News ViewSonic's VLED221wm has 12000:1 contrast ratio

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/10/viewsonic_vled221wm_has_12000-1_contrast_ratio/1

ViewSonic has announced a 22 inch LED backlit widescreen monitor with a claimed 12,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.

 

wow.... that contrast ratio is INSANE. quite expensive though so i wouldn't buy it until it became cheaper, and with OLED tech. getting cheaper i think this one might be a little late.

 

i am betting on OLED technology... but this one is interesting.... i hope samsung does another 226BW with dynamic contrast like the ones from "bright side" whose lamps turned on and off.

 

dynamic contrast ratio though, so it means pretty much naff all.

I was getting excited thinking it had individual control of the LEDs, but it doesn't, so how is it really any better than a CCFL display?

 

Maybe a bit more even light distribution and less bleeding at the edges?

 

If you use that monitor in normal room lighting the real contrast ratio is going to be well under 50:1

This guy's even more pessimistic;

Another good read here.

 

I read Gizmodo's guide to contrast ratio, and they basically said it was all ******** now as it's become one of those marketing terms that people love hearing.

 

pretty much, I bought my monitor before all the articles about how to read the specs of monitors came out. I wish I had known more back then so i didn't get stuck with a 6 bit screen. I can really notice the dithering in some games. like crysis.

 

The lack of local dimming is a disappointment as this is the benefit of LEDs from what I can see. Doesn't OLED tech degrade quicker than LCD tech?

 

Yes. At the time this is true; I don't have any numbers at the moment, but if memory serves me I think the average life expectancy of OLEDs is around the 3 year mark. Not quite sure though, however they do burn out a lot quicker than LCDs for the time being. I'm sure that when OLED technology matures further they will of course also be made more durable.

Just found this by the way;

"Novaled achieved significant improvements for white OLEDs for lighting applications. An efficiency of 35 lm/W and a lifetime of 100,000h were reached at a brightness of 1000 cd/m2."
http://www.oled-info.com/tags/lifetime_0

So, whilst these are primarily designed for illumination, I'm sure the technology can be adapted. Just a matter of time and patience I believe.

Also, whilst this technology certainly is very interesting, and very elegant, I do believe that PHOLEDs show more potential - at least efficiency wise.

 

its the blue leds or whatever that have short life. the red and green were fine i think.

 

I am probably being a bit stupid here, but how can you have more than 100% of a range of colours?
And that is incredibly expensive, I can't see them selling many.

 

I think in America (NTSC) they only have 12 colours?

Probably makes the advertising stand out more.

 

Over time, the monitor dims and what ViewSonic is saying is that the screen will have a full colour gamut for its lifetime.

 

The NTSC colour gamut does not cover the full range of colours of the visible spectrum it just covers a fair chunk of them, therefore it is quite possible to have a gamut of colours larger than NTSC.
Have a look here; http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/photoshop/v6/color-settings.htm
there are some pretty pictures showing a variety of gamuts and their relationship to the visible spectrum.

The panel is using RGB LEDs not white ones this means that the LCD panel doesn't have to split the white light into RGB, this give better colour reproduction as pretty much all white light sources are biased towards one colour of the spectrum, i.e. white LEDs are biased towards blue.

 

We've got a worked open Samsung LCD backlit tv on my work (which I found out the hard way, by checking the leds from 4 cm and then the thing went on x_x ) and it uses groups of three leds (red blue and green).

 

Not understanding this:

I thought it was commonly acknowledged that TN panels were among the worst in terms of color reproduction.