Your hand wringing over "but but but no backlight" also holds true for e-ink displays like the Pebble Watch and the Amazon Kindle readers, except that Amazon has already solved that with an excellent front-light built in to the Kindle Paperwhite. "I try to remain hopeful" is just an expression of concern trolling.
I wouldn't call the front-light on the Paperwhite "excellent". "Pretty good", "functional", but not "excellent". Mine shows some serious inconsistencies.
Edge lighting doesn't work very good for reflective surfaces. I'm not sure what brought on the ignorant response above but a little exposure to the devices out to highlight the problems with using them in the dark.
So if the devices can't be back lite and reflect incoming light, how do we see the screen in the dark? Adding illumination to the front would seem to add a lot of thickness.
In in any event I try to remain hopeful. Currently OLED tech just isn't good enough things the reliance on LCD, this might be an alternative.
OLED is already superior than LCDs in more ways than it is lacking.
Baloney! OLED displays have all sorts of problems. The most serious of which is that they are only low power when you aren't using the entire display. As can be seen on Apple Watch, low power usage comes from keeping as many pixels as possible dark. That is just one issue with OLED.
So if the devices can't be back lite and reflect incoming light, how do we see the screen in the dark? Adding illumination to the front would seem to add a lot of thickness.
In in any event I try to remain hopeful. Currently OLED tech just isn't good enough things the reliance on LCD, this might be an alternative.
OLED is already superior than LCDs in more ways than it is lacking.
Baloney! OLED displays have all sorts of problems. The most serious of which is that they are only low power when you aren't using the entire display. As can be seen on Apple Watch, low power usage comes from keeping as many pixels as possible dark. That is just one issue with OLED.
Next you are going to tell me how they last a month before they die right? I am you said they have all sorts of problems. You named one.
Well what do you get in return for using OLED? Better more accurate colors, actual black not grey, power effeicency in displaying everything other than pure white, thinner display, and more responsive display (LCD response time is measured in ns where as OLED is measured in μs). I am sure you can find more if you want. LCDs are just not the future.
Thanks DED for the intriguing run of stories this week. This article is insightful and my intuition is that you are spot on. I can so see Apple doing this.
So if the devices can't be back lite and reflect incoming light, how do we see the screen in the dark? Adding illumination to the front would seem to add a lot of thickness.
In in any event I try to remain hopeful. Currently OLED tech just isn't good enough things the reliance on LCD, this might be an alternative.
OLED is already superior than LCDs in more ways than it is lacking.
I would say that the opposite is true. Inconsistent color from different viewing angles. Burn-in. Poor lifetime. Inability to set a high brightness manually. Poor efficiency except for dim colors, higher price, etc.
So if the devices can't be back lite and reflect incoming light, how do we see the screen in the dark? Adding illumination to the front would seem to add a lot of thickness.
In in any event I try to remain hopeful. Currently OLED tech just isn't good enough things the reliance on LCD, this might be an alternative.
OLED is already superior than LCDs in more ways than it is lacking.
Baloney! OLED displays have all sorts of problems. The most serious of which is that they are only low power when you aren't using the entire display. As can be seen on Apple Watch, low power usage comes from keeping as many pixels as possible dark. That is just one issue with OLED.
Next you are going to tell me how they last a month before they die right? I am you said they have all sorts of problems. You named one.
Well what do you get in return for using OLED? Better more accurate colors, actual black not grey, power effeicency in displaying everything other than pure white, thinner display, and more responsive display (LCD response time is measured in ns where as OLED is measured in μs). I am sure you can find more if you want. LCDs are just not the future.
They've been expecting the several major problems they have to go away for several years now. But they're still here. They will be for some time yet. OLED technology is difficult. The guys at Anandtech don't know any more than anyone else. They are just speculating.
Colors aren't more accurate. Calibration of the displays make the colors accurate. Before Samsung began calibrations the colors were incredibly bad. Apple was the first to calibrate. Samsung has done a good job of it, and as a result, their displays are a small amount more accurate. The average power efficiency of an OLED screen is worse than that of a newer LCD display. LCD displays are as fast as needed, Apple's can respond in a 240th of a second.
