Quantum Dot TVs: Making a splash at CES 2015!
Video Gear I use: http://amzn.com/lm/R3B571T7PT4PWM?tag=m0494a-20
Intro Track: Deadmau5 - Slow Down, Start Over
So, they are cheating again, its QD backlight, but not genuine QD displays. But if/when real QDs emerge, they should be superior than OLED because OLED is prone to burn-ins and organic-related issues (yellowing etc.).
Tech Guy I meant wait 3 4 yrs for OLED if too expensive and they'll get better, I'm not sure if IR/burnin will always be a problem..LG panels is like a lottery..a new tech thats beautiful i don't trust right now, not enough data, but we getting there..i have a QD edge-lit 9500..nice pic, just not OLED and is samsung insane? 3500 hun for flagship 9800 local dimming? That's more than the b6 c6 LG OLEDs....I'd venture to bet QLED will be emissive within 2 3 yrs..can't stay with backlight LCD tech if OLED will be future..again if QLED goes emmisive, whole new ballgame..IDK what u mean you can buy a QLED now..its still a LCD.
to produce an oled screen is expensive by cutting them up and selling them in the forms of smartphones samsung creates insane profit
lg is trying to make oled in tv popular but is taking risks but the eventual future turnover is going to be massive
differnent company's different production lines different strategies
Meeeehh i say it's pure bullshit,that's what they alway's do say, each year, our technology is brighter,or because of led,added yellow,laser tv, or a new color spectrum to it.
How much brighter could it ever be? It drives me very insane when they do this every year and really keep trying hard to suck the attention out of our buttock.
I have enough about it,just a miner improvement,who cares about that???
Actually, the technology IS super insane. People are using it for filtering right now but quantum dot technology can emit light on its own, too. So they could create screens that are even better than OLED screens in the future.
Semiconductor nano crystal is a quantum dot. If it is of an appropriate size AND electronic structure such that it's electronic/optical properties drastically change with size in the size regime of about 1-100 nm then it is a quantum dot.
Semiconductor nanocrystals are a fairly new technology. If you mean "use as the pixels" to mean why don't they just have the quantum dots emit light from an electrical bias instead of absorbing high energy light and emitting low energy light then it's because you run into efficiency problems. It's relatively easy to get them to emit by shining higher energy light on them. It's somewhat difficult to get them to emit by applying an electrical bias because of recombination issues (you excite an electron in the quantum dot, but it goes back to the orbital it was excited from without emitting the photon you wanted).
I think the colors from an LCD/QuantumDot Screen are much more realistic than Amoled. They a more sharper and detailled than OLED in my opinion. But Amoled has much better blacks. Huch much electricity saves a Quantum Dot compared to an LCD?
Its much more complicated than you make it out to be. It relies on Quantum Mechanics, it uses artificial atoms to produce light. If you YouTube search "Artificial Atoms" you won't find much because this technology is so freakishly new.
I disagree that there is nothing else to learn about the phenomenon as I am a chemist researching quantum dots for my PhD. Not all materials interact with light in a well-understood way, especially materials with a highly covalent lattice. Also, it isn't perfectly well understood how different shapes of nanocrystals would effect their quantum confinment effect. How do two dimensional materials and one dimensional materials compare to zero dimensional materials in terms of the quantum confinement effect? Surface chemistry plays a huge role in the electronic structure as well. Also, nucleation and growth are essential to understand how to synthesize these particles. This is far from the engineering and materials research only phase.
+Antonio Jorge That's the point. It's a well understood phenomenon. There is nothing more to learn about the basic science of the phenomenon itself; there is "only" engineering and materials research.
It took 4 years to go from the first discovery of nuclear fission in 1938 to the first nuclear reactor with a self-sustaining chain reaction.
Nuclear fusion was discovered in 1929 and it was both more intuitive and easier to understand than fission and had an equally obvious potential for weaponization. We still don't have self-sustaining fusion reactors; only the explosive, one-off kind called thermonuclear bombs.
Nuclear fusion is 30 years away. 30 years ago, nuclear fusion was 30 years away. In 30 years it will probably still be 30 years away.
At any given time there is several dozen competing technologies contending to replace the dominant technology. What makes quantum dots the winner and why now?
Regular inorganic LEDs still aren't used in display technology (only as a
backlight for an LCD). Sony was trying (crystal LED). Despite having
excellent picture quality and life the technology was shelved.
Engineering problems killed it.
SED and FED used a tiny electron gun for each red, green and blue subpixel. It worked; it was demonstrated. Engineering problems killed it.
