4 ms·
I don't get this debate at all, LCD has less burn-in risk. OLED will always be an inferior choice if they can't fix its short lifetime. Or, I guess, this fits w
by rf15 2y ago
I don't get this debate at all, LCD has less burn-in risk. OLED will always be an inferior choice if they can't fix its short lifetime. Or, I guess, this fits well with planned obsolescence: higher fidelity, shorter life time
- ycombinatrix 2y agomini LED is a less complicated & more effective technology no? just a bunch of lights in an array. I think we'll dump LCD when we get good at manufacturing smaller mini LEDs.
- pathartl 2y agoI don't see how LEDs are going to be that much better than OLED other than less risk of a higher sustained brightness. I got a QD OLED panel 6 months ago and have basically paid it no mind and there's not even a hint of burn in. It does a pretty good job managing the brightness at idle without being distracting, in that when I leave it on accidentally for 4 hours at a static desktop it lowers to 25% brightness to save itself. I also have an early generation 65" B series LG OLED. I wouldn't say there's burn in per se, but you can notice some inconsistencies at 50% gray. Even still it's more uniform that any LCD display I've seen.
- searealist 2y agoA LED TV basically lasts forever. An OLED TV will last maybe 10 years max. Often less in practice.