Apple exploring combination of quantum dot and OLED technologies for future iPhone display...

AppleInsider

Future Apple devices could merge the enhanced power efficiency of quantum dot LED and speed of response of OLED screens in one unit, offering the best of both worlds in terms of battery life and image quality.

Apple's proposed invention, entitled "Quantum Dot LED and OLED Integration for High Efficiency Displays," was published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office this week. The innovation described breaks down elements in a single pixel into subpixels, with aspects of both technologies in one pixel group, to in part fuse the technologies into a hybrid display.

But, given the state of the technologies, it is not clear when -- or if -- the hybrid will see the light of day, or if it is even practical.

OLED is the obvious evolution from LCD

OLED displays have a greater contrast ratio, and superior overall color display to LCD. The flexible displays prevalent at recent trade shows are a product of OLED development.

A traditional LCD screen is considered transmissive -- individual elements change color, but are at the mercy of assorted backlight technologies for presentation. OLED screens are emissive, meaning that each individual pixel is its own light source with brightness being able to be set per pixel.

As a result, OLED technology also has significant power efficiency improvements over LCD screens. For instance, a black pixel consumes no power --this also opens up other utilizations of an OLED screen, such as only using a small portion of it for a constant time and notification display, with minimal impact to battery life.

Without the need for a backlight, an OLED screen can be thinner than competing technologies, all other factors equal. OLED response times can theoretically reach 0.01 milliseconds, versus 1 millisecond for modern LCD screens.

Production is more complicated than LCD, with even a speck of dust completely ruining a screen during initial fabrication. The cost to construct each screen still exceeds that of an LCD.

Water impingement is a major problem for OLED screens both during production, and in-use. Even a small amount of water contacting the organic substrate of the screen can immediately damage the display, necessitating replacement.

QD is next, but still in the future

Apple's implementation of quantum dot appears to be a true quantum dot (QD), different from the current commercial implementation of the screen. As with OLED, light is emitted on demand in true QD and the complete technology is seen as the successor to OLED at some point in the future.

While Quantum LED televisions exist now, the technology is being used to improve the backlight, and isn't being used on the pixel level -- yet.

True QD swaps the photoluminescent quantum dots behind a conventional LED or the organic element in an OLED screen for electroluminescent nanoparticles, which emit the light themselves.

Advantages of the technology over OLED include longer life, better saturated green colors, a thinner display than even OLED, and a more streamlined manufacturing process than OLED when the technique is perfected. Plus, true QD displays can produce displays at up to 1000 pixels per inch.

Response times for QD displays are closer to that of LED, so a hybrid display would adopt the OLED speed.

Combined OLED and true QD stack for one pixel

When could the hybrid appear?

While QLED televisions with a quantum dot backlight are available now, true QD displays only exist in the lab. Apple has certainly seen the development, and has a hand in its development.

Apple's patent application discusses the challenges of developing a hybrid display, and has more to do with the production of them, then the actual use. The application isn't clear about actual usage of the displays produced, but does briefly touch on the fact that the combined fabrication is complex, and not entirely worked out yet.

Not clear is if Apple's quest in a combined screen comes before or after homogenous QD displays arrive. It appears Apple is gambling for the future with the application, and betting on a need to improve the response time of the technology before something new comes down the pipeline.

The relative thickness of QLED technology in televisions isn't well suited for small screens, as compared to OLED -- with the vast majority of the users demanding thinner and thinner screens on their smartphones. True QD is notably thinner than QLED, as is OLED, and the two technologies, properly integrated, can complement each others weaknesses.

macky the macky

Perfect for a display in glasses....

gatorguy

macky the macky said:

Perfect for a display in glasses....

