do lcd displays update pixel by pixel pricelist

Blame it on Moore"s Law. The consistent doubling of processor speed every 18 months now seems normal, almost natural to us. It is easy to be impressed with our demiurgical abilities and to believe we can mold digital technology however we desire.

The story of the liquid crystal display suggests otherwise. Despite massive worldwide investments in research and development, LCD technology remains expensive and plagued by poor image quality. Yet the dream of a thin flat-panel display and the new portable devices such a display would enable is powerful enough that Japanese conglomerates continue to invest billions of dollars in LCD development. Even if they eventually succeed - and they probably will - it will say more about persistence than about our mastery of the technology.

The story begins in the 1960s, when scientists first realized that liquid crystals could be useful for television displays. Liquid crystals exhibit the molecular symmetry characteristic of a crystal, but not along every axis. This results in their unique optical properties. Depending on how its molecules are aligned, a liquid crystal will either scatter light or let light pass through. By using an electrical field to control molecular alignment, a thin liquid crystal layer can be coerced to display any image.

The stencil for the image is created by applying electric current to specified regions of the liquid crystal. Then, when the LCD is illuminated by reflected ambient light or a special backlight, the charged regions appear dark. As soon as the current is shut off, the regions fade back to translucence.

For small LCDs, such as those in digital watches, each pixel is controlled with a separate wire. But this is impractical for displays that have thousands of pixels. Instead, the liquid crystal is sandwiched between vertical and horizontal wire grids. The intersections of those wires define individual pixels. This matrix allows m x n pixels to be addressed with only m + n wires.

In a passive-matrix display, any given pixel - say, at position (x, y) - is activated by applying current to the wires in the corresponding column and row. This works because while the voltage of a single wire is too small to affect liquid crystal alignment, the combination is sufficient. However, matrix addressing does not allow two pixels in different rows and columns to be simultaneously activated. If we tried to turn on pixels at both (x, y) and (a, b), we would end up activating four pixels: (x, y), (x, b), (a, y), and (a, b). Consequently, the screen must be filled in one row at a time.

The usual method is to set the voltage level for all of the column wires and send an electrical pulse down a specific row wire. Then do the same thing for the next row. Because the activated pixels immediately begin to fade to translucence after they"re triggered, the screen must be continually redrawn.

The Pixel 5 isn"t quite worth its high price, especially since its software support window ends soon (October 2023). Amazon currently sells the Pixel 4A 5G for the same price as the Pixel 6A, and while it"s a good phone, it should be cheaper. You"re better off sticking with the Pixel 6A. As for older Pixels, they"re not worth picking up. They"re just too old (and the Pixel 4 suffers from poor battery performance). Many of those devices will stop getting software updates soon if they haven"t already. Buy one of the newer models.

The revamped case for the Pixel 7 series feels more durable than ever before, and you can match them with your Pixel"s color. The thermoplastic elastomer feels nice to touch, and there are raised edges on the front to protect the screen. The Pixel 7"s case is made with more than 30 percent recycled plastics, and the polycarbonate shell uses 77 percent recycled plastics. There are metal buttons for power and volume and they"re 100 percent recycled aluminum. The cases for the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6A are similar but slightly different.

This is hands-down the best case if you frequently attach your Pixel to the handlebar of a bike or electric scooter. Peak Design"s mounting system lets you magnetically affix the phone to its Universal Bike Mount ($50) and it stays put—after nearly a year of testing, I"ve yet to have a phone fall off my ride using this mounting system. It doesn"t interrupt the Pixel"s wireless charging either. The company has several other magnetic accessories you can use, like a car mount. The case itself is nice; I just wish the edges were raised a bit more for better screen protection.

This is one of the best clear cases you"ll find, especially at this price, for the Pixel. The buttons are clicky, the Pixel"s color comes through clearly, and the rear doesn"t feel too sticky, which can be a problem with some clear cases.Caseology Tempered Glass Screen ProtectorPhotograph: Caseology

Pixel phones don"t have a great track record with screen durability—they scratch easily. We tested this protector originally for the Pixel 5A, but it"s not available anymore. Caseology does sell it now for the Pixel 7, Pixel 6, and Pixel 6A. Installation is easy, and it includes a squeegee to get rid of air bubbles. You get two screen protectors for the price, including a microfiber cloth, a wipe, and dust removal stickers.

This is another easy-to-apply tempered glass screen protector. The Pixel 7 and Pixel 6 version comes with two protectors, but Spigen only includes one for the Pixel 6A. Boo. You get a whole cleaning kit to wipe down your phone, an alignment tool that helps you get the application right, and a squeegee to get rid of the air bubbles.

You get only one screen protector here and it"s very expensive. That"s because Zagg claims that the protector is five times as strong as traditional screen protectors. I haven"t seen too many scuffs on my Pixel 6A yet, but take this with a grain of salt. It"s easy to apply with the included application tool, but Zagg doesn"t include a squeegee at this price so you"ll have to use your fingers to push the air bubbles out. It comes with a dust sticker, a wet wipe, and a microfiber cloth.Google Pixel Stand (Gen 2)Photograph: Google

Of the Pixels we recommend in this guide, wireless charging is available only on the Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro, Pixel 7, and Pixel 7 Pro. Google"s very own Pixel Stand is one of the best wireless chargers around because it"s simple. The base doesn"t slide around, the phone stays put, and it enables some fun features, like turning the screen into a digital photo frame and quick access to Google Assistant. It"s made of 39 percent recycled materials, with mostly eco-friendly packaging too. Our Best Wireless Chargers guide has more options. It"s also available at Best Buy.

This charging adapter is all you need to recharge your Pixel, whichever model you have. The newest high-end Pixel phones don"t come with chargers in the box, so if you don"t have any spare USB-C chargers, it"s worth picking one up. This one"s prongs don"t fold up, but it"s still really compact.