Black is the only real advantage. If a lot of R&D is continued in OLED, then I expect them continue to get better. But LCD and LED backlight R&D is continuing as well. It was expected, in the popular press, that OLED would have surpassed LCD already, but that hasn't happened, as LCDs have improved as fast, or faster, than OLED.
So if the devices can't be back lite and reflect incoming light, how do we see the screen in the dark? Adding illumination to the front would seem to add a lot of thickness.
In in any event I try to remain hopeful. Currently OLED tech just isn't good enough things the reliance on LCD, this might be an alternative.
OLED is already superior than LCDs in more ways than it is lacking.
I would say that the opposite is true. Inconsistent color from different viewing angles. Burn-in. Poor lifetime. Inability to set a high brightness manually. Poor efficiency except for dim colors, higher price, etc.
Inconsistent color from different viewing angles? Are we talking about LCDs here? LCDs have been known to suffer from this more than any other display technology out there.
Burn-in? Is it a problem, yea in store displays. I have had a couple OLED devices and never had a problem. Also had some plasma TVs which were known to have burn in issues as well, havent had a problem.
Poor lifetime? Not in the average lifetime of a phone. Or at least not that i've seen.
Inability to set a high brightness manually? Problem with implementation or technology?
Poor efficiency except for dim colors? I've seen the opposite on anandtech. Displaying a vibrant color is actually very efficient on OLED since you only need to light one pixel color at most 2 which is still more efficient with modern OLEDs. As referenced in the link I posted before an APL below 65-70% is more efficient on OLED.
Higher prices? Built into the cost anyways.
If you would like to post some resources other than what is on anantech and other sources like displaymate feel free.
I would say that the opposite is true. Inconsistent color from different viewing angles. Burn-in. Poor lifetime. Inability to set a high brightness manually. Poor efficiency except for dim colors, higher price, etc.
Inconsistent color from different viewing angles? Are we talking about LCDs here? LCDs have been known to suffer from this more than any other display technology out there.
Burn-in? Is it a problem, yea in store displays. I have had a couple OLED devices and never had a problem. Also had some plasma TVs which were known to have burn in issues as well, havent had a problem.
Poor lifetime? Not in the average lifetime of a phone. Or at least not that i've seen.
Inability to set a high brightness manually? Problem with implementation or technology?
Poor efficiency except for dim colors? I've seen the opposite on anandtech. Displaying a vibrant color is actually very efficient on OLED since you only need to light one pixel color at most 2 which is still more efficient with modern OLEDs. As referenced in the link I posted before an APL below 65-70% is more efficient on OLED.
Higher prices? Built into the cost anyways.
If you would like to post some resources other than what is on anantech and other sources like displaymate feel free.
No, OLED. Modern LCD displays have little of this problem. My iPad pro has none of it, side to side, and just a little vertically. Burn-in in OLED is a major problem. Just go to the Internet and Google OLED burn-in.
its understood that OLEDs have shorter lifetimes than LCD. LCD has no actual lifetime, other than for a factory defect. But OLEDs burn themselves out over time, as do every led. But organic LEDs don't last nearly as long.
the high brightness setting on the Ga;any S6 is limited to an auto setting for brightest sunlight, because the extra current heats the OLED beyond the preferred amount, and causes a shorter lifetime. It's on,y technical in that that's a weakness of OLED at this time. It's been getting better.
i don't know what you're read there, but that's incorrect. Well, let's take the most popular OLED screens, those from Samsung that use their Pentile array. That uses RGGB. That's 4 sub pixels. The extra green is to give a brighter white, since we're most sensitive to green. So that's 4 subpixels to light up. But, because of that 4th subpixels, the display is coarser than a display with 3 sub pixels. So those displays require a finer pixel structure that's about 30% greater, which is why those displays have greater resolution.
