The LED used as backlight light sources on your TV are more efficient than the OLED used in each pixels of your OLED TV. OLED as long as I know uses organic dyes or something like that.
OLED have the "O" before "LED" because it's "O" of organic.
I also don't need 180 degree of view, but the problem of such garbages like LCD. is that even models with 185 angle view creates distortion at even 25 degree angle.
I most cases I can see distortion if I move my nose a just inch to the sides. And even at zero degree (90 degree front straight) I can see distortion as the sides looks less bright than the center of screen, unles you move 6 meters away from screen.
I told posts ago, that a new technology for LED TV arrives (Nano Cell), they changed the classification and started to talk about angle without distortion. They did it because they need now just to say the the previous product was bad. And it's funny their ridicule approach of try to use sharppening filters just during medium and high motion scenes, to try to conceal the motion bur created by this garbage technology. Some advanced models tris to push about 4 effect or so, using seletive adjusts to scenes. Pathetic.
And don't forget the LCD curse of clipped whites and crushed shadows !!! The HD and Blu-Ray video encoders, compression algoritims, was designed considering this sh...t, since they are designed to allow much artefacts near highlights and shaddows, since they kew people would watch movies with the LCD TVs killing details in highlights and shadows, since the TV sets to avoit such look makes the image lifeless and fadded.
DVD encoding wasn't this way, so bad a-ss with dynamic range.
I also prefer a mono sound than a 5,1 or 7,1, if the mono it's in a excellent speaker and the 5,1 & 7,1 it's in s bad speakers. I like sonic quality over 3D sound.
For example, I have a stereo sound from a digital piano with a not bad speaker (but nothing great). Someone asked if I would like to get a Creative Labs PC Kit with 5.1 sound, and I refused (it would be a present or so) cause the Creative Labs kit have very crap sonic quality, and a anoying bass sound.
I hate trash. And I had told that person before, more than one time, I hated Creative Labs kits, that it sounded complete garbage to me, disgusting. People never listen to me...
This same person would come again trying to push me just the bass speaker of the garbage Creative Labs 5,1 kit. It's like the more I tell that a hate a given thing, the more this personh tries to push such things. It drives me angry!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
The plasma had better picture quality, but this TV is bigger, and it's not much worse picture quality wise. I prefer the larger image over the marginally better picture quality. I don't watch much sports anyhow. It's mostly documentaries and streaming shows like The Mandalorian.
I'm sure the technology will get better. Perhaps OLED prices will approach LCD prices in 5 years. High end LCD is starting to challenge OLED, and in some aspects such as brightness and power efficiency, exceed it.
My question about how LCD is more efficient than OLED still hasn't been answered. LCD produces a bright white light and blocks (filters) out the colors not necessary for the image, while OLED only produces the light needed to produce the image, with none being wasted by filtering.
As a tangent subject, I don't know why huge viewing angles are desirable. Why are we sending light everywhere in the room? Are people really watching TV 80 degrees off center (from the side)? I'd be happy with solid light distribution out to about 45 degrees from center on both sides.
|