These cases are pricey, but they have raised lips and offer decent protection around the edges. The buttons are clicky, and you get a few designs to choose from for the rear, including walnut, leather, bamboo, silver pearl, and aramid fiber. (I love the walnut.) What makes this case special is that it supports MagSafe—yes, Apple"s magnetic system for accessories. I"ve used the Mous Limitless 5.0 successfully with a few MagSafe accessories, like a Belkin wireless charger, to recharge the Pixel 7 Pro. You can also go with Mous" IntraLock case to use the company"s own magnetic accessory system to hook your phone up to its bike or car mount with more security.Photograph: Spigen

It"s slim, has a nice texture, retains clicky buttons, and has accurate cutouts for the ports and speakers. What"s not to love? Well, it"s a bit dull, but I still think this case is one of the more attractive cases in Spigen"s lineup. The edges aren"t raised drastically, so don"t expect much screen protection.

Want a kickstand to prop your Pixel up? This Spigen case has one built in and it does the trick, though unfortunately, you can keep your device up only in landscape mode—not great for hands-free TikTok. It has a thick bumper offering nice protection around the edges, though there"s not much of a lip sticking out, so you"ll still want to pair it with a screen protector.

Of all the Pixel cases I"ve tried, this feels the best. It has a wonderful texture that"s pleasant to touch, and the case keeps a slim profile. The buttons remain clicky, and the ports are well-exposed. It"s affordable, but the front edges aren"t raised. There"s a good chance the screen will hit the ground when you drop it.Photograph: Moment

The Pixels have great cameras, but you can take them further by using third-party lenses like these from Moment. Slap on a fish-eye lens for a fun, distorted photo effect. Use a 58-mm telephoto to get even closer to your subject. Whatever lens you pick, you"ll need a Moment case for the system to work. Unfortunately, the Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro, and Pixel 6A cases aren"t compatible with the lenses. Still, I like "em because they have magnets embedded inside—they"ll work with Moment"s various MagSafe mounts, like one for tripods, video lights, and mics.

It takes some effort to install this case on the Pixel, but once you do, it"s arguably the most protection you"ll find. There"s an inner two-piece polycarbonate shell that snaps over and under the Pixel, and then a thick synthetic rubber slipcover goes over for extreme durability. The buttons are surprisingly clicky, though the whole phone will be thicker, wider, and heavier. It"s made of more than 50 percent recycled plastic, and there"s a holster you can pop it in to carry your Pixel with pride on your belt. (The holster can double as a kickstand.)

There are some key features exclusive to Pixels that you won"t find on any other Android phone. Some of these are only available on select Pixels—the ones powered by Google"s Tensor chips are more capable since it"s the company"s own silicon. Here"s a quick breakdown:

Pixels are no stranger to top-end phone prices. Though all this time, it"s seemed that Google hadn"t yet released a true spiritual flagship that they were happy with—at least not until now with the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro. This year, it"s clear that Google"s new phones are the ones that the company takes pride in, but for all we know, that might just be all talk. So what better way to demonstrate the Pixel"s resurgence than to test out their effort and commitment to the display?

About this review: The Google Pixel 6 and the Google Pixel 6 Pro used for this review were personally bought from the Google Store. Google Ireland did provide my colleague Adam Conway with a Pixel 6 Pro, but the unit was not utilized for this review. Google had no involvement in the contents of this review.

This time around, Google changed up its release formula, opting for just one general size—big—for its two main phones. The handsets are now differentiated by their feature set, with the more premium of the two Pixel 6"s adopting the "Pro" moniker. In terms of pricing, Google surprised us with numbers that undercut its previous phones, as well as much of the competition"s, for both Pixels" respective tiers within the smartphone market. Questionably, corners had to have been cut somewhere. With display components usually making up the largest share in a phone"s bill of materials, that"s usually where you"ll first find shortcomings.

The Pixel 6 Pro comes equipped with a sharp 6.71-inch OLED, and it has the best display hardware that Google has put on a phone till date. It uses a high-end configuration from Samsung Display, although it"s a whole step down when compared to its latest generation of OLED. This is one of those shortcomings. But considering that phones with newer display tech are generally more expensive than the Pixel 6 Pro, I"d say that its price justifies the hardware. Regardless, the panel is more than capable of delivering stunning visuals, and the 120 Hz high refresh rate makes interacting with the phone super smooth. There"s also a curve on the sides of the display that phone makers love to tack on in an attempt to make their phone look more premium, but I"m not a fan of it.

The regular Pixel 6 uses a lower-resolution 6.40-inch Samsung panel. Although both phones are using updated OLEDs, the hardware on the Pixel 6 is actually a downgrade in some ways compared to last year"s Pixel 5. For the first time since the Pixel 2, Google is using an inferior rigid OLED display stack in their main phone lineup to cut costs. Compared to modern flexible OLEDs (like on the 6 Pro and on most flagship phones), the typical rigid display stack has lower screen contrast, fluctuant viewing angles, and appears more sunken into the display. On the upside, the Pixel 6 does get brighter, and it does appear sharper than the Pixel 5 despite having a lower pixel density (more on this later).

Rigid OLEDs are an older construction that is now usually only used in budget phones. The main difference is that a rigid OLED includes a thicker glass encapsulation and substrate, while flexible OLEDs utilize a thin-film encapsulation and a bendable plastic substrate. The elastic nature of flexible OLEDs not only makes them more durable and moldable than rigid OLEDs, but it also allows for some optical advantages. Thinner encapsulation allows the physical pixels to appear closer to the cover glass, giving flexible OLEDs a more laminated look. Also, on rigid stacks, the refraction of the light transmitted through the glass layers causes unwanted rainbow viewing angles that you simply don"t see on flexible OLEDs. Lastly, not all "infinite contrast ratios" are made equal: newer flexible OLED display stacks contain darker internal materials, imposing deeper blacks than those of rigid OLEDs.

On the Pixel 6 Pro, higher-efficiency hybrid oxide transistors support the backplane, which greatly enhances an OLED"s driving stability. This is the catalyst in enabling a true variable refresh rate, saving power as it allows pixels to hold their charge for much longer between refreshes. Since they have a low rate of discharge, oxide driving TFTs can pulse at lower currents compared to an LTPS TFT to achieve the same steady-state luminance, which further saves battery and improves calibration precision. Anecdotally, every phone that I"ve used with an LTPO panel has had near-flawless panel uniformity and very little gray tinting in low light, and I believe much of that can be also be attributed to the improved stability of the hybrid oxide backplane.

