OLED monitors are comming.

[Misha Engel]

Hope this is a start http://edgeup.asus.com/2018/monitors-made-for-travel-proart-pq22uc-zenscreen-go/
It's a least a lot smaller than a LG OLED TV

 

[L. Langer]

The monitor industry is going to back away from OLED for a bit - maybe entirely, in the not too distant future - and focus on other display tech like microscopic LED displays that are far easier and less expensive to manufacture than OLED. We'll see some OLED products this year, but not the tidal wave that some have expected or hoped for.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Just bring back plasma lol!

 

[L. Langer]

Just bring back plasma lol!

It will never come back and you can thank California for that. They killed it with their updated power consumption requirements right when breakthroughs for larger and higher-resolution panels were happening in the labs.

 

[M Most]

It will never come back and you can thank California for that. They killed it with their updated power consumption requirements right when breakthroughs for larger and higher-resolution panels were happening in the labs.

They won't come back, but not because of some politically motivated conspiracy theory. What killed plasma was LCD, which was considerably cheaper to manufacture, lower in power requirements, physically lighter, and produced an image that the vast majority of the buying public - aka, the consumer market - was perfectly satisfied with. Once the consumer market collapsed, maintaining a line to manufacture plasma screens became prohibitively expensive for the two companies that were involved (Panasonic and LG). Panasonic went on to develop "QLed" technology, and LG invested heavily in making OLEDs at an affordable price point.

I know lots of people - especially those who live on the east coast - love to blame California for everything. However, in this case, my home state had nothing to do with it. The closest analog to the plasma/LCD situation I can come up with is Beta vs. VHS, another case of better technology being killed by "almost as good" technology at a significantly lower price point.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Good riddance to plasma. May it never return. Ever. The current OLED and Quantum Dot displays are the best image we’ve ever had. They both still have their flaws, but the only thing CRT or plasma can offer at this point is fond memories. And the fondness is highly subjective.

 

[Roger Singh]

How likely is this monitor is going to come out? Asus was supposed to release a Quantum Dot ProArt monitor last year, and that never happened.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1100...-1000-nits-brightness-95-dcip3-85-rec2020-hdr

 

[L. Langer]

All the HDR stuff was kicked back to this year because there were simply too many issues that needed to be sorted out in regards to panels, industry standards, and software functionality. CES and Computex will bring us many HDR monitors and HDR should be in good order by the holiday season, where we'll see a lot of new HDR-capable laptops and tablets and AIOs on sale. For example, Dell is going to update their XPS 27 flagship with a UHD HDR display and UHD-BD drive, later in the year.

 

[jake blackstone]

The monitor industry is going to back away from OLED for a bit - maybe entirely, in the not too distant future - and focus on other display tech like microscopic LED displays that are far easier and less expensive to manufacture than OLED. We'll see some OLED products this year, but not the tidal wave that some have expected or hoped for.

Prices of OLED TVs already dramatically dropping. Recently I got my 65" LG C7 for $2500 delivered. How much cheaper should it be for you to become convinced, that this technology is not that expensive already? This inexpensive C7 display replaced my Pro Panasonic 58" plasma. Once metameric failure is taken into an account, LG OLED is very easy to calibrate and it even covers 96% of P3 color space in Wide gamut mode. It also supports DolbyVision and HDR10 right out of the box and it is a true UHD monitor. Darks rendition also had been dramatically improved. All in all it's a great display using excellent display technology for the money, so I'm not sure why dismiss this perfectly valid display technology.
Finally, the only "reasonably" priced (in comparison to $250,000 Dolby monitor) HDR monitor, that can be used for HDR mastering happened to be an OLED Sony X300.

 

[L. Langer]

How likely is this monitor is going to come out? Asus was supposed to release a Quantum Dot ProArt monitor last year, and that never happened.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1100...-1000-nits-brightness-95-dcip3-85-rec2020-hdr

They just announced a 22-inch ProArt OLED monitor with USB-C. 32-inch could come around Computex.

 

[Misha Engel]

I hope he is right about the price https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbdhsRt9G4 (under a $ 1.000)

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Good riddance to plasma. May it never return. Ever. The current OLED and Quantum Dot displays are the best image we’ve ever had. They both still have their flaws, but the only thing CRT or plasma can offer at this point is fond memories. And the fondness is highly subjective.

Good luck getting the natural feel and motion rendition as from a plasma gas pixels.

None of the options you mention show you neither full detail in motion nor realistic camera motion blur.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Good luck getting the natural feel and motion rendition as from a plasma gas pixels.

I know that when Plasma was a thing it had black levels going for it. The sub pixels were also a lot faster than those of LCD, giving plasma TV:s the upper hand in crispness and absence of motion blur, which is great for sports and so on.

