game "reshades" post-processed screen filters, they look brilliant in some scenes but awful in others, in the end it does remove the original vision of the movie most of the time rather than add something

Skylinestar:

Can they make something smaller to be used as a desktop monitor? My first OLED is the Sony HMZ-T2 headset that is released about a decade ago. Today, I'm still waiting for that perfect gaming monitor with deep blacks. No, I don't need more brightness. Any Dell Ultrasharp displays already blinded me with 75 contrast and 25 brightness setting. I don't need 4K either because I'm just aiming 120fps on 1440p.

kapu:

I tested HDR on my Samsung G7, and also some top tier TVs . I can honestly say : It's TRASH. It's unrealistic garbage that burns my eyes. On current OLEDs you have to drop brightness to like 40% to even watch in dark room without your eyes bleeding out.