Seldom mentioned is the difference in the subpixels between PenTile OLEDs. Larger subpixels improve power efficiency and lengthen their longevity, which reduces burn-in. Higher-density screens require packing in smaller subpixels, thus there are advantages to accomodating a lower physical screen resolution. Note that this is completely different than sampling a screen at a lower render resolution, which does almost nothing for the battery outside of full-resolution gaming since the physical subpixels are still the same size.

Instead of decreasing the screen resolution, another option is to increase the panel"s fill factor, which is defined as the ratio of the subpixels" emissive area to the total display area. For lower-resolution OLEDs, this has the added benefit of improving pixel definition, which reduces apparent color fringing around well-defined edges in the screen. Starting with the Samsung Galaxy S21, Samsung Display began to produce 1080p panels with higher fill factors, increasing the relative size of the subpixel area by about 20%. To my eyes, this had completely eliminated color fringing on these panels, and they now look closer to their non-PenTile counterparts. For those that use their phone for VR, a higher fill factor also reduces the screen door effect.

Fortunately, the Pixel 6"s 1080p screen has a high fill factor, and I observe no color fringing with it. Its screen appears sharper than 1080p PenTile screens of the past, including the higher-density panel of the Pixel 5, so those that are coming from 1440p displays need not worry too much. The OLED on the 6 Pro, however, has a lower fill ratio, so efficiency gains can be had with a better display design. Though as it stands, Apple is currently the only company that optimizes for both resolution and fill factor, with iPhone OLEDs having the largest subpixels out of any phone.

To obtain quantitative color data from smartphones, display test patterns are staged and measured using an X-Rite i1Display Pro metered by an X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer in its high-resolution 3.3nm mode. The test patterns and device settings used are corrected for various display characteristics and potential software implementations that may alter desired measurements. Measurements are performed with arbitrary display adjustments disabled unless mentioned otherwise.

The primary test patterns are constant powerpatterns (sometimes calledequal energypatterns), correlating to an average pixel level of about 42%, to measure the transfer function and grayscale precision. It’s important to measure emissive displays not only with constant average pixel level but also with constant power patterns since their output is dependent on the average display luminance. Additionally, a constant average pixel level does not inherently mean constant power; the test patterns I use are of both. A higher average pixel level closer to 50% is used to capture the midpoint performance between both the lower pixel levels and the higher pixel levels since many apps and webpages contain white backgrounds that are higher in pixel level.

The color difference metric used is ΔETP (ITU-R BT.2124), which is an overall better measure for color differences than ΔE00 that is used in earlier reviews and is still currently being used in many other sites’ display reviews. Those that are still using ΔE00 for color error reporting are encouraged to update to ΔEITP.

ΔEITP normally considers luminance error in its computation, since luminance is a necessary component to completely describe color. However, since the human visual system interprets chromaticity and luminance separately, I hold our test patterns at a constant luminance and do not include the luminance (I/intensity) error in our ΔEITP values. Furthermore, it is helpful to separate the two errors when assessing a display’s performance because, just like with our visual system, they pertain to different issues with the display. This way, we can more thoroughly analyze and understand the performance of a display.

By default, Adaptive mode is selected out of the box. Both Adaptiveand Boostedmodes increase color saturation just slightly, with the main difference being that Adaptive mode also uses higher contrast. Compared to the vivid profile of many other smartphones, the Adaptive mode is not as vibrant, and some people may even struggle to see the difference between Adaptive and Natural. All three profiles target a D65 white point, which might appear warm/yellow to those that aren"t accustomed to color-calibrated displays.

A small gripe I have with Adaptive and Boostedis that the color saturation increase isn"t uniform: greens are boosted the most, followed by reds, while blues have little-to-no boost (limited by the OLED"s full native gamut). There"s also nothing really "adaptive" about the profile compared to the other two, so the naming of the profile is a bit of a misnomer.

If picture fidelity is a priority, the Natural mode is the Pixel"s color-accurate profile. The profile targets the full sRGB color space (gamut, white point, and tone response) while Android"s color management system handles wide-gamut P3 content in apps that support it. Internally, Google is now also targeting Display P3 as the phone"s default composition data space, which is a small step in maturing their color management system.

For those that are not satisfied with the white balance of their Pixel, Google, unfortunately, does not provide any option to tune that aspect of the display (outside of Night Light). Google formerly had a feature called Ambient EQ on the Pixel 4 which automatically matched the white balance of the screen to the user"s ambient lighting, but the company scrapped it in its future phones for reasons unknown.

In terms of screen brightness, both the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro perform nearly identical to each other, and they both get bright enough to use the phone under sunlight. With auto-brightness enabled, both phones get up to about 750–770 nits for fullscreen white, boosting up to 1000–1100 nits for content with lower average light levels ("APL"). Sadly the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro can only maintain their high brightness mode for five minutes at a time out of every thirty minutes, so using the phone extensively outside may not be ideal. After five minutes, the phone display will ramp down to about 470 nits, which is both phones" maximum manual brightness when auto-brightness is disabled.

For the Pixel 6 Pro, these peak brightness values are standard and to be expected considering its price. But for the cost of the regular Pixel 6, these figures showcase excellent value, and phones that do get brighter generally cost a bit more than even the 6 Pro.

Apart from peak brightness, display tone mapping also plays a big role in improving a screen"s legibility under sunlight. This will be covered more later on, but in short, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro does boost shadow tones to help out with outdoor viewing.

When set to their dimmest brightness setting, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro can get down to about 1.8–1.9 nits, which is typical of most, but not all OLED phones (namely OnePlus). At this brightness, the default Adaptive profile on both phones crushes near-black colors due to the profile"s steeper contrast curves. Natural mode exhibits lighter shadows, and on the Pixel 6 Pro the profile retains distinct shadow details with very little black clipping in low light. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, struggles a bit more with near-black colors, especially in its 90 Hz state.

The auto-brightness system on the Pixels has been the worst that I"ve used in any recent phone. One common argument is that it learns your brightness preference over time, but the underlying framework is fundamentally flawed in a way that fancy machine learning can"t fix. The result of the system is jittery transitions and a lack of resolution in the low end.