Since then OLED has established itself with the following benefits:

1. even darker per pixel than plasma
2. it has significantly wider color gamut than plasma
3. it has much greater brightness capability than plasma
4. the pixels are even quicker to react than plasma

What are some of the advantages you feel plasma has going for it?

HDTVtest, a respected site in the UK did a... I was going to say 'blind test', but that would be a poor choice of words... OLED vs Plasma test with AV enthusiasts in November 2017. 88% chose OLED as the winner.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

On paper OLED is superior. By the wow factor it is also superior.
In practice modulating plasma gas gives more realistic motion. And aesthetic is a matter of taste.

Current LG OLED combo tech has lower motion resolution plus sample-and-hold principle in general gets perceptively blurred. I.e you see blur where there isn't one because the image sequence cannot be properly interpreted. Plasma's high speed modulating gas bubbles are something brain seems to like (likely related to eye refresh principles) and its motion rendition is superior to anything else.

Aesthetically and all in all, plasma had a special organic feel to the image.
Because plasma & Sun.

I did a test with Panasonic EZ1000 OLED last year when it came out, likely the best TV screen in existence.
I would still consider ZT60 for general viewing in home surroundings. OLED can get photorealistic and is best for post but plasmas gave the additional touch, like a Hi-Fi vs studio referent speakers. Not in colour tone but in signal extremes and overall feel. Sad day when plasma was retired.

Also, OLED is still young tech and tends to have burn-in and phosphor ageing discrepancy issue.
"Phosphor ageing discrepancy" = blue goes before red or green (for example) = tint.

 

[Misha Engel]

Haven't seen Plasma monitors of 22 inch lately but that could be my bad luck.
LG's oled's don't suffer from phosphor ageing discrepancy because they use white oled's with a color filter.
And plasma's burn in for sure (mine does at least Samsung and my brothers one also Pioneer Kuro).

Let's hope they are not to expensive and do what ASUS tells us.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

On paper OLED is superior. By the wow factor it is also superior.
In practice modulating plasma gas gives more realistic motion. And aesthetic is a matter of taste.

In my opinion, you're romanticising the way plasma/gas works. I agree that its cool to imagine that each little pixel is an almost living entity, that with its continuous state of flux delivers images in an organically pleasing way. But at the end of the day, TV pixels are stationary and they're either lit up or not. Their ability to light up or go dark quickly will determine image precision. Plasma was quicker than LCD and better for it. But OLED is faster then plasma.

Any organic light build up, or especially light fall off, won't equal 'motion blur' but rather image retention. Old image information. Only a theoretical instantaneous on/off behaviour of the pixel would truly represent the way the footage was captured, with motion blur and all.

Any way, apart from technical specs or "on paper" information, I imagine that this might be another area where fans of plasma will keep cheering it on for quite some time. Nothing wrong with that. Kind of like infatuation with vinyl or negative film. Nothing wrong with that either, but I think it's more emotional than factual. And I really don't mean this in a snide, derogatory way. We see beauty where we see it.

But thinking about HDR and looking forward, I'd prefer investments into technology that bests supports that (wide gamut, dark blacks and excellent brightness).

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

In my opinion, you're romanticising the way plasma/gas works.

I just gave you subjective and objective/technical part summed up after 5-6 years of professional experience with plasma in our post and how you choose to interpret that is up to you.

I agree that its cool to imagine that each little pixel is an almost living entity, that with its continuous state of flux delivers images in an organically pleasing way.

That was not said nor suggested, that is your interpretation of what was written and you are attributing it to my words.

Plasma gas light has different properties than diode light source and it is the closest to Sun light.

But at the end of the day, TV pixels are stationary and they're either lit up or not.

No, that is not the whole story.

Their modulation and responsiveness also plays a role.

LCD molecules are inert, Plasma gas is highly responsive but modulates at a high frequency, OL diode responds even faster but is always on and there is no "reset" between frames so the result is unnatural temporal stepping dissonant to biological principles of a visual apparatus.

Plasma was quicker than LCD and better for it. But OLED is faster then plasma.

Please google some newer OLED tests and check motion resolution.

Any organic light build up, or especially light fall off, won't equal 'motion blur' but rather image retrention.

Plasma gas light gives "organic feel" with compression of extreme signal values.

Only a theoretical instantaneous on/off behaviour of the pixel would truly represent the way the footage was captured, with motion blur and all.

To a robot - perhaps but humans have also eye refresh/scan properties and image retention and sample-and-hold imagery combined with rapid response leads to unnatural visual pulses which, once interpreted, get perceptively blurred.

Modulating plasma gas pixels do not.