Perfect for a display in TV's  
My plasma isn't going to work forever. 

edited August 2017

retrogusto

I have to say, I love iPhone displays for their performance in direct sunlight, and I would not want to give that up even if it resulted in a slightly thinner phone, higher contrast and/or marginally longer battery life. 

sergioz

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

macpro

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Sci-Fi is here!

edited August 2017

melgross

Some of the assumed, but not really true information is presented here about OLED. When it comes to efficiency, both OLED and LCD are about the same. This is something that bothers the hell out of me when I read about it. Yes, it’s true that OLED uses no power when the pixel is off (and really, even that isn’t quite true, as a very tiny amount of power is being sent through that pixel) but on average, the latest OLED and LCD screens are about the same in efficiency. The reason for that is that LED efficiencies have been rising faster than OLED efficiencies have, for several reasons, and as LCD screens use LED backlights, they get more efficient as time goes on. And OLED is much more constrained by self generated heat than LED is, and LCDs generate no heat themselves, which leads to...

brightness and contrast. While we can talk about the theoretical infinite contrast of OLED vs LCD, it’s meaningless. Modern LCD screens have very good black values. When watching a video, or looking at a picture, we tend to see that “black” as true black once those values are below a certain point, particularly if the highlights are brighter. So, with LCD screens being much brighter than OLED screens in normal use, the actual contrast level of LCD is much higher. 

I can can give an example of that. In June I went to an audio show in Los Angeles. Sony was there demonstrating their Atmos based system, which is an audio system. I don’t want to get into that, but with that system was the 4K video system. As Sony makes both large (and expensive) LCD based and OLED based monitors and home video systems, I had a talk later with the engineer who was giving the demo. We were discussing 4K and HDR playback. The situation at Sony, and other display makers that make both OLED and LCD screens models is that HDR can’t be displayed properly on an OLED screen because of lack of brightness and the resultant lack of total contrast. I completely agree with this.

OLED makers have dominated the discussion of screens the past few years with “information” that isn’t true. It’s time we got past it. They are thinner, hence the use in the Apple Watch. They have potential for excellent color, though no better than an LCD screen with proper backlighting.

foggyhill

melgross said:

Some of the assumed, but not really true information is presented here about OLED. When it comes to efficiency, both OLED and LCD are about the same. This is something that bothers the hell out of me when I read about it. Yes, it’s true that OLED uses no power when the pixel is off (and really, even that isn’t quite true, as a very tiny amount of power is being sent through that pixel) but on average, the latest OLED and LCD screens are about the same in efficiency. The reason for that is that LED efficiencies have been rising faster than OLED efficiencies have, for several reasons, and as LCD screens use LED backlights, they get more efficient as time goes on. And OLED is much more constrained by self generated heat than LED is, and LCDs generate no heat themselves, which leads to...

brightness and contrast. While we can talk about the theoretical infinite contrast of OLED vs LCD, it’s meaningless. Modern LCD screens have very good black values. When watching a video, or looking at a picture, we tend to see that “black” as true black once those values are below a certain point, particularly if the highlights are brighter. So, with LCD screens being much brighter than OLED screens in normal use, the actual contrast level of LCD is much higher. 

I can can give an example of that. In June I went to an audio show in Los Angeles. Sony was there demonstrating their Atmos based system, which is an audio system. I don’t want to get into that, but with that system was the 4K video system. As Sony makes both large (and expensive) LCD based and OLED based monitors and home video systems, I had a talk later with the engineer who was giving the demo. We were discussing 4K and HDR playback. The situation at Sony, and other display makers that make both OLED and LCD screens models is that HDR can’t be displayed properly on an OLED screen because of lack of brightness and the resultant lack of total contrast. I completely agree with this.

OLED makers have dominated the discussion of screens the past few years with “information” that isn’t true. It’s time we got past it. They are thinner, hence the use in the Apple Watch. They have potential for excellent color, though no better than an LCD screen with proper backlighting.

OLED basically lacks dynamic range, infinite contrast occurs because the lowest level is low, not because the highest level is high. 300 nits / 0.00001 = 3000000 , but so does 30000 nits / 0.01... Which one would give the best, most realistic image? Well, the second one despite the blacks not being "black".

The blacks being blacks depends as much on the room conditions and reflectance of the screen. which means that in any less than ideal conditions, the screen that is brightest in reflects the least would win in the real contrast department anyway no matter what the tech is.