Before the Pixel 6, Google only reserved 255 distinct brightness values to control the display brightness. Even if all brightness values were to be efficiently spaced out, the resolution simply wasn"t enough to create perfectly smooth transitions. Now with the Pixel 6, Google increased the internal number of brightness values up to 2043 between 2 nits and 500 nits. That seems like it should be sufficient, but there are two important details: the mapping of those brightness values, and how the Pixel transitions through those brightness values.

Although the Pixel 6 has 2043 brightness values, those values are mapped linearly to its display brightness. This means that the spacing of brightness between those values is not perceptually uniform, since the human perception of brightness scales somewhat logarithmically, rather than linearly, in response to screen luminance nits. In Android 9 Pie, Google altered the Pixel"s brightness slider so that it would scale logarithmically instead of linearly for the reason that I just mentioned. However, this only changed how the position on the brightness slider mapped to the system brightness value, which is still internally linear.

Even with the higher brightness resolution of the Pixel 6, jitters can be seen between the brightness values below about 30% system brightness. For this inherent reason, the Pixel"s transition in display luminance can appear jumpy when the auto-brightness moves around in low light. The jitteriness is exacerbated by the speed and the behavior of the Pixel"s auto-brightness transitions, which steps linearly through display luminance at a constant pace that reaches max brightness from minimum brightness in one second—or about 500 nits per second. This makes any auto-brightness transition virtually instantaneous for small-to-medium adjustments.

Quickly touching on display power: When focusing on fullscreen display nits per watt, the Pixel 6 Pro consumes substantially more power than the Pixel 6 at high brightness. This is somewhat expected since the Pro has a slightly larger display and a higher resolution (read: smaller emissive pixel area), though I did not expect the difference to be this dramatic. Adding in the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra as another data point, it consumes less power than both Pixels despite having a larger screen, which showcases the impeccable efficiency gains of Samsung"s next-gen OLED emitters. The discrepancy in variable refresh rate was not tested.

A general rule of thumb in calibrating a display is to target a gamma power of 2.4 for dark rooms, or 2.2 for everywhere else. Smartphones are used in all sorts of viewing conditions, so they typically fall in the latter category. Hence, most phones target a gamma power of 2.2 for their standard calibrated display modes. This is what the Pixel had always done, but it"s a little different this year on the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro.

In the default Adaptive mode, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro have increased contrast compared to the other profiles. The tone response is approximately a 2.4 gamma power on the Pixel 6, while on the Pixel 6 Pro it"s more like gamma 2.3. At lower brightness levels, the Adaptive mode has too much contrast in my opinion, and a number of near-black colors can appear completely clipped, especially on the cheaper phone.

For the Natural and Boosted profiles, the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro now conform to the piecewise sRGB tone response curve rather than gamma 2.2. The curve differs in that it has a linear mapping near black which makes dark tones appear lighter compared to gamma 2.2.  Due to the increased complexity of the function, most people just calibrate to gamma 2.2 for simplicity, and it"s what monitor calibrators and artists have been doing for many years. The actual use of the precise sRGB curve is a controversial topic for this reason; even though it"s the "official" standard, it creates disparity among the vast majority who have already been working with gamma 2.2, which many argue to be the "correct" industry standard.

What makes this interesting is that I"m not sure Google even intended for this behavior. Samsung also ships phones with the sRGB tone curve, though only on their Exynos variants—the Snapdragon models still use gamma 2.2. The Exynos display pipeline inside the Pixels" Tensor SoC is likely responsible for decoding RGB triplets with the sRGB transfer function.

In regards to accuracy, both phones do a good job tracking the sRGB tone curve in their Natural and Boosted mode. But at lower brightness, the Pixel 6 fails to keep up with the performance of the Pixel 6 Pro as the cheaper panel struggles to lift darker tones in its 90 Hz clock rate. In general usage, the sRGB tone curve looks close enough to the standard 2.2 gamma curve to where most people won"t notice a difference for most imagery. However, a lift in shadows is definitely observable in the darker regions of content and in dark-themed interfaces. Some may prefer this look over gamma 2.2, while others may think it looks washed out. Personally, I prefer this tonal appearance on smartphones for the enhanced legibility in low light and in bright conditions.

When high brightness mode triggers under a sunny day, the displays will bump up the shadows, with the Pro phone being capable of being tuned a bit brighter. This helps improve the visibility of image details in brighter conditions without compromising the image quality.

At their dimmest setting, the Pixel 6 Pro paints a much more tonally balanced screen. In its Natural mode, the Pixel 6 Pro is one of the best-performing low brightness OLEDs on any phone. I claimed the same thing for last year"s Pixel 5, which had impeccable shadow tone control. Compared to it, the Pixel 6 Pro performs similarly, though this year"s display is just slightly worse near black. While the Pixel 5 was able to render its first bit step out of black (1/255) at all brightness levels, the Pixel 6 Pro can only do so at high brightness. It does globally render the very next step, however, and in my book, that"s still fantastic. The Pixel 5"s shadows were also a bit lighter overall in low light, but in my opinion it made things look a little too flat, and I now prefer the look of the 6 Pro.

Within the same conditions, the non-Pro Pixel does not compete. The cheaper display renders steep shadows that clip a little more near black, and in Adaptive mode, the Pixel 6 becomes a mottled mess at minimum brightness. For this reason, I cannot recommend the profile on Pixel 6.

Nominally, both displays strike very similar white points that measure decently accurate to D65/6504 K. Both my units erred slightly on the magenta side, though I have no qualms with this as I"ll explain later.

Under the surface, the two phones actually perform vastly different when it comes to color precision. The Pixel 6 Pro maintains the color of its white throughout its grayscale and throughout its brightness range, with the exception of high-brightness mode where the tint in darker colors will likely be masked by sunlight. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, progressively tints towards magenta the lower the color tone intensity. A mild flicker was also visible when the Smooth Display auto-switched between 90 Hz and 60 Hz, but on my sample, the effect isn"t too noticeable. Lastly, on my unit, the non-uniform grayscale distribution is painfully obvious at lower brightness.

Two colors from different displays that measure the same exact chromaticity don"t necessarily appear identical in color. The fact of the matter is that current methods of color measurement don"t provide a definitive assessment for color matching. As it turns out, the difference in spectral distributions between OLEDs and LCDs creates a disagreement in the appearance of their white points. More precisely, the color of white on OLEDs will typically appear yellowish-green compared to an LCD display that measures identically. This is known as metameric failure, and it"s been widely acknowledged to occur with wide-gamut displays such as OLEDs. The standard illuminants (e.g. D65) have been defined with spectral distributions that match closer to that of an LCD, so the technology is now used as a reference. For this reason, an offset towards magenta is needed for the white point of OLEDs to perceptually match the two display technologies.

Now, I"m not saying that metameric failure is the reason why the Pixel 6 (Pro) displays measure towards magenta, but there"s a point to be made about looking at just colorimetric measurements alone. For reference, this is how the white point of the Pixel 6 Pro measures when it"s perceptually color-matched to my calibrated LCD monitor. The difference is massive. There have been many attempts in methodologically transferring over the perceptual appearance, but none have been comprehensive enough to cover every emerging display type—matching by eye is quite literally the best way to do this at the moment. Nevertheless, accurate measurements to any standard allow for predictability if adjustments are to be made, which is a critical attribute for any electrical component.

The formula for good color accuracy is quite simple: accurate tone mapping plus an accurate white point. The previous sections of this review can almost entirely deduce the rest of the displays" color mixing performance. Pretty charts and quantitative verification are always nice though, so here they are.

Natural mode on both phones demonstrates fine-tuned color accuracy, with average color errors ΔETP less than 3.0, and maximum color errors ΔETPless than 10.0. These values are sufficient enough for a reference display, though it"s important to note that these color measurements were taken at 75% tone intensity; the poor color precision on the cheaper Pixel 6 display means that it"s expected to perform worse at lower tone intensities, while the Pro display remains accurate independent of tone intensity. Besides that, there is some mild skewing with more-complex color mixtures, such as with purple and orange, due to the different tone response curve that Google is using. No doubt that if it stuck with gamma 2.2, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro would measure even more accurately, though the difference would mostly be academic.

In high-brightness mode, the displays will slightly crank up the color saturation to overcome the saturation loss from viewing glare. This together with the contrast lightness boost should help the display look more accurate under sunlight.

Although HDR content still isn"t all too common, many newer titles on streaming platforms have now been releasing masters in Dolby Vision and HDR10. To help with adoption, a number of smartphones provide the capability to record in one of the existing HDR formats. Out of the existing phones, Apple"s iPhones have been the ones to propel the demand for platform adoption of the HDR formats with their Dolby Vision-/HLG-enabled recording. In my assessment, however, I only cover the HDR10 format, which is currently the most ubiquitous format for professional content creators.

Excellent tone control, precision, and color accuracy carries over to HDR10 on the Pixel 6 Pro. The ST.2084 standard HDR tone response curve is faithfully reproduced along with incredibly consistent color temperature all throughout its grayscale. This assures that the white balance and contrast of every scene can replicate the creator"s visual intent, at least up to 650 nits. Most HDR content that is currently being delivered through streaming platforms is mastered or optimized for a maximum headroom of 1,000 nits for highlights. The Pixel 6 Pro is able to get up to 800 nits fullscreen brightness, but a lack of metadata-aware tone mapping brings the usable in-content peak down to about 650 nits. While the 350-nit deficit may seem substantial, not many scenes in practice are graded much brighter.

As for the regular Pixel 6, it"s still capable of delivering brilliant visuals, just without as much polish. Scenes can vary in white balance on the cheaper OLED due to lower-brightness tinting, and image contrast is generally a little steeper. Shadow definition is also not as polished as on the Pro display.

The gotcha is that all the above assume a viewing environment of 5 lux, which is the status quo for HDR10. This is considerably dim for casual watching, and most people in actuality will watch things in a brighter setting. Furthermore, standard HDR10 replication is calibrated for maximum system brightness, so if you intend to watch a show in HDR10 inside a brighter room, the experience won"t be optimal since the display brightness can"t be set any higher. HDR10 is also implemented this way in most TVs, not just on the Pixel 6 or on Android, but newer TVs also offer adaptive adjustments to the HDR tone mapping to compensate for brighter environments. The Pixel 6"s 650-nit effective peak along with its lack of adaptive tone mapping means that it can"t deliver the same strong HDR performance outside of a dimly lit room.

For its highest-end handset, Google delivers some of the best color reproduction and image consistency that you can find on any consumer display. With the Pixel 6 Pro, you can be certain that you"re seeing all the picture details at any brightness level, be it dim or bright. On the contrary, the color tuning may be the reason why some people won"t like it. Even in its most vibrant color mode, the display still behaves on the more color-accurate side, so those that prefer a high-saturation appearance may be left wanting more. Additionally, the Pixel 6 Pro doesn"t carry the brightest or the most efficient OLED tech, but its current capabilities are perfectly adequate and well worth its price tag. It"s understandable that people would want the absolute best panel available from the best phone that Google offers, but the Pixel 6 Pro is just not priced in that manner.

Speaking of price, the cheaper phone, unsurprisingly, uses a cheaper display. And by cheaper, I do mean cheap. From crude viewing angles to irregular screen uniformity and grayscale tinting, the OLED on the Pixel 6 is very much a budget-level phone experience—one that you would expect from their Pixel A-series. For what"s supposed to be one of Google"s two strongest offerings, the choice of OLED on the Pixel 6 makes it feel like an unpolished product, and in my opinion, it completely cheapens the brand. We don"t find this level of compromise on the display of any other flagship "non-Pro" variants from the competition.

Despite the rest of the handset feeling quite premium, the screen is just too important of a component to skimp out on. Many people have criticized Apple for adopting OLED so late inside their base models, but in its defense, using the Pixel 6 made it understandable why Apple had decided not to just include any cheap rigid OLED in their phones. They simply lack the refinement that is expected from a premium handset. For its price point, I don"t think it could be helped; by undercutting the competition by $100–$200 USD, the Pixel 6 inevitably had to make some sort of glaring sacrifice. So, rather than just being a well-priced premium phone, what this showed me was that the Pixel 6 is truly more of a mid-range device, in a tier that is more similar to Apple"s "R"-series or Samsung"s "FE" variant.

Within the Pixel software, some accommodations could have been made to enhance the user experience. For starters, improvements to the auto-brightness are sorely needed, as its transitions turn out to be jarring more often than not. I would also appreciate the return of AmbientEQ, which was the automatic white balance feature in the Pixel 4. Manual adjustments to the screen white balance would also be helpful, which could be used to tune the screen color temperature to your taste, or even to compensate for the metameric failure.

Overall, I"m torn on whether I like the direction that Google has taken for the displays of its two main phones. Of course, everyone would want them both to be a bit better—a slightly brighter display for the 6 Pro and a more refined OLED for the regular 6—but Google"s pricing has made it difficult to ask for more. At least for the Pro phone, I genuinely believe that you"re getting your money"s worth. But for the upper mid-ranged Pixel 6, I feel that it"s priced in a guttered region where it"s not priced high enough to afford a display that sets it apart from those on budget phones. If Google priced the Pixel 6 about $100 higher, but with a polished flexible OLED to boot, I believe that Google"s base model could be much more successful.

Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro: Measured diagonally; dimension may vary by configuration and manufacturing process. Smooth Display is not available for all apps or content.

Maximum resolution and field of view with RAW image files setting turned on. Setting is turned off by default. See g.co/pixel/photoediting for more information.

Pixel 7 Pro and Pixel 7: For "24-hour": Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby and use of other features. Average battery life during testing was approximately 31 hours. Battery testing conducted on a major operator network. For "Up to 72 hours": Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby and use of limited other features that are default in Extreme Battery Saver mode (which disables various features including 5G connectivity). Battery testing conducted on a major operator network. For both claims: Battery testing conducted in California in early 2022 on pre-production hardware and software using default settings, except that, for the "up to 72 hours" claim only, Extreme Battery Saver mode was enabled. Battery life depends upon many factors, and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Pixel 6a: For "24 hours": Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby and use of other features. Average battery life during testing was approximately 29 hours. Battery testing conducted using sub-6 GHz non-standalone 5G (ENDC) connectivity. For "Up to 72 hours": Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby and use of limited other features that are default in Extreme Battery Saver mode (which disables various features including 5G connectivity). Battery testing conducted on a major operator network. For both claims: Battery testing conducted in California in early 2022 on pre-production hardware and software using default settings, except that, for the "up to 72 hours" claim only, Extreme Battery Saver mode was enabled. Battery life depends upon many factors, and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Fast wired charging rates (up to 21 W on Pixel 7 and up to 23 W on Pixel 7 Pro) are based upon use of the Google 30 W USB-C® Charger plugged into a wall socket. Actual results may be slower. Adaptors sold separately. Charging speed based upon testing with device batteries drained to 1% and charged with a Google 30 W USB-C® Charger. Charging testing conducted by Google in mid-2022 on pre-production hardware and software using default settings with the device powered on. Charging speed depends upon many factors including usage during charging, battery age and ambient temperature. Actual charging speed may be slower. Wireless charging rates up to 20 W (Pixel 7) and up to 23 W (Pixel 7 Pro) charging with Google Pixel Stand (2nd gen) (sold separately). Up to 12 W with Qi-certified EPP chargers (sold separately). Actual results may be slower.

Coming soon. Restrictions apply. Some data is not transmitted through VPN. Not available in all countries. All other Google One membership benefits sold separately. Pixel VPN offering does not impact price or benefits of Google One Premium plan. Use of VPN may increase data costs depending on your plan. See g.co/pixel/vpn for details.

Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby and use of other features. Battery testing conducted on a major operator network in California in early 2022 (for Pixel 6a, Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro) and mid-2021 (for Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro) on pre-production hardware and software using default settings. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Your Pixel will generally receive feature drops during the applicable Android update and support periods for the phone. See g.co/pixel/updates for details. Availability of some feature drops may vary.

Trade-in values vary based on eligibility, condition, year and configuration of your trade-in device, and are subject to change upon inspection. Credit card refund only available if a Pixel phone is purchased on that card. Phone trade-in credit will be issued as a refund back on the credit card used for the phone purchase at Google Store or in the form of Store credit if the purchased phone has already been returned. Refund is based on (and paid after) phone received matching the description provided at time of estimate and will be issued to the form of payment used for order. Phones sent for trade-in must be received within 30 days of initiation of the trade-in process, provided that the purchased device has not been returned during that time. Additional trade-in and Store credit terms are located here: store.google.com/intl/en-US_us/about/device-terms.html.

Pixel 7 Pro and Pixel 7: Fast wired charging rates (up to 21W on Pixel 7 and up to 23W on Pixel 7 Pro) are based upon use of the Google 30W USB-C® Charger plugged into a wall outlet. Actual results may be slower. Adapters sold separately. Charging speed based upon testing with device batteries drained to 1% and charged with Google 30W USB-C® Charger. Charging testing conducted by Google in mid-2022 on preproduction hardware and software using default settings with the device powered on. Charging speed depends upon many factors including usage during charging, battery age, and ambient temperature. Actual charging speed may be slower. Wireless charging rates up to 21W (Pixel 7) and up to 23W (Pixel 7 Pro) charging with Google Pixel Stand (2nd gen) (sold separately). Up to 12W with Qi-certified EPP chargers (sold separately). Actual results may be slower.

Pixel 6a: Wired charging rates up to 18W based on use of Google 30W USB-C® or Google 18W USB-C® Charger plugged into a wall outlet. Actual results may be slower. Adapters sold separately. Compatible with USB PD 3.0 PPS adapters.

Pixel 2 / Pixel 2 XL: Up to 18W wired charging rates are based upon use of the included charger plugged into a wall outlet. Actual results may be slower.

