Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3' - Page 2

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.

Originally Posted by shompa

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jragosta

That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I see you accepted my advice to make more liberal use of ad-homs. Well -done!

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

So no word on color quality or viewing angle?

Originally Posted by jragosta


Actually, it's not.

"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.

"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.

Originally Posted by melgross

There is enough technical info available, but most required a sub to the scientific publication.

This one is free, and isn't too technical, as the math is at a low college level. Other than that, it can be easily seen that IGZO has a better color response, which is very important.

So, thinner, brighter, less power, and better color.

http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I don't see evidence of "better color", neither subjective, measurable or more accurate in your link. In fact the study conclusions don't mention thickness or color at all. I do recall from other supposedly reliable mentions that thickness is a consideration, but it wasn't the display itself that was thinner. On the contrary, some current screens are significantly thinner. Instead, because there's fewer transistors in a 300+ppi IGZO-layered display compared to a traditional TFT-LCD screen of the same resolution, it means reduced power draw as well as a brighter display without those transistors in the way. At least that's the way I read it.

A by-product of the improved brightness is that Apple could avoid needing a second backlight source for a hi-res display in the iPad 3, allowing the iPad itself to be thinner than it otherwise would need to be to accommodate the extra hardware.

So Mel, if I'm correct ( I believe I am) it's not the display itself that would be thinner. It's the brighter light transmission characteristics of an IGZO-type display that requires less backlighting, and reduces both power needs and hardware needs while achieving good display qualities.

By the way, the same IGZO technology can be used in both OLED and LCD screen applications according to what I've found. Apple would be unlikely to use the OLED display simply due to current cost differences, making LCD their rumored choice.

In any case tho, thanks for taking the time to try and find an appropriate and understandable link Mel. Unfortunately that one will still be beyond most members here I suspect. I hope I've at least given an accurate poor layman's explanation.

Originally Posted by melgross

Look at the chart. It's very easy to understand if you know something of how color works. The way you see it isn't totally correct. I don't think you actually read the report. If you did, you would understand why it was better. The report very clearly shows that this has better transmission qualities across the visible light spectrum.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Like you once did, I work with color and accurate reproduction of it every day as I've mentioned to you before.

I'm sure you know better, but just to make sure:
Better color transmission properties ((by the way, your article indicated some potential concerns in the red channel, so there's some inconsistency considering the entire visible spectrum) does not necessarily guarantee better subjective color quality/accuracy.

Honestly I more expected a thank you for attempting a plain-English explanation where no one else did rather than your condescending "it's easy to understand if you know something about color", implying I don't and that you were completely right about everything you claimed after-all. Adding that I probably didn't even read the report was just another attempt to project superiority I suppose. FWIW, I read and even understood the basics of much of it, in spite of not being quite as smart as you. I even thanked you for the find.

Originally Posted by melgross

There doesn't appear to be a problem with red. It's better than the result with usual filtering.

Condescending? Maybe, though I didn't mean it that way. But the charts are so simple to understand with even just a quick reading of the respective text, that I can't see how it could be missed unless someone can't read the charts, or understand the charts, or what they mean.

The claims are in the report, though couched in the language of the researcher, rather than expressed in the way a popular writer would express it in some declaratory article. There are other articles that I can't link to because they require membership, that go further into the technical aspect. But some people don't want that anyway, they just want to be told the basic results.

And I suspect that we may be the only ones reading this thread right now.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I just think we should be careful in making claims about the benefits of InGaZnO (IGZO) that go beyond even what Sharp extolls in their PR releases.

The major benefit I find stated with some authority in study papers is better light transmission due to reduced transistor sizes/counts allowing more light to pass. That produces reduced backlighting, hardware, and power requirements, increased brightness, potentially reduced production costs at some future point and possibly improved black levels with that reduced backlighting.

Personally I think we should leave it at that as there's no validated citations for a wider viewing angle than IPS displays currently offer, or better overall color reproduction than current LCD or (S)AMOLED displays (unless you can provide them. I can't). Claiming those benefits without some proof is potentially misleading readers into expecting something other than what's promised by the technology. We need to be careful when tossing "facts" around.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.

Originally Posted by shompa

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.