OLED in its traditional form is just a blimp on the way to other display techs.

melgross

foggyhill said:

melgross said:

Some of the assumed, but not really true information is presented here about OLED. When it comes to efficiency, both OLED and LCD are about the same. This is something that bothers the hell out of me when I read about it. Yes, it’s true that OLED uses no power when the pixel is off (and really, even that isn’t quite true, as a very tiny amount of power is being sent through that pixel) but on average, the latest OLED and LCD screens are about the same in efficiency. The reason for that is that LED efficiencies have been rising faster than OLED efficiencies have, for several reasons, and as LCD screens use LED backlights, they get more efficient as time goes on. And OLED is much more constrained by self generated heat than LED is, and LCDs generate no heat themselves, which leads to...

brightness and contrast. While we can talk about the theoretical infinite contrast of OLED vs LCD, it’s meaningless. Modern LCD screens have very good black values. When watching a video, or looking at a picture, we tend to see that “black” as true black once those values are below a certain point, particularly if the highlights are brighter. So, with LCD screens being much brighter than OLED screens in normal use, the actual contrast level of LCD is much higher. 

I can can give an example of that. In June I went to an audio show in Los Angeles. Sony was there demonstrating their Atmos based system, which is an audio system. I don’t want to get into that, but with that system was the 4K video system. As Sony makes both large (and expensive) LCD based and OLED based monitors and home video systems, I had a talk later with the engineer who was giving the demo. We were discussing 4K and HDR playback. The situation at Sony, and other display makers that make both OLED and LCD screens models is that HDR can’t be displayed properly on an OLED screen because of lack of brightness and the resultant lack of total contrast. I completely agree with this.

OLED makers have dominated the discussion of screens the past few years with “information” that isn’t true. It’s time we got past it. They are thinner, hence the use in the Apple Watch. They have potential for excellent color, though no better than an LCD screen with proper backlighting.

OLED basically lacks dynamic range, infinite contrast occurs because the lowest level is low, not because the highest level is high. 300 nits / 0.00001 = 3000000 , but so does 30000 nits / 0.01... Which one would give the best, most realistic image? Well, the second one despite the blacks not being "black".

The blacks being blacks depends as much on the room conditions and reflectance of the screen. which means that in any less than ideal conditions, the screen that is brightest in reflects the least would win in the real contrast department anyway no matter what the tech is.

OLED in its traditional form is just a blimp on the way to other display techs.

I’m looking at my 2017 iPad Pro 12.9”. It’s what I use for most everything these days. I’m typing on it right now. Black levels look great. Brightness is high, as I’m in my living room, on the couch, with bright sunlight from the windows behind me, and on the screen.

as I also said in my post, contrast for OLED is really low, not high. The problem with mathematically stating a contrast number for OLED is very difficult, though it never has stopped anyone from giving nonsense numbers. The word “infinite” with respect to contrast is nuts. That would really mean total blacks, and highlight values that are infinitely high.

tallest skil

melgross said:

The problem with mathematically stating a contrast number for OLED is very difficult, though it never has stopped anyone from giving nonsense numbers.

But really, is there even a standard for contrast in LCD displays? Or CRT? I vaguely remember reading that there’s no legal definition of a ‘point of contrast.’ So manufacturers can (and do) invent their own, leading to displays with 1:6000000 or 1:10000000 numbers. It’s just oneupsmanship; “Oh, they’re ONE faster! Better buy from these guys.” Fortunately, now that 2160p is becoming the standard, companies will be forced to stop advertising “more pixels” and start improving display quality in other terms like color gamut and contrast. I’m happy about that change, at least.

melgross

tallest skil said:

melgross said:

The problem with mathematically stating a contrast number for OLED is very difficult, though it never has stopped anyone from giving nonsense numbers.

But really, is there even a standard for contrast in LCD displays? Or CRT? I vaguely remember reading that there’s no legal definition of a ‘point of contrast.’ So manufacturers can (and do) invent their own, leading to displays with 1:6000000 or 1:10000000 numbers. It’s just oneupsmanship; “Oh, they’re ONE faster! Better buy from these guys.” Fortunately, now that 2160p is becoming the standard, companies will be forced to stop advertising “more pixels” and start improving display quality in other terms like color gamut and contrast. I’m happy about that change, at least.