Pixel 7 Pro and Pixel 7: For “24-hour”: Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features. Average battery life during testing was approximately 31 hours. Battery testing conducted on a major carrier network. For “Up to 72 hours”: Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of limited other features that are default in Extreme Battery Saver mode (which disables various features including 5G connectivity). Battery testing conducted on a major carrier network. For both claims: Battery testing conducted in California in early 2022 on pre production hardware and software using default settings, except that, for the “up to 72 hour” claim only, Extreme Battery Saver mode was enabled. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Pixel 6a: For “24-hour”: Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features. Average battery life during testing was approximately 29 hours. Battery testing conducted using Sub-6 GHz non-standalone 5G (ENDC) connectivity. For “Up to 72 hours”: Estimated battery life based on testing using a median Pixel user battery usage profile across a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of limited other features that are default in Extreme Battery Saver mode (which disables various features including 5G connectivity). Battery testing conducted on a major carrier network. For both claims: Battery testing conducted in California in early 2022 on pre-production hardware and software using default settings, except that, for the “up to 72 hour” claim only, Extreme Battery Saver mode was enabled. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Pixel 6 Pro and Pixel 6: For "beyond 24 hours": Estimated battery life based on testing using a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features. Average battery life during testing was 34 hours. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Battery testing conducted by a third party in California in mid 2021 on pre-production hardware and software, using default settings. Battery testing conducted using two major carrier networks using Sub-6 GHz non-standalone 5G (ENDC) connectivity. Actual battery life may be lower.

For “all-day”: Maximum battery life based on testing using a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features. Testing conducted on two major carrier networks using Sub-6 GHz non-standalone 5G (ENDC) connectivity. For “Up to 48 hours / 2 days”: Maximum battery life based on testing using a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of limited other features that are default in Extreme Battery Saver mode (which disables various features including 5G connectivity). Testing conducted on two major carrier networks. For both claims: Pixel 5a with 5G battery testing conducted by a third party in California in early 2021 on pre-production hardware and software using default settings, except that, for the “up to 48 hour/ 2 days claim” only, Extreme Battery Saver mode was enabled. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Actual battery life may be lower.

Pixel 5 and Pixel 4a (5g): Maximum battery life based on testing using a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features. Battery life depends upon many factors and usage of certain features will decrease battery life. Pixel 4a (5G) and Pixel 5 battery testing conducted by a third party in California in mid 2020 on pre-production hardware and software, using default settings. Testing conducted on two major carrier networks using Sub-6 GHz non-standalone 5G (ENDC) connectivity. Actual battery life may be lower.

Pixel 4a: Approximate battery life based on a mix of talk, data, standby, and use of other features, with always on display off. An active display and other usage factors will decrease battery life. Pixel 4a battery testing conducted in Mountain View, California in early 2020 on pre-production hardware and software. Actual results may vary.

Pixel 4 / Pixel 4 XL: Approximate battery life based on a mix of talk, data, standby, mobile hot spot and use of other features, with Motion Sense off and always on display off. Use of Motion Sense, an active display or data usage will decrease battery life. Pixel 4 and 4 XL testing conducted in Mountain View, California in August 2019 on pre-production hardware and software. Actual results may vary.

Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL: Approximate battery life based on a mix of talk, data, standby, mobile hot spot and use of other features, with always on display off. An active display or data usage will decrease battery life. Actual results may vary.

Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL: Approximate battery life based on a mix of talk, data, standby and use of other features, with always on display off and mobile hotspot off. An active display or data usage will decrease battery life. Wired charging: rates are based on use of the included charger. Wireless charging: Up to 10 W with Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL charging with Pixel Stand (sold separately). Actual results may vary.

Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL: Approximate battery life based on a mix of talk, data, and standby use with always on display off. Requires use of included charger. An active display or data usage will decrease battery life. Actual results may vary, see website for details.

Pixel and Pixel XL: Battery use statistics are approximate and represent mixed use of talk, standby, web browsing, and other features, according to an average user profile as defined by Google. Uses that involve an active display or data usage will use battery more quickly, actual results may vary. Charging rates are based on use of the included USB Type-C 18W charger.

Designed to charge Qi-certified devices. Use of reverse wireless charging significantly reduces Pixel battery life. Cases may interfere with charging and will reduce charging speed. Charge speeds may vary. Learn more about wireless charging.

Pixel 7 Pro and Pixel 7: Designed to comply with water protection rating IPX8 under IEC standard 60529 when each device leaves the factory but device is not waterproof. The accessories are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition, and diminishes or is lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage. Dropping your device may result in loss of water resistance. Liquid damage voids the warranty. See g.co/pixel/water.

Pixel 6a: Designed to comply with water protection rating IPX7 under IEC standard 60529 when each device leaves the factory but device is not waterproof. The accessories are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition, and diminishes or is lost over time due to normal wear and tear, device repair, disassembly or damage. Dropping your device may result in loss of water resistance. Liquid damage voids the warranty. See g.co/pixel/water.

Pixel 5a with 5G has a water protection rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. Charger and accessories are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition and may be compromised due to normal wear and tear, repair, disassembly or damage.

Pixel 5: Pixel 5 has a water protection rating of IPX8 under IEC standard 60529. Charger and accessories are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition and may be compromised due to normal wear and tear, repair, disassembly or damage.

Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL have a water protection rating of IPX8 under IEC standard 60529. Charger and accessories are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition and may be compromised due to normal wear and tear, repair, disassembly or damage.

Pixel 5, Pixel 4a (5G), Pixel 4a, Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL: Google Photos offers unlimited online storage for all photos and videos uploaded in high-quality. Photos and videos uploaded in high-quality may be compressed or resized. Requires Google Account and internet connection. Data rates may apply. Learn more about uploading photos and videos.

Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL: Google Photos offers free unlimited online storage for all photos and videos uploaded in high-quality. Photos and videos uploaded in high-quality may be compressed or resized. Requires Google Account. Data rates may apply. Learn more about uploading photos and videos.

Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL: Free unlimited online original-quality storage for all photos and videos uploaded to Google Photos from Pixel 3 through 1/31/2022. Photos and videos uploaded before 1/31/2022 will remain free at original-quality. Requires Google Account. Data rates may apply. Learn more about uploading photos and videos.

Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL: Free, unlimited original-quality storage for photos and videos taken with Pixel through the end of 2020, and free, unlimited high-quality storage for photos taken with Pixel afterwards.

Pixel and Pixel XL: Unlimited original quality storage of photos/videos taken with your Pixel, high quality for all other photos/videos. Requires Google Account. Data rates may apply.

Maximum resolution and field of view with RAW image files setting turned on. Setting is turned off by default. See g.co/pixel/photoediting for more information.

Coming soon. Restrictions apply. Some data is not transmitted through VPN. Not available in all countries. All other Google One membership benefits sold separately. Pixel VPN offering does not impact price or benefits of Google One Premium plan. Use of VPN may increase data costs depending on your plan. See g.co/pixel/vpn for details.

