[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Maybe because it is one of the more cost effective displays on the market right now.Do you want a cheap computer screen to run you 100-200 or 1000+(most likely FAR more until costs come down) for the cheap models?Do not get me wrong, i LIKE oled since it has very wide viewing and nice dark blacks(they are off), but until it comes into consumer prices, i think LCD will stick around for a while.All this said, i still do NOT recommend super cheap LCDs(and you should almost always check them out in person if you can), but everyone has a price they are willing to pay, so a 600+ dollar monitor is not for everyone(but sure improves image quality/color).[/citation]
from my understanding, cheap oled is better than expensive lcd.
either make the old monitors bigger
or make the old so small that you get a consumer viable 1000 dpi+ headset monitor, with 1 screen per eye.
i dont care which it is i just want it now.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]You must be very picky??In excess of 100,000 hour lifetime on LG's tech is not good enough??And 60,000 hours on blue pixels is not enough either??Just how much TV do you watch?? 60,000 hours is almost 7 years of continuous TV watching?Come on!! Get with the program and please stop spreading very dated information, thank you!!And, IMHO, Sony's Crystal LED approach will be significantly more expensive than OLEDs ever will be.[/citation]
100000 = 11 yearsish
60000 = 6 yearsish
and all the while, the blue is degrading at a faster rate than all the other colors.
to be completely honest here. if crystal lcd can last 15+ years, and is at least as high of quality as oled... it will be the tv that everyone wants. i mean you have to look at a tv as an expense over time and possible advancements in that same time frame. a large lcd or plasma tv today is really only a 5-7 year of use before they crap out on you to the point they are just... not a good option. old crt tvs could last 15-20years, and my old one i used for light gun games died at the 20 year mark, otherwise it still gave me a damn good picture, however we have a 48 inch plasma in the living room that 1080p that is i believe 6 years old, and i cant even look at it any more the thing is such a pos... 5 stuck pixels on read, and when ever there is black it had this red grain in it that just looks horrible.
if crystal lcd can last a long time, well, for general home use i cant see 4k becoming the thing to have unless tvs jump to the 100inch + range and are affordable.
[citation][nom]cmartin011[/nom]How about the SED tech? canon sucks for not bringing these to market. well i am all for oled's i true only need a 40 inch hoping sooner that later. i alway loved my 4.5in AMOLED its so sharp and colors are so nice... hopefully they go with higher refresh rate with this tech true 120hz now they have High speed HDMI 1.4a..[/citation]
sed, the tech that would have been a stop gap between all the good features of a crt, mixed with the benefits of a lcd... back when a 40 inch lcd cost real money, an sed would have cost twice that, and also been well over twice as good. however they were sued into not releasing it for so long, and by the time they could a decent lcd that is 50 inch is now carrying around money, and the price still hasn't come down on the sed. i would pay what i need to for a 1920x1200 sed monitor at 24-27 inch, but thats because i never wanted an lcd, i see the flaws in it every time i use it, i see that the color on the screen changes if my head moves a bit, light bleeding on the top and bottom, more of a dark grey that a true black... and i sure as hell wasnt paying over 1000$ for an lcd monitor that i deam acceptable, knowing that in 2-4 years, i would need a new one due to lcds not built to last long
i understand why thy didnt release the sed, but i still feal there is a strong enough market for it.
..
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram