LG Display Claims Samsung's QD OLED More Susceptible to Screen Burn Than LG's WOLED

[trsttte]

More of them? So for every photon emitted by the OLED layer, the QD layer emits another one? I find that hard to believe, the QD layer is not emissive, afaik.

Quantum dots are... weird. They are "emissive" as in when excited by a wavelength they will produce a different one.

 

[AsRock]

Wha wha wha, ooh was i supposed to actually hear them o well.

Dam how bright people need these screens ?, people are going be pretty dam darn blind.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't know if it's possible for quantum dots to go from a lower energy wavelengh to a higher one, that might be a reason why they went with blue instead of green or red.

It absolutely isn't possible and yes that's exactly why they use blue.

Photons are only emitted when an electron drops from a higher orbital to a lower orbital around an atomic nucleus. These orbitals are discrete energy states and there aren't half states, For an incoming photon to "knock" an individual electron into a higher energy orbital, it needs to have enough energy to do that in one "hit". That process of successfully knocking an electron into a higher orbital is the absorbing of the photon. An incoming photon without enough energy will just "ricochet" off the electron (quotes are used because it's easy to model and conceptualise electron-photon interactions by thinking of them as particles with momentum, which is a long way from the truth as we currently know it)

So quantum dots work by absorbing photons. Omitting units and real numbers for simplification, If the incoming photon ha 10 energy and the electron needs 8 energy to move up to a higher orbital, the electron moves up 8, the photon passes through and leaves with 2 energy left, and then the electron drops down to a lower orbital and releases a new photon with that 8 energy. The end result is that one high-energy photon passed through and was de-energised, a second photon was "created" and ejected with the energy that was taken from the first one. 10 energy come in (blue light photon) and 8+2 energy come out (red light photon and infra-red photon).

If only an 8 energy photon comes in, the sum of all photons coming out must total 8 too. You cannot make a 10 energy photon from an 8 energy one, and in this simple example, blue is 10, red is 8.

 

[Minus Infinity]

This is a law that should be adopted in other countries. Unfortunately, here(Brazil) the law obliges companies to offer the minimum of Just 1 year warranty. I think it's too little for some expensive products like big TVs.

In Australia manufacturers must of course offer a statutory warranty. Let's say it 1 year for a TV, and your panel fails after 2 years. Our consumers affairs bureau has said that a customer should not expect a product to fail prematurely and the TV manufacturer is still obligated to repair or replace the TV outside of the statutory warranty period. The period of time depends on the price of the item it seems and for a high end TV you are protected for at least 3 years. Alas no such laws cover cars. We still don't have lemon laws

 

[Chaitanya]

Wha wha wha, ooh was i supposed to actually hear them o well.

Dam how bright people need these screens ?, people are going be pretty dam darn blind.

I rarely cross 150-180 nits on my monitors and I find 100% brightness on claimed 350 nits obnoxius. There seem to be a large proportion of people who want to burn their eyes and their screens.

 

[Minus Infinity]

It absolutely isn't possible and yes that's exactly why they use blue.

Well there is a way to make higher frequency output, if you have quantum dots with a 3rd order non-linear response. You can have two-photon absorption via excitons for example. It's not of use in a TV at all, but for bio-sensing it's a big deal.

 

[LabRat 891]

Gotta say the marketing dept. @ LG "won" on this one.
Whether their claims are true or not, they just brought major attention to the issue(s) that LG and every other display technology IP-holder 'doesn't like to talk about'.

LG, if not *genuinely* confident in their latest OLED-iteration, is at least confident in their ability to out-BS their competitors in PR.

I look forward to 3rd party reviews; especially, where the reviewer(s) had to purchase consumer-available units. (as opposed to being 'provided' a supposedly production unit.)

I have both a PC QD-OLED display and an LG TV. Been saving for some time for a PC screen upgrade (much needed) and, once you use OLED, it's hard to look at LCD again lol.

I really like both, I can say that my LG TV after years of usage is as new, 0 burn-in despite being used with static HUD in games etc.
My PC display is new but come with a 3 years warranty from Samsung, I'm not too worried (Samsung support in France told me it includes burn in but can't be 100% sure)

Apple is going to introduce in its 2024 ipad pro lineup a new generation of OLED screen (done in conjunctions with display manufacturers) that is reporterdly brighter and more durable

Our salute will come from micro-led: no burn-in, excellent brightness and infinite contrast.

IMHO, MicroLED will be 'a' holy grail-like milestone in display technologies. Sadly, we all missed out on the last big milestone: Manufacturing technology limits at the time and changing consumer-culture killed the Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED) before it had any time to shine. IIRC, the vestiges of the IP are owned by AUOptronics, today.

Amusingly, Samsung's QD-OLED seems extremely similar 'in concept' to the SEDs. Except, taking full advantage of advances in tech; using Photon-Photon 'conversion' via 'Quantum Dot' nanotechnology vs. SED's Electron-Photon 'conversion' via phosphor excitation.

It absolutely isn't possible and yes that's exactly why they use blue.

Photons are only emitted when an electron drops from a higher orbital to a lower orbital around an atomic nucleus. These orbitals are discrete energy states and there aren't half states, For an incoming photon to "knock" an individual electron into a higher energy orbital, it needs to have enough energy to do that in one "hit". That process of successfully knocking an electron into a higher orbital is the absorbing of the photon. An incoming photon without enough energy will just "ricochet" off the electron (quotes are used because it's easy to model and conceptualise electron-photon interactions by thinking of them as particles with momentum, which is a long way from the truth as we currently know it)

So quantum dots work by absorbing photons. Omitting units and real numbers for simplification, If the incoming photon ha 10 energy and the electron needs 8 energy to move up to a higher orbital, the electron moves up 8, the photon passes through and leaves with 2 energy left, and then the electron drops down to a lower orbital and releases a new photon with that 8 energy. The end result is that one high-energy photon passed through and was de-energised, a second photon was "created" and ejected with the energy that was taken from the first one. 10 energy come in (blue light photon) and 8+2 energy come out (red light photon and infra-red photon).

If only an 8 energy photon comes in, the sum of all photons coming out must total 8 too. You cannot make a 10 energy photon from an 8 energy one, and in this simple example, blue is 10, red is 8.

I do believe that is 'mostly-to-totally correct'. However, I was under (the potentially false) impression that QDs worked more like sub-wavelength re-attuners (for lacking a better word). In other words, QDs were attenuating/converting a higher-frequency analogwaveform to a lower one, passively. Basically, I assumed QDs worked more like RF-engineering, but at many-TeraHertz frequencies, and using nanostructures to 're-attune' the THz electromagnetic emission.
(then again, this may be touching on the 'compatible' but 'seemingly contradictory' modeling of 'light' as both a particle(photon) and an EM-waveform.)
In 'particle terms' I thought QD's worked like a funnel/cone, limiting or 'bleeding off' the 'frequency and intensity' of the photon's vibration(phase?) as the photon passes through the nano-structure 'QuantumDot'.

 

[Vayra86]

Only people who don't know better use motion processing
60hz is just fine for people who have never went above

Nonsense. You simply get used to anything you use frequently. That also applies to higher resolutions and refresh rate.

Gamers do not make up 100% of the market though. And if they can make a 48" 4k oled tv for a grand, then a oled monitor 1/4 the size should not be the same price.

Pixel dot pitch is a thing though. Smaller diagonal at the same resolution means you need smaller pixels = OLEDs. Thats exactly why LG is so slow on smaller diagonals.

 

[Chrispy_]

Well there is a way to make higher frequency output, if you have quantum dots with a 3rd order non-linear response. You can have two-photon absorption via excitons for example. It's not of use in a TV at all, but for bio-sensing it's a big deal.

Absolutely, but I'm trying to keep this from turning into a multi-page physics dialogue and stay on the topic of quantum dots for TV

I do believe that is 'mostly-to-totally correct'. However, I was under (the potentially false) impression that QDs worked more like sub-wavelength re-attuners (for lacking a better word). In other words, QDs were attenuating/converting a higher-frequency analogwaveform to a lower one, passively. Basically, I assumed QDs worked more like RF-engineering, but at many-TeraHertz frequencies, and using nanostructures to 're-attune' the THz electromagnetic emission.
(then again, this may be touching on the 'compatible' but 'seemingly contradictory' modeling of 'light' as both a particle(photon) and an EM-waveform.)
In 'particle terms' I thought QD's worked like a funnel/cone, limiting or 'bleeding off' the 'frequency and intensity' of the photon's vibration(phase?) as the photon passes through the nano-structure 'QuantumDot'.

We're both right. Honestly, it's such a complex subject that you have to dumb it down to a partial, oversimplified model to even talk about it in a reason amount of time and page space. From the age of 14 to 23 I took every possible educational choice fork that involved quantum mechanics, and have enjoyed continuing to follow scientific advancements and increase my education on the subject for the last 20+ years since and I still have gaps in my knowledge.

To keep this on track, yes light colour change of a quantum dot is best explained with a simple photon-as-a-particle model with energy level. As mentioned, it's a very simplified and incomplete model that only really works for that one scenario of explaining how energy cannot be created or destroyed when talking about individual photons.

The reality is that the energy level of photons relates to (but does not equal) the wavelength and frequency of photons. That relationship is far for simple to explain, and yes - best to just handwave it all into the larger, more complex topic of wave-particle duality. You definitely can model QD mechanics using EM-spectrum wave behaviours and it's just another simplified perspective of the same exceptionally complicated thing from a different point of observation.

 

[jesdals]

Ones should not trow stones when living a screenglass house.... It isnt nice to see dirt trowing like this it did hit AMD hard when makeing fun of Nvidia and then haveing a cooler isue with the 7900XTX afterwards - lets see some fair and real competition and lower prices instead

 

[Dave65]

I don't know if true but I stay far away from anything LG these days.

 

[Waldorf]

@z1tu
never said anything about what i can "pick up/see", im talking about preference and that not everything needs to be running at a high refresh.

btt

 

[Deleted member 185088]

No surprising, LG has been making OLEDs for a while now, early models were much worse when it comes to burn in, pretty sure after a couple of generations QD-OLED will catch up.

 

[Vayra86]

Blue is the most efficient color wavelength - thus easiest to control.

View attachment 286133

Without the annoying LG color filter array blocking light - QD panels can theoretically run with greater efficiency and last longer (however processing and a TVs ABL have a big impact also). It's why QD monitors from Dell have free 3 year warranties.

Sony's new QD - a95L also has a carbon heat distribution layer to extend the TVs life.

QD-OLED panels from Samsung are WAY ahead of LG. See one in person and it's clear as day.

Cheers

So far there is not a single property of QD Oled in a better place than WOLED except maybe peak brightness - which also goes at the expense of pure blacks and therefore static contrast. On top of that: bad subpixel arrangement, apparently faster degradation... and Samsung's history of planned obscolescense.

Dont go drinking too much Youtube / Samsung koolaid...

 

[trsttte]

Sadly, we all missed out on the last big milestone: Manufacturing technology limits at the time and changing consumer-culture killed the Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED)

I never heard of that one before, sounds insteresting. Another one that was dropped way to soon was dual layer LCD: one lcd on top of the other to achieve contrast close to oled, like full array local dimming but number of zones equal or close to the number of pixels. No oled burn in, no fald blooming, no insane cost.

So far there is not a single property of QD Oled in a better place than WOLED except maybe peak brightness

Don't forget about much better color reproduction and saturation, and constant at all brightness levels for that matter.

 

[theonedub]

People who say OLED can't be used in bright rooms must be the ones that use their phone screens on max brightness.

I've never once thought my panels weren't bright enough. My TV room is ridiculously bright and I have an 83" G2 that is plenty bright. My bedroom has a solid wall of windows and my 5 year old 65" E7 is good.

WOLED is mature, QD is still in it's infancy. When Samsung gets into it's 4th+ gen they will hit their stride and iron out the kinks (read up on AVSF on the troubles they're having). I'd consider buying one in 2-3years but until then it's all WOLED for me- unless Samsung gets off their ass on microLED at semi reasonable prices.

 

[D007]

Well, LG has no room to talk. My C3 OLED has terrible burn in. So if they want to start throwing stones they should get out of that glass house they live in. And yes, I have all of the optional settings turned on to minimize that risk and I don’t leave my TV on and the screen saver is enabled just in case.

 

[Vayra86]

Don't forget about much better color reproduction and saturation, and constant at all brightness levels for that matter.

The deltaE error margin of WOLED is lower - its more accurate; as in, pretty much perfect. Below error number 2 you're in 'who cares' land anyway. HDR is another story; it'll depend largely on how well you remain within the screen's capabilities, and QD OLED can go brighter so it also has better control at very high brightness peaks. But... again, you're in who cares land here. High brightness suffers heavily from diminishing returns. 1000 nits is not perceived as 'twice as bright' as 500 nits, what matters is the actual static contrast you're looking at, because our eyes adjust to the whole picture.

'Better' is not 'more' - more is oversaturation. Something lots of screens are great at. Too bad it looks horrible, or more accurately: badly calibrated.

Higher brightness could be perceived as a quality, but if the black point rises along with it, you're on a self-defeating exercise for the most part. This is where VA stands out among LED technologies; it can reach lower black point than IPS and still similar brightness levels, creating a 3-5x better static contrast. The OLED vs QD OLED comparison has similar properties, although I think we can agree they're much, much closer together now than VA and IPS ever were.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the tech develop further. But at its current iteration, its a no buy to me.

 

[R-T-B]

Well, LG has no room to talk. My C3 OLED has terrible burn in. So if they want to start throwing stones they should get out of that glass house they live in. And yes, I have all of the optional settings turned on to minimize that risk and I don’t leave my TV on and the screen saver is enabled just in case.

C3 is pretty new. That sounds like an easy open and shut rma claim... and yeah it's defective to go bad that fast.

 

[bug]

Quantum dots are... weird. They are "emissive" as in when excited by a wavelength they will produce a different one.

Not weird at all, it's kind of the same thing that happens with laser: use energy to excite the material, material will emit a different kind of radiation.
The problem with what you are describing, is there is not enough energy in a blue photon to produce two red photons (even at 100% conversion), much less two green ones (see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04830.pdf)

 

[R-T-B]

Not weird at all, it's kind of the same thing that happens with laser: use energy to excite the material, material will emit a different kind of radiation.
The problem with what you are describing, is there is not enough energy in a blue photon to produce two red photons (even at 100% conversion), much less two green ones (see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04830.pdf)

To be fair he said red and infrared.

 

[bug]

To be fair he said red and infrared.

He said QD-OLED is efficient because it convert one high energy (blue) photon into several lower energy ones. The QD layer just converts to read and green.

 

[R-T-B]

He said QD-OLED is efficient because it convert one high energy (blue) photon into several lower energy ones. The QD layer just converts to read and green.

I wasn't going to touch the rest of the science (or lack thereof). Way over my expertise level.

 

[bug]

I wasn't going to touch the rest of the science (or lack thereof). Way over my expertise level.

It's really mostly arithmetic.

 

[R-T-B]

It's really mostly arithmetic.

Probably, but if you don't know, you don't claim to know, is my rule. I'll have to read up some other night.