Yes, there is. There are standard black levels that one uses. That’s true for video, as one example. But, you see, black levels are easily measurable. As for contrast itself, those numbers are also measured, and set. Gamma affects that too. Digitally, we have numbers, such as levels. Legal requirements aren’t there, but that’s not the point. Industry has standards which are met in Pro displays, you know, those $20-30 thousand 24 to 30” broadcast monitors. Contrast has to be exact. Not higher, or lower than the standard.

spamsandwich

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

edited August 2017

tipoo

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

edited August 2017

melgross

tipoo said:

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

I don’t believe a word of that. Not a single person who has used my iPads has been able to see the pixels. That’s just 264ppi. Sure, if you have a dead, or live pixel in a sea of oppositely colored pixels, you can see it. But then, you could see it if it were 600ppi as well, because our eye micro motion jitters allow that. It’s like seeing a star at night. You can’t resolve the point (and neither can the largest telescopes), but you can see the bright light. People are confused by that.

spamsandwich

tipoo said:

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

Three hundred lines per inch is the typical dot pattern used for offset printed material (such as one would see in an average magazine). Higher-end glossy magazines will typically use a higher line screen for super sharp imagery. But 300 lpi is considered the standard and 300 dpi on a computer screen is very sharp.

melgross

SpamSandwich said:

tipoo said:

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

Three hundred lines per inch is the typical dot pattern used for offset printed material (such as one would see in an average magazine). Higher-end glossy magazines will typically use a higher line screen for super sharp imagery. But 300 lpi is considered the standard and 300 dpi on a computer screen is very sharp.

Magazines use either 133lpi or 150lpi. You need a higher ppi image for that though. Text is usually printed at 900ppi.

ksec

melgross said:

tipoo said:

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

I don’t believe a word of that. Not a single person who has used my iPads has been able to see the pixels. That’s just 264ppi. Sure, if you have a dead, or live pixel in a sea of oppositely colored pixels, you can see it. But then, you could see it if it were 600ppi as well, because our eye micro motion jitters allow that. It’s like seeing a star at night. You can’t resolve the point (and neither can the largest telescopes), but you can see the bright light. People are confused by that.

That's because you are on iPad Pro 12.9", and using it much further away from the phone. I used to believe the (sort of ) Retina myth, but I guess human eyes gets trained. The iPhone 400ppi is much better then the older Retina 3xx PPI, as alot of people agree too. Even Gruber and other famous programmers and Fans admitted it. But it is still not perfect either, having used other much more Ridiculously high PPI phone, I believe the point where there are no difference is somewhere between 400 PPI and 5xx PPI.   

That is the same with 120 hz iPad, it was possibly the best thing since Retina, and we used to believe 60Hz was enough! 

ksec

Few things i wanted to point out.

1. Apple couldn't use QD Display because the use of harmful chemicals. I am wondering if they have solve that too.

2. This whole QD along with OLED Hybrid has been tried and tested with LG's WOLED display. Not sure what approach Apple adds to it.

3. The Sony LCD vs OLED is a little unfair. After all those are the BEST LCD, and it is literally ( depending on models ) a MicroLED Display, because it has a LED at each very small region or individual pixel. And they dont scale down to Mobile Phone ( yet ).

herbivore2

OLED panels have additional advantages over LCD panels other than contrast, black levels and efficiency. OLED panels do not exhibit "blooming." No matter how good an LCD panel is, blooming will never be eliminated. 

LCD panels will never stretch or bend. LCD panels cannot be made transparent. Form factors are possible with OLED that would not with conventional LCD. Samsung is working on a phone that wraps around a person's wrist. OLED makes that possible. LCD does not. 

So while there are arguments being made over the advantages of LCD over OLED, Samsung is pouring it on with respect to OLED development. And if the people who feel LCD is superior had their way, Apple would not be moving to OLED panels and therefore would cede the entire mobile market to Samsung. 

Call me a skeptic, but with the pace of development happening in OLED, none of the other technologies have much of a chance of ever seeing any real success. Samsung itself is sourcing LCD display panels for TVs from their primary competitor, LG just to focus on OLED. Samsung was once focused on Quantum dot technology also. Not so much anymore. They are rapidly bringing the cost of OLED technology down and advancing it at the same time also. 