But thinking about HDR and looking forward, I'd prefer investments into technology that bests supports that (wide gamut, dark blacks and excellent brightness).

"HDR" (high brightness standard) is a sensory gratification fad pushed to the masses to keep fundamentally flawed LCD tech alive through "more cowbell" principle (crank up the intensity), sell new TV sets, sell more crap content through fascination with the medium, and use sensory overload to keep lemmings glued to the wall like moths to a light bulb, "entertained" with distorted perception of reality and fantasia, away from looking outside the window at the self-destructive society falling apart.


It should take some years and some highly painful lessons before playful, naive and irresponsible humans, forgetting the need for moderation, seeking "excitement" before all and getting used to extremes, realize why it is not the *brightest* idea in the world to stare at a high brightness fluctuating light source and carelessly guzzle what comes down the pipe and goes directly into subconscious.

Unless the planet gets fed up with the pestilence outbreak before that happens and presses re-start again.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

LG's oled's don't suffer from phosphor ageing discrepancy because they use white oled's with a color filter.

Unless something drastically changed in the design of last models they still have burn in issues. For post that draws the question with black bars and long form grading.
For desktop - good luck.

This Asus looks interesting although size choice for 4K resolution and desktop usage seems weird. It uses latest Japanese OLED tech and they took a while to put it out there so fingers crossed.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

"HDR" (high brightness standard) is a sensory gratification fad pushed to the masses to keep fundamentally flawed LCD tech alive through "more cowbell" principle (crank up the intensity), sell new TV sets…

I don't agree at all. If HDR was about a brighter picture, it would indeed be meaningless. But as I'm pretty sure you already know, it's not.

With HDR we get new transfer functions and a much larger gamut. We also get 10-bit+ files as delivery format.

To me, HDR is about removing some of the old limitations of displaying captured light. For a while, we've been able to capture many more stops of light than our deliver format supported. We've either had to throw it away when grading, or compress it down to what resembles 'photography HDR'—which is truly shitty.

With actual HDR displays and formats we can free our light again—let it loose. You only need a very small part of the image reaching for 4000 nits+ and you get a very real effect. Something closer to how the scene really was.

In 4 years HDR displays will be everywhere. In 10 years SDR will be what VHS is now.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't agree at all. If HDR was about a brighter picture, it would indeed be meaningless. But as I'm pretty sure you already know, it's not.

With HDR we get new transfer functions and a much larger gamut. We also get 10-bit+ files as delivery format.

To me, HDR is about removing some of the old limitations of displaying captured light. For a while, we've been able to capture many more stops of light than our deliver format supported. We've either had to throw it away when grading, or compress it down to what resembles 'photography HDR'—which is truly shitty.

With actual HDR displays and formats we can free our light again—let it loose. You only need a very small part of the image reaching for 4000 nits+ and you get a very real effect. Something closer to how the scene really was.

In 4 years HDR displays will be everywhere. In 10 years SDR will be what VHS is now.

Those last two paragraphs are a "glass half empty" type of rant, formulated that way not because I fail to see the potential of the tech, but because this technocratic mindset is getting out of control and its criticisim is well founded and at times neccessary.

Those "specialists" and tech evangelists pushing 1000nits+ have either never checked light values in an average living room and heard of eye accomodation and other biological pronciples of vision, or are just ignoring them and acting dumb to push the tech and make a buck.

What is "new" is not necessarily "better". And "more" of something is not necessarily "better".
Using the FULL range of perceivable is PUSHING the apparatus. Optimal exposure to stimuli is NOT pushing the extremes but using the "golden middle". You don't enjoy the music at 110dB just because your speaker can deliver those peaks, optimal listening range for a pleasant experience and minimal strain is way lower, let'say in 50-80dB range. Same principles work for vision.

HDR high brightness desktop makes almost zero sense, especially with stone age UI design and bright windows and wow factor comes at a price of additional strain of visual system at no practical purpose whatsoever. If you have an HDR high brightness screen, you will be more distracted with the wallpaper while doing something else, grey UI for multimedia production brings zero difference and was designed that way for a purpose directly the opposite than HDR's goal and document writing gets impaired. And web browsing gets more tasking because white pages and generally graphic web design with full black to full white. Completely unnatural visual stimuli for everyday exposure.

For storytelling it can easily do the opposite of what is intended and distract from the story with wrapper literally outshining the essence. I've seen it myself on multiple examples. Circus type of surface wow vs. drama storytelling with deeper meaning and I'm bedazzled with irrelevant elements while it gets more difficult to follow the actual plot.

HDR has great potential in special usage, nature scenery in living spaces and particular event coverage etc. Pushed into mainstream for everything in times of "more cowbell" and masses already glued to screens all day it is new Pandora's box for a society.