Oled/ Nanocell

[STEVEperson]

Hello

 

I just wanted to ask if its worth buying a Nanocell tv or just a oled one?

All i know is that Nanocell has a deeper color range or something like that? As for Oled, it has the potential to die quicker?

 

Could somebody please explain the comparison?

 

Thank you.

 

[Chen G]

Nanocell is still LCD

OLED is still better

 

top end LCD has bigger "color volume", meaning any pure color can be as bright as whatever the peak brightness is supposed to be. Where as commercial OLED TVs can only show peak brightness in white, not any pure color. In general commercial OLED is only unmatched in dark room enviroments. As soon as you boost brightness to compensate for ambient light, the gap closes very quickly.
 

OLEDs don't "die", each pixel gets dimmer with use, which depending on the brightness level, can be anywhere between a few thousand hours, to eternity, before you notice a difference in brightness (aka burn-in).

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, STEVEperson said:

Hello

 

I just wanted to ask if its worth buying a Nanocell tv or just a oled one?

All i know is that Nanocell has a deeper color range or something like that? As for Oled, it has the potential to die quicker?

 

Could somebody please explain the comparison?

 

Thank you.

 

Never heard of “nanocell” smells like marketing.

[Glenwing]

7 minutes ago, Chen G said:

A top end LCD has bigger "color volume", meaning any pure color can be as bright as whatever the peak brightness is supposed to be. Where as commercial OLED TVs can only show peak brightness in white, not any pure color.

Source?

[xhackforeverxdx]

Nanocell Qled Uled all the same just marketing bla bla all of those are * normal lcd * Panels with enchanced colors using diff backlight Methods etc 

 

Oled is great just be sure u dont abuse them and run cable tv 24/7 on the same channel ^^ The newer oleds even can handel some gaming and support 120hz at full 4k with hdmi 2.1 (lg atleast and they make the Panels) 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Chen G said:

Nanocell is still LCD

OLED is still better

 

top end LCD has bigger "color volume", meaning any pure color can be as bright as whatever the peak brightness is supposed to be. Where as commercial OLED TVs can only show peak brightness in white, not any pure color. In general commercial OLED is only unmatched in dark room enviroments. As soon as you boost brightness to compensate for ambient light, the gap closes very quickly.
 

OLEDs don't "die", each pixel gets dimmer with use, which depending on the brightness level, can be anywhere between a few thousand hours, to eternity, before you notice a difference in brightness (aka burn-in).

That last sentence doesn’t make sense to me. Each pixel gets dimmer in what you claimed was an uneven way which means there would be a color shift.  Look at any really old printed piece.  The 4 colors (cmyk) fade around different rates do colors go weird.  red goes first and blue goes last so they blue shift.  With oled red goes last so they’ll red shift.  Sort of like old printing but a different pattern.  The inks are still there.  They get overwhelmed by the other colors though.

[SolarNova]

If u want to see what happens when OLED pixel degrade just look at rtings.com OLED burn in test.

 

As for 'Nanocell' vs OLED. As people have stated, its just LCD. You currently only have 2 predominant types of displays available.

LCD with QD filter

and

OLED

 

There are a 'few' select options that differ from traditional LCDs, like Hisense Dual Cell ULED, which is still a QD LCD but with an effective 1920x1080 FALD system in place thanks to a monochrome LCD acting as the backlight. Theres more to it than that, but if u want to know more , look it up.

 

 

If ur going to leave ur screen on for longer periods with static elements being shown, like channel logo's and such .. dont get a OLED. They wont burn in in a day, but they will eventually degrade over time. its cumulative, not instant.

 

If however ur going to use the display more conservatively, on when u need it , off when u dont, varied channels and films. Get an OLED.

[Chen G]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

That last sentence doesn’t make sense to me. Each pixel gets dimmer in what you claimed was an uneven way which means there would be a color shift.  Look at any really old printed piece.  The 4 colors (cmyk) fade around different rates do colors go weird.  red goes first and blue goes last so they blue shift.  With oled red goes last so they’ll red shift.  Sort of like old printing but a different pattern.  The inks are still there.  They get overwhelmed by the other colors though.