CRTs are an excellent fit for displaying analog signals. There is no memory or digital processing. The beam is just constantly sweeping and is modulated in real time by an analog signal. Digital media and processing made LCDs viable. I remember when LCDs started replacing them. The image quality was utter shit; it didn't matter. They died in droves from capacitor plague; it didn't matter. Plasma had better image quality; it didn't matter. LCDs were easy to make, easy to transport and easy on the wallet; that mattered more.
OLEDs, the kind of LEDs actually used in displays as picture elements, still have not caught on for anything but tiny displays. Why? It's only an engineering problem.
There is no compelling reason to think QDLED, OLED or some variant of crystal LED will take off now or in the near future. (note: these quantum dot displays shown here are not QDLED displays; they are regular IPS LCDs backlit by a quantum dot light source)
In someways all these new technologies are wasted on me: 1) I am color blind 2) I don't have any TVs in my home. I haven't had a TV for 27 years, instead I read and of course I have computers everywhere, so who needs a TV? Again another great video and explanation. Thanks!
I'm honestly starting to lose interest in this "latest and greatest technology" crap.. We're getting all of these new displays that can do this and can do that and have this much quality. But as far as I'm concerned, 4K has been here for YEARS and it has yet to be implemented into anything other than video games and a handful of movies if any. Hell most cable TV still runs at a terrible 480p considering the fact that HD has been a thing for about a decade now if not longer. I feel like the products that can handle it are advancing but the things that make those products worth even having in the first place are not moving at all. I don't feel the need to go waste $2000+ on a TV that isn't even supported but by a number of things that I can count on one hand. Then when you factor in the time that I'm even going to be able to enjoy these things which is only a couple hours a night if that then I just don't see the point. I'm still happy with my 3 year old 1080p lcd TV.
I live in England (UK) which means I don't get to see the new Apple kit unless I go to the WWDC online on my MacBook Pro, iphone 5S or iPad Air 2 (in Gold) - I love holding this large gold brick - I've also just subscribed to the Paper edition of Macworld UK - so I'm looking forward to how Macworld does things different to my other Mac Publication - Mac Format. I've now Discovered Macworld UK on Youtube too so now I'm pretty much fitted out - Yay! :)
just a lame marketing campaign to distract people (and investors) from the fact that Samsung hasn't been able to get their full size OLED panels on the market.
the extra contrast you get with a quantum dot panel vs a conventional lcd is barely worth talking about compared to the massive leap you get by going from LCD to OLED, and the whole "better colors" thing is a complete joke, considering 4:4:4 television content still doesn't exist.
+vassillioss LCDs are an existing technology with a huge manufacturing base. Slapping on some QDLED backlighting is just a matter of retooling, which makes for cheap displays. Cheap usually wins.
CRTs are still comparable in image quality to LCDs and when they were replaced they were so far ahead it was ridiculous. They had good black levels, low persistence (that's huge, especially for gaming), great colours and native support for various odd resolutions without crappy image scaling. It took 10 years for LCDs to even get close after they stopped making CRTS. That's the power of cheap.
OLED will be the technology of the future, for the forseeable future, until it won't be. Once LCDs are finally discarded, it is anyone's guess wether OLED will be the winner, or if it will be anything between quantum dot displays (real ones, not just a backlight for LCD) to a VRD that projects a digital lightfield directly into the eye. Whatever it will be, it will be something that can be made really cheap.
Any tv that uses a 'white' light back lit technology will never produce reference blacks.. That's why the cinema will never match plasma/ OLED in contrast performance. It's a image projected onto a 'white' screen.
To everyone watching this video please stay away from SUHD TV's! All of 2015 models only have 60 HZ including the full array 65 inch! Your best bet is to go for a Sony that uses same tech in their TV's! Plus Sony TVs have 120 HZ! One more thing the Samsung 65 inch full array SUHD costs 6,400 dollars!
+hunter borman 60Hz TVs alternate between 3 and 2 refreshes per frame because 24 doesn't divide evenly into 60.
120 is a multiple of 24, so it can show 5 refreshes per frame without alternating. Before the 120Hz craze, they advertised 72Hz ones as "cinema" TVs, but they couldn't show 60fps content properly for the same reason 60Hz can't show 24fps properly. The refreshes per frame don't really matter, but having every frame's display time be equal makes a difference.
240Hz is mostly just marketing buzz, the only actual advantage is that it can display 48fps and 80fps without uneven frames. ...so The Hobbit will look better on 240Hz.
+Rob The Plumber OLED is one of those technologies that is the future and always will be. I think real quantum dot displays (no, an LCD backlit with quantum dots does not count) will eventually get here before OLED takes off.
It does have to do with quantum mechanics. They use nanoparticles as a downconverter. They are called "quantum dots" because these semiconductor nanocrystals behave like artificial atoms at that size regime.