And if Sony felt LCD technology were superior, they wouldn't be sourcing large OLED panels from LG to build high end televisions. And Apple would be building the watch with an LCD panel. Apple wouldn't also be moving to OLED for the iPhone 8. 

OLED will soon exceed LCD in visual quality in every conceivable aspect including brightness and contrast. Relatively soon, OLED panels will even cost less than LCDs. However, LCD will never be bendable or transparent. Conventional LCD is a dead technology. And Apple is wise to move off of it. 

Samsung is only beginning to advance the technology. LCD efficiency and advancement have been essentially maximized. Samsung just developed Bio blue technology and are working on a number of other advancements. JDI and Sharp LCD displays are far outclassed. 

I have looked at the displays on the Galaxy S8 and 12.9 inch iPad Pro side by side. The Samsung display is subjectively better. It isn't really even close. The colors are better and more vivid. And the phone really shines in the Gear VR device. I really doubt that an iPhone panel would be as good.

With Apple's color management capabilities, the Samsung display on an iPad or iPhone would be stellar. And I will be attempting to purchase the iPhone 8. The other phones with the LCD panels don't jnterest me in the slightest. 

melgross

ksec said:

melgross said:

tipoo said:

SpamSandwich said:

sergioz said:

Sounds like nanotechnology in the working, 1000 pixels per inch? I don't think human eye can see the difference! Never thought they would want to create hybrid. Quantum dots that's like on the level of single photon? 

Beyond 300 dpi, it's really not possible for most people to be able to see a dot pattern from a normal viewing distance.

There's a point of diminishing returns, but 300 isn't it. The 400PPI 7 Plus looks easily better than the 326 PPI regular iPhone. To my eyes, it's easy to see sharpness rather than smooth curves around icon corners, rounded text, the orientation lock icon, etc, on the regular model, where the Plus is far smoother. 

Jobs kinda messed with a whole lot of people introducing 300PPI as where you stop seeing hard edges - you definitely still do, at least with young eyes. They're going to have to work against that now with the '3X' rather than 2X resolution iPhone Pro/8. 

I don’t believe a word of that. Not a single person who has used my iPads has been able to see the pixels. That’s just 264ppi. Sure, if you have a dead, or live pixel in a sea of oppositely colored pixels, you can see it. But then, you could see it if it were 600ppi as well, because our eye micro motion jitters allow that. It’s like seeing a star at night. You can’t resolve the point (and neither can the largest telescopes), but you can see the bright light. People are confused by that.

That's because you are on iPad Pro 12.9", and using it much further away from the phone. I used to believe the (sort of ) Retina myth, but I guess human eyes gets trained. The iPhone 400ppi is much better then the older Retina 3xx PPI, as alot of people agree too. Even Gruber and other famous programmers and Fans admitted it. But it is still not perfect either, having used other much more Ridiculously high PPI phone, I believe the point where there are no difference is somewhere between 400 PPI and 5xx PPI.   

That is the same with 120 hz iPad, it was possibly the best thing since Retina, and we used to believe 60Hz was enough! 

I’m using my iPad Pro 12.9” right now. I’m talking about when people get very close to it, not 18” away. Don’t you think I’ve thought of that? People simply don’t understand how vision actually works. Often I’ll see some article, or study that looks at just one small area of vision without correlating it to our overall vision. Those narrowly focused (boy, I’m using a lot of cliches) studies miss the point.

most of what we read, and that includes you as well, are a result of confirmation bias. YoY see what you expect to see. Testimonials are worthless.

melgross

ksec said:

Few things i wanted to point out.

1. Apple couldn't use QD Display because the use of harmful chemicals. I am wondering if they have solve that too.

2. This whole QD along with OLED Hybrid has been tried and tested with LG's WOLED display. Not sure what approach Apple adds to it.

3. The Sony LCD vs OLED is a little unfair. After all those are the BEST LCD, and it is literally ( depending on models ) a MicroLED Display, because it has a LED at each very small region or individual pixel. And they dont scale down to Mobile Phone ( yet ).

And the BEST OLED, you are forgetting that. MicroLED is something different. It isn’t OLED.