Talk:LED-backlit LCD

I got rid of a lot of advertisement sounding stuff... still needs work though, I don't fully understand the technology, so it's not my place to write about it. Also fixed a lot of bad spelling :S AtlantisEndevour 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is too short and repeats itself. 15: 23, 5/20/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreal ed (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

... OLED TVs

I'd add that, but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.109.69 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why discussion of LED displays/OLEDs?

The first section is confusing. Just clarify that the article is not about OLEDs or LED displays but LED backlit televisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.5.7 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the life of LED and LCD

Please advise what is running hours for LED TV and LCD TV. How to retain better quality picture for long time.

Thanks, Suren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.108.33 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

LCD problems retained

You could point out that these are LCD panels (as opposed to a true LED displays). The method of light modulation is through the polarization change imparted on the light from the backlight by the LC filtered by a final polarizer to create per pixel intensity variation. The light output is polarized. LED TV is a marketing term! It is not an LED TV, It is an LED backlight on an LCD panel. The output from true LED TVs such as electronic billboards and OLEDs normally has random polarization. 75.23.164.143 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

LED vs CCFL

I edited the title of the section about "LED vs CCFL", because the former title ("Differences between LED backlit LCD displays") implies that LED-backlit displays are no LCD displays. This is, of course, wrong. This is why I chose the current title "Differences between LED-backlit and CCFL-backlit LCD displays". As you can see, I also introduced a "-" in "LED-backlit" to keep it consistent with the rest of the section, where the "-" is used. I hope that was ok. Edit: have a username now. --Tdeu (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ARE LED BETTER THEM PLASMAS FOR SPORTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.190.173 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Green

I think that this is the appropriate place the the Green issue should be discussed.

I first note that the entire article says nothing about the green issue with LCD displays backlit with RGB LEDs.

True Green is usually taken at 550nm although the peak response of the human eye to Green light is 555nm. There has been a problem with LEDs. It was not possible to make a true Green LED (550nm). Low power true Green LEDs are now available but not high power ones. Green high power LEDs are typically 530nm and therefore appear somewhat Blue.

I have read of a possible solution of redefining the color Green, however if quantum dot and OLED displays are coming out, that does not sound like a solution.

Phillips Lumileds developed a general solution for this problem for when RGB LEDs are mixed to produce colors. They also offer a Lime LED which is typically 567.5nm and appears somewhat Yellow. These two colors are close enough together that they can be mixed together to produce a perfect 550nm Green. The Green could even be adjustable to meet a person's taste -- match their eyes.

I have no knowledge if any display manufacture has made displays using RLGB LEDs or if there are any Blu-Ray disks that were transferred using 530nm Green instead of 550nm Green light. These are all interesting question that would require research.

IAC, the main point to be considered is that cold cathode fluorescent backlit may have better Green rendering than RGB LED backlit.

--Tyrerj (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously going to vary from display to display. I purchased a fluorescent because the movies looked more like film projected on a screen and they had better Greens.

This section is all pro-LED to the point that it sounds like an advertisement and I understand that Wikipedia trys to avoid that.

--Tyrerj (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Language issues on page

I for one can make ZERO sense of the image at the top of the page. One guess why... it's in Chinese and the description is Russian. ...I find it amusing that a Russian would come post Chinese images on an English only website (there IS a Russian Wikipedia...and a Chinese one for that matter), and at the same time it irritates me to no end. Could someone with the ability please FIX this?CloudLevi (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Truer blacks

I don't think there's anything darker than black nor is there anything truer than true. Some parts of the text read like PR BS unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Maybe "truer blacks" is part of the relevant terminology - despite lacking logic. So I won't modify the text, especially as I'm anything but an expert of display technology. I suspect what's meant is LED-LCDs are capable of very dark gray pixels which are almost black and thus much darker than with common LCDs. --77.8.106.76 (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, "truer blacks" means that the display of "black" is darker, yes. In TVs with independently addressable LEDs in their backlights, they can actually dim the backlight for only a small section that is black, allowing an even greater visual contrast with a portion that is white and at full brightness. It's a higher dynamic range, but it's weird because it's almost impossible to standardize a measurement that takes into account the fact that you only get that dynamic range across certain areas -- depending on the quality of the TV it can be very noticeable and very irritating, just like low-rate PWM. (If you can't eat chips and look at the screen without the screen waving, your TV has cheaped out on its backlight.) 216.142.113.252 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LED:Light emitting diode LCD:Liquid Cristal display

LED:Light emitting diode LCD:Liquid Cristal display

Technology

The page currently displays the following sentences in the technology subsection which is misleading / somewhat incorrect:

"The first commercial LED backlit LCD TV was the Sony Qualia 005 (introduced in 2004) and featured RGB LED arrays to produce a color gamut around twice that of a conventional CCFL LCD television. This was possible because the combined light output from red, green and blue LEDs produces a more pure white light than is possible with a single white light LED."

The reason for the wider gamut is not a "more pure white light", but rather that the spectral peaks of the individual LEDs are very sharp, essentially making the color filters in front of individual red, green and blue cells "steeper". This results in less bleed through to different colored cells when edge-of-gamut colors, which consist of mixtures of two colors only, and need to exclude the third as much as possible to avoid "whitening" the resultant mixture.

A possible rewording of the second sentence could be some like this:

"This is possible because the red, green and blue LEDs have very sharp spectral peaks which, combined with the LCD panel filters results in significantly less bleed-though to adjacent color channels. This results in purer colors near the edge of the display's color gaumt."

Possible references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlight - discusses this same issue in more detail. Perhaps a direct hyperlink in the text above is appropriate, but I don't know wikipedia's rules, so won't insert it here.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4025286&abstractAccess=no&userType=inst - have not read this, unfortunately, only the abstract, but probably covers this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Linn (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

True - LED display vs OLED display?

Why does a true LED-TV without the LCD have to be an OLED display? We already have functional non-organic red, green, and blue LED technology. So why can't those be used to build a display?

This intentional marketing confusion of "LED TV really means LED-LCD TV" means that a true LED TV that is not OLED can not be properly identified or distinguished. DMahalko (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is an intentional marketing confusion. I bet most people think a LED TV isn't a LCD TV. Probably the reason why LED TVs don't exist is the manufacturing feature: the GaPAs (Gallium phosphide arsenide) crystal needs to be soldiered to a metal stand and a metal wire needs to be bonded on top. The wire cuts down on some of the light emission. Overcoming that limitation is possible but maybe adds to complexity and cost. Anyway, that is my guess. OLED is probably cheap since an inkjet style manufacturing technique can be used. Vmelkon (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term LED TV is ubiquitous in the U.S. & is highly misleading. You even see it in information comparisons of LCD vs. LED sets, when in fact, the image in all is produced by LCD crystals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:40D2:D208:E2A3:B914 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Article name is redundant

“LCD display,” in full, would be “Liquid Crystal Display display,” an embarrassingly bad case of RAS syndrome. Somebody please rename it. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue light hazard

Should we take a look into this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henfe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LED-backlit LCD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826042143/http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/scottwilkinson/ultimate_vizio/ to http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/scottwilkinson/ultimate_vizio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)