Thread: Modern and future display technologies

Currently the market is dominated by two display technologies LCD/LED and Plasma. Sadly none of them match in quality of picture even to CRT (at mediocre price). Two emerging technologies OLED and Laser TV are very expensive. Does anyone knows why EDL (electroluminescent technology) didn't enter TV market? There are some technologies in development - quantum dot display and MEMS display but not of them went out of marginal applications. Screen-less displays are still Sci-fi.

What, do you think could be an ultimate display technology of the foreseeable future and which one you personally like?
Is it only seems to me or am I right that modern LED TV-s have better quality of picture than Plasma screens?

The quality of the picture has little to do with the display technology used, at least for 2D, raster-based technologies. CRTs have the problem of bleeding between pixels that other display technologies don't, but ironically, this actually makes lower resolution images look better since you can't see the blocky pixels. (I think the price of LCDs have come down to roughly that of CRTs too.)

Where the different technologies actually differ is in details like refresh rate and white-black range (I forget what the technical term for that is). I suppose that really should be counted in the quality of final image, but at that point, how those technologies are used starts to make a difference. My current monitors have a really large white-black range, but my computer doesn't really account for that in any special way, so they actually end up being too bright unless I simply turn the brightness down (thus negating the benefits of the large range).

For near future technologies, flexible displays look promising.

Personally, I would like laser TV's if lasers wouldn't be dangerous to human eyes and they wouldn't be so much expensive.
They claimed to offer exceptional picture quality.
A typical system costs $8.000.
LG HECTO: 100" Class (100.3" Diagonal) 1080p Smart Laser TV | LG USA
Do you now why is it so? Is it lasers itself or system of lenses or something else?

Well, it's probably mostly just expensive because it's new. And lasers are only dangerous if you point them right in your eye, so that's really not a concern. Also, they're probably using laser LEDs given the size of the pixels, so they're probably too weak to do any major damage anyway.

As for why they might give better picture quality, lasers create a monochromatic light. They're really actually one pure color. LCDs on the other hand start with a white light (all colors) and filter out the colors they don't want, which is an imperfect process.

What is the problem with plasma screen technology?
I do not know for each type of plasma screen, but I do not like at all those I saw in a store.
For example Samsung 50'' 1028 P. Picture looks a kind of vague and rippled, some gray shadows.
A sales person told me it is regular for them. Even smaller LED screens look a way sharper and just excellent
compared to this. But number of pixels is the same. I wouldn't want plasma even for a smaller price.
Wonder that somebody still produces them. I think neither plasma or LED beats CRT in picture quality.
Wonder that they became obsolete simply because of ''bulkiness''. (what a problem?)
Why do not they want to mass produce SED screens? I guess they could replace anything...
Surface-conduction electron-emitter display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've got two good sized LCD monitors on my desk. They provide lots of workspace to run a program on one screen and debug it on the other (although I also just use them to play a game on one screen and browse on the other). If they were CRTs, my desk would collapse, if there was even room to fit them along with the keyboard and mouse. Also, I can easily lift even fairly large flat screens one handed. I've got a couple of old CRTs around that I'd rather leave in storage because moving them is such a pain. I've also got a very large (and old) CRT TV that is just going to have to stay where it is since even my wife and I together can't budge it. Bulk is a major problem and most technology moves towards less bulky designs over time. (Think of cell phones and laptops.)

Besides the bulk, which technology you like seems to be somewhat subjective since I prefer the crisper look of non-CRT technologies. (I haven't seen a SED display though.)

As for why they stopped making them? Probably just because not enough were being sold. Why not? I don't know. These things aren't always based on strict technological superiority.

There's a comparison of a few of these technologies here: Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Basically, LCD seems to be winning due to it's ability to be small and light. Plasma is still used for large screens because it's brighter (which matters more with large screens as you'd view them from farther away). CRTs have the benefit of no native resolution (they can dynamically display at any resolution up to some maximum) but their bulk and other problems outweighed that (and software can be made to compensate for non-native resolution in other screens). There are lots of technologies not on that page though.

I've got two good sized LCD monitors on my desk. They provide lots of workspace

I've meant TVs, not desktops.

I haven't seen a SED display though.

I didn't see them in a store either, though you could find a videos about them in youtube,
but they seem use technology similar to CRT and therefore at least the same picture quality could be
expected, I think. The only difference, they are ''flat''. (I don't see why majority of people like this feature,
besides techno-maniacs.)

CRTs have the benefit of no native resolution (they can dynamically display at any resolution up to some maximum) but their bulk and other problems outweighed

There are hardly other problems with exceptions of radiation, maybe.

Plasma is still used for large screens because it's brighter

You should be joking? LED's look not only much brighter, but also sharper and like they have better resolution even with the same number of pixels. Plasma screens are recommended for dark rooms only, exactly because they aren't bright enough.
This is strange of course, because plasma screens do not require backlight and are self-lit, at least. But this isn't only my opinion.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1950478
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/my...ion.163018683/

LEDs weren't part of that comparison. Did you mean LCDs? (Although some LCDs use LEDs as backlights.) I can't really say for sure what the various screens are like since I've never gotten a chance to compare them side-by-side. Besides that, it's really hard to make a fair comparison as there are so many overlapping factors. Is it really brighter, or are the colors just more saturated, or is it just the glare making things hard to see? That Wiki page I linked to says that plasma screens tend to have major issues with glare, which is why they recommend a dark room, but it also says they have a high contrast ratio, which means they really are brighter (or at least that they have a wider difference between black and white).