But now, they require more light to be seen, and require more battery power, and a more powerful GPU, which also,sucks more power, so where are we with all of that?
but what I was talking about with brighter pixels is that in OLEDs bright pixels consume more power than an LCD with led backlighting, because LEDs are far more efficient than OLEDs, and can also be driven hotter.. So it's a well known effect that overall OLED displays consume more power than do LCD displays. It's not a huge amount more, but the difference is there, which is why devices design3d around OLEDs use GUIs that are based on card backgrounds rather than light backgrounds.
and yes, they do cost more. It's built into the cost of the device, obviously, but that's one reason why Samsung make less profit on their phones.
there is no disagreement with what I'm saying on Anandtech or Displaymate.
Comments
Anandtech predicts the power problem to go away by the time the iPhone 7 generation arrives.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9394/analysing-amoled-power-efficiency
Well what do you get in return for using OLED? Better more accurate colors, actual black not grey, power effeicency in displaying everything other than pure white, thinner display, and more responsive display (LCD response time is measured in ns where as OLED is measured in μs). I am sure you can find more if you want. LCDs are just not the future.
Colors aren't more accurate. Calibration of the displays make the colors accurate. Before Samsung began calibrations the colors were incredibly bad. Apple was the first to calibrate. Samsung has done a good job of it, and as a result, their displays are a small amount more accurate. The average power efficiency of an OLED screen is worse than that of a newer LCD display. LCD displays are as fast as needed, Apple's can respond in a 240th of a second.
Black is the only real advantage. If a lot of R&D is continued in OLED, then I expect them continue to get better. But LCD and LED backlight R&D is continuing as well. It was expected, in the popular press, that OLED would have surpassed LCD already, but that hasn't happened, as LCDs have improved as fast, or faster, than OLED.
Burn-in? Is it a problem, yea in store displays. I have had a couple OLED devices and never had a problem. Also had some plasma TVs which were known to have burn in issues as well, havent had a problem.
Poor lifetime? Not in the average lifetime of a phone. Or at least not that i've seen.
Inability to set a high brightness manually? Problem with implementation or technology?
Poor efficiency except for dim colors? I've seen the opposite on anandtech. Displaying a vibrant color is actually very efficient on OLED since you only need to light one pixel color at most 2 which is still more efficient with modern OLEDs. As referenced in the link I posted before an APL below 65-70% is more efficient on OLED.
Higher prices? Built into the cost anyways.
If you would like to post some resources other than what is on anantech and other sources like displaymate feel free.
its understood that OLEDs have shorter lifetimes than LCD. LCD has no actual lifetime, other than for a factory defect. But OLEDs burn themselves out over time, as do every led. But organic LEDs don't last nearly as long.
the high brightness setting on the Ga;any S6 is limited to an auto setting for brightest sunlight, because the extra current heats the OLED beyond the preferred amount, and causes a shorter lifetime. It's on,y technical in that that's a weakness of OLED at this time. It's been getting better.
i don't know what you're read there, but that's incorrect. Well, let's take the most popular OLED screens, those from Samsung that use their Pentile array. That uses RGGB. That's 4 sub pixels. The extra green is to give a brighter white, since we're most sensitive to green. So that's 4 subpixels to light up. But, because of that 4th subpixels, the display is coarser than a display with 3 sub pixels. So those displays require a finer pixel structure that's about 30% greater, which is why those displays have greater resolution.
But now, they require more light to be seen, and require more battery power, and a more powerful GPU, which also,sucks more power, so where are we with all of that?
but what I was talking about with brighter pixels is that in OLEDs bright pixels consume more power than an LCD with led backlighting, because LEDs are far more efficient than OLEDs, and can also be driven hotter.. So it's a well known effect that overall OLED displays consume more power than do LCD displays. It's not a huge amount more, but the difference is there, which is why devices design3d around OLEDs use GUIs that are based on card backgrounds rather than light backgrounds.
and yes, they do cost more. It's built into the cost of the device, obviously, but that's one reason why Samsung make less profit on their phones.
there is no disagreement with what I'm saying on Anandtech or Displaymate.