On the OLED TVs, red goes first and and then blue/green, white last.

 

If you can run all the pixel completely even for a very long time, yes the color will shift.

 

That doesn't really happen for two reasons:

 

1. there's no such content that runs every sub pixel for the same amount

2. If you just run a slideshow of static colors, your per pixel brightness is severely limited because of ABL, which means you'd have to run this for an extremely extremely long period of time to see the effect, many tens of thousands of hours.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Chen G said:

On the OLED TVs, red goes first and and then blue/green, white last.

 

If you can run all the pixel completely even for a very long time, yes the color will shift.

 

That doesn't really happen for two reasons:

 

1. there's no such content that runs every sub pixel for the same amount

2. If you just run a slideshow of static colors, your per pixel brightness is severely limited because of ABL, which means you'd have to run this for an extremely extremely long period of time to see the effect, many tens of thousands of hours.

Interesting.  So a fading pattern more similar to process ink fading.

 

1. sure.  That doesn’t make it not happen though it just makes it less predictable and controllable.

 

2. Oh it’s very slow.  Time catches up though.  I once read oled screens have uptime lives measured in years.  With oled you very specifically do NOT want to run a screensaver or use them as electronic billboards or for menus or advertisements or such.  Then you get 24/7 uptime and problems become noticeable much faster.

[Chen G]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Interesting.  So a fading pattern more similar to process ink fading.

 

1. sure.  That doesn’t make it not happen though it just makes it less predictable and controllable.

 

2. Oh it’s very slow.  Time catches up though.  I once read oled screens have uptime lives measured in years.  With oled you very specifically do NOT want to run a screensaver or use them as electronic billboards or for menus or advertisements or such.  Then you get 24/7 uptime and problems become noticeable much faster.

1. It does, because long before a color shift would happen, you'd have a very obvious pattern burnt into the screen and you'd stop using it for that reason.

2. This is another one of those things where a lot of anecdotal accounts differ and nobody knows what's going on, like battery endurance on phones, some people have their battery bulging and about to explode within 1 year, while some others still have 90% capacity after 5 years. It's a similar situation here, if you just look at one pixel, depending on how you use it, its decay half-life could differ by a factor of 10, 100, and possibly over 1000. For example the most vulnerable red pixels could become visually dimmer after about 2000 hours at 500nits brightness, but if you instead run it at 50 nits (about equivalent to minimum brightness), it could last almost forever, or at least longer than these panels have been released for.

 

screen savers while they certainly don't save your OLED screen, are not necessarily more harmful than showing the desktop, if it uses all pixels evenly then you'd much rather do that than burn the desktop into your your screen.

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, Chen G said:

1. It does, because long before a color shift would happen, you'd have a very obvious pattern burnt into the screen and you'd stop using it for that reason.

2. This is another one of those things where a lot of anecdotal accounts differ and nobody knows what's going on, like battery endurance on phones, some people have their battery bulging and about to explode within 1 year, while some others still have 90% capacity after 5 years. It's a similar situation here, if you just look at one pixel, depending on how you use it, its decay half-life could differ by a factor of 10, 100, and possibly over 1000. For example the most vulnerable red pixels could become visually dimmer after about 2000 hours at 500nits brightness, but if you instead run it at 50 nits (about equivalent to minimum brightness), it could last almost forever, or at least longer than these panels have been released for.

 

screen savers while they certainly don't save your OLED screen, are not necessarily more harmful than showing the desktop, if it uses all pixels evenly then you'd much rather do that than burn the desktop into your your screen.

1. So even worse then.

 

2. so extremely variable by use case and random factors.

 

screen savers are a problem because they keep the screen on.  Ideally one would want it to turn off.  It wouldn’t be worse than any other 24/7 operation though.