There is no such thing as "better resolution even with the same number of pixels" though. Resolution is either the number of pixels per square inch or the total number of pixels. If they're the same size and have the same number of pixels, they automatically have the same resolution for either definition of resolution. There may be other factors that make the image look sharper though.

And CRTs do have other problems. Burn-in and desync (if I've remembered the name right) are both significant issues that LCD screens don't have to deal with.

As for why people prefer flat screens, have you ever tried to move a large CRT? Like I said, the CRT TV I have is staying put. It might as well be built in to the house. Any flat screen is going to be lighter than that. Plus a flatter screen fits in more places. It's also cheaper.

LEDs weren't part of that comparison. Did you mean LCDs?

LED's are newer LCD's which use LED lamp as a backlight. There is no principal difference between them and LCD (from what I know).

That Wiki page I linked to says that plasma screens tend to have major issues with glare, which is why they recommend a dark room, but it also says they have a high contrast ratio, which means they really are brighter (or at least that they have a wider difference between black and white).

LCD are claimed to have problems to display ''true blacks''. Therefore they are defined as having ''poor contrast''. And they tried to solve this problem by increased brightness. What is not that bad in comparison to plasma screens which regularly have problems with ''true whites'' and saturated colours and therefore look like a rainy day especially if in a rooms which aren't completely dark.
I'm interested to know if this technology could give new start to plasma screens:
http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/07/0604lamps.html

I think nanocrystal LED screens show much promise. Only problem there is kinda randomized manufacturing process which increases the cost significantly.

How difficult is it to create screenless display with help of lasers? It not necessarily should be 3D, it could be 2D. What equipment is needed and how does it work?

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Where the different technologies actually differ is in details like ........ white-black range (I forget what the technical term for that is). ......

= contrast ratio.

OB

Be sure to compare like with like.

Many non HD screens have video processors to convert an HD signal for lower quality display, but the converters I've seen are woeful, leaving digital signatures, for example a block pattern around edges instead of a crisp edge, such that you get on Windows computer monitors.

If you are comparing HD screens, make sure exactly the same HD signal is fed to both.

Don't turn the colour up too high. Many do and the picture looks awful. Compare the flesh tones with your own skin up next to the screen so you set the colour saturation correctly.

OB

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Currently the market is dominated by two display technologies LCD/LED and Plasma. Sadly none of them match in quality of picture even to CRT (at mediocre price).

Hmm. I've seen 4K LCD screens that look much better (brighter, higher resolution, less distortion) than any CRT I have ever seen.

Two emerging technologies OLED and Laser TV are very expensive. Does anyone knows why EDL (electroluminescent technology) didn't enter TV market?

Brightness, color availability and contrast ratio are the three problems I heard about. Lately they've been getting much better though.

Is it only seems to me or am I right that modern LED TV-s have better quality of picture than Plasma screens?

Modern "LED" TV's are really LCD's. The only true LED displays out there the OLED's used in some cellphones/tablets.

Originally Posted by billvon

Hmm. I've seen 4K LCD screens that look much better (brighter, higher resolution, less distortion) than any CRT I have ever seen.

Yup. Owing to the requirement to have a shadow mask and individual red, green and blue phosphor elements in a colour CRT, the resolution is quite limited. Because the scanning beam(s) originates from a fixed point but strikes a flat or slightly curved surface, the outer parts of the screen have a distorted image, and the registration of all three colours is never perfect.

A grade-one broadcast CRT monitor, as used in the technical quality control areas of television production can produce very impressive pictures, but HD has gone beyond what colour CRT's can achieve.

Good CRT's look OK at a distance, but look very close to the screen and you will see how low definition the picture actually is - look particularly at edge details. Once modern screens have elements (pixels) smaller than the human eye can resolve - like this iPad retina display I am using - then true HD will have arrived.

OB

Originally Posted by One beer

[Once modern screens have elements (pixels) smaller than the human eye can resolve - like this iPad retina display I am using - then true HD will have arrived.

Because of my poor eyesight, that means I've had true HD for years.

What about the most exiting type of display - a truly screenless display?

It is claimed that one of the greatest OLED advantages is ability to depict true black colors (infinite contrast). However how many true black colors could be encountered in nature? Usually any kind of a surface reflects some % of light, whether it is a moon light or street light. There is no absolutely black colors in nature.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

There is no absolutely black colors in nature.

Black holes.
And some of these get pretty close.

[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;633004]

Originally Posted by Stanley514

And some of these get pretty close.

How many black shades we can really encounter which cannot be satisfactorily represented by LCD screens? I'm not sure the picture from your link looks completely naturally. Even at dusk objects on shadow side will reflect some amount of diffused light.

The modern LED TV is way better than the Plasma Screen. Plasma screens are very affordable compared to LED TVs and picture quality can be good at the same time. But LED TVs are less heavy and consume less power compared to Plasma TVs. But Plasma TVs tend to have deeper blacks, which lead to smother and more natural images than seen on LED screens. Plasma screens also show crisp, fast motion without blur or ghosting.