Photo: Prove to yourself that an LCD display uses polarized light. Simply put on a pair of polarizing sunglasses and rotate your head (or the display). You"ll see the display at its brightest at one angle and at its darkest at exactly 90 degrees to that angle.

Photo: How liquid crystals switch light on and off. In one orientation, polarized light cannot pass through the crystals so they appear dark (left side photo). In a different orientation, polarized light passes through okay so the crystals appear bright (right side photo). We can make the crystals change orientation—and switch their pixels on and off—simply by applying an electric field. Photo from liquid crystal research by David Weitz courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC).

While the Pixel 6 had a rocky finish to 2021 after its December software patch was pushed back to January, Google is looking to get back on track with the release of its 10th feature update for the company"s line of phones.

Rolling out today on the Pixel 3a to the Pixel 5 followed by another wave of updates for the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro later this month, Google"s newest feature drop includes new stickers for messaging in Gboard, Live Sharing in Google Duo, expanded support for Live Caption and Live Translation and more.

Meanwhile, Pixel phones are also getting the ability to share their screen with others during video calls in Google Duo similar to Apple"s SharePlay in iOS 15. Previously, Live Sharing was an exclusive feature first introduced on Samsung"s Galaxy S22 phones, but now Google is opening up that functionality to Pixel devices as well.

For messaging, Gboard has gotten an update allowing it to convert text (English only for now) into custom stickers on the fly, so your chats will look a bit more lively. Alternatively, for those who cannot or prefer not to speak during phone calls, the Pixel"s Live Caption feature will let you type a response that will be converted from text to speech for the recipient.

On the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro, Live Translate is also getting an upgrade allowing you to activate Interpreter mode in three new languages: French, Spanish, and Italian. Furthermore, Google"s latest flagship phone will be able to automatically detect Spanish in videos and other media, allowing you to translate audio into English, French, Italian, German and Japanese (beta).

Other changes to language support on the Pixel 6 include the ability to transcribe Italian and Spanish in the Recorder app, along with new support for Assistant Quick Phrases in Spanish, French and Italian.

The Pixel"s At a Glance feature is also getting an update thanks to new widgets that will display the battery levels of connected Bluetooth devices like wireless earbuds. Google says the feature will also surface helpful info such as alarm reminders, safety check countdowns, and even earthquake alerts more frequently on the phone"s home and lock screens when appropriate.

Finally, Google is adding a new line of curated wallpapers celebrating Internation Women"s Day from artist Manjit Thapp, while older Pixel phones (from the 3a and up) are also getting support for Direct My Call and Wait Time.

There are plenty of new and confusing terms facing TV shoppers today, but when it comes down to the screen technology itself, there are only two: Nearly every TV sold today is either LCD or OLED.

The biggest between the two is in how they work. With OLED, each pixel provides its own illumination so there"s no separate backlight. With an LCD TV, all of the pixels are illuminated by an LED backlight. That difference leads to all kinds of picture quality effects, some of which favor LCD, but most of which benefit OLED.

LCDs are made by a number of companies across Asia. All current OLED TVs are built by LG Display, though companies like Sony and Vizio buy OLED panels from LG and then use their own electronics and aesthetic design.

So which one is better? Read on for their strengths and weaknesses. In general we"ll be comparing OLED to the best (read: most expensive) LCD has to offer, mainly because there"s no such thing as a cheap OLED TV (yet).

Take this category with a grain of salt. Both TV types are very bright and can look good in even a sunny room, let alone more moderate indoor lighting situations or the dark rooms that make TV images look their best. When it comes down to it, no modern TV could ever be considered "dim."

At the other side of light output is black level, or how dark the TV can get. OLED wins here because of its ability to turn off individual pixels completely. It can produce truly perfect black.

The better LCDs have local dimming, where parts of the screen can dim independently of others. This isn"t quite as good as per-pixel control because the black areas still aren"t absolutely black, but it"s better than nothing. The best LCDs have full-array local dimming, which provides even finer control over the contrast of what"s onscreen -- but even they can suffer from "blooming," where a bright area spoils the black of an adjacent dark area.

One of the main downsides of LCD TVs is a change in picture quality if you sit away from dead center (as in, off to the sides). How much this matters to you certainly depends on your seating arrangement, but also on how much you love your loved ones.

A few LCDs use in-plane switching (IPS) panels, which have better off-axis picture quality than other kinds of LCDs, but don"t look as good as other LCDs straight on (primarily due to a lower contrast ratio).

OLED doesn"t have the off-axis issue LCDs have; its image looks basically the same, even from extreme angles. So if you have a wide seating area, OLED is the better option.

Nearly all current TVs are HDR compatible, but that"s not the entire story. Just because a TV claims HDR compatibility doesn"t mean it can accurately display HDR content. All OLED TVs have the dynamic range to take advantage of HDR, but lower-priced LCDs, especially those without local-dimming backlights, do not. So if you want to see HDR content it all its dynamic, vibrant beauty, go for OLED or an LCD with local dimming.

In our tests comparing the best new OLED and LCD TVs with HDR games and movies, OLED usually looks better. Its superior contrast and lack of blooming win the day despite LCD"s brightness advantage. In other words LCD TVs can get brighter, especially in full-screen bright scenes and HDR highlights, but none of them can control that illumination as precisely as an OLED TV.

The energy consumption of LCD varies depending on the backlight setting. The lower the backlight, the lower the power consumption. A basic LED LCD with its backlight set low will draw less power than OLED.

LG has said their OLED TVs have a lifespan of 100,000 hours to half brightness, a figure that"s similar to LED LCDs. Generally speaking, all modern TVs are quite reliable.

Does that mean your new LCD or OLED will last for several decades like your parent"s last CRT (like the one pictured). Probably not, but then, why would you want it to? A 42-inch flat panel cost $14,000 in the late 90"s, and now a 65-inch TV with more than 16x the resolution and a million times better contrast ratio costs $1,400. Which is to say, by the time you"ll want/need to replace it, there will be something even better than what"s available now, for less money.

OLED TVs are available in sizes from 48 to 88 inches, but LCD TVs come in smaller and larger sizes than that -- with man