future of lcd displays free sample

Since no backlight is used, the display requires very little energy in order to operate. This means: a lot of money can be saved over time. Think about the costs of a drive thru menu that stays running all year for sixteen whole hours a day. Those costs add up. Can you imagine spending $20k a year – just to power your display? That would cut your profits in a very noticeable way. So, I bet you’d be pretty pleased to find such a low-energy alternative.

Reflective displays really are a unique thing. You don’t have to hide them from the sun. You don’t have to shield your screen with your hand in order to eliminate glare. You don’t have to tilt it at funny angles that cause your neck to throb in pain, just so that you can read what’s on the screen. Funny, because those are our natural reactions whenever LCD and sunlight combine. Not with a reflective display though.

You could almost compare a reflective display to a piece of paper in the way that it becomes more visible when light is shining directly on it. It’s really bizarre to see, and you almost have to witness it in order to wrap your head around it, because it’s totally unlike what you’re used to.

2020 Update: NVIDIA and ASUS now has a long-term road map to 1000 Hz displays by the 2030s! Contacts at NVIDIA and vendors has confirmed this article is scientifically accurate.

For those new to Blur Busters, I am the co-author of a peer reviewed conference paper (along with researchers from NOKIA, NIST.gov and Keltek) on successfully photographing display motion blur which several websites have now adopted, including RTINGS, TFTCentral, SWEclockers, HDTVtest, etc.  The most prominent site of these, RTING.com, credits me (here, here, and in the Credit Screen of the below YouTube) for my invention in inexpensively photographing display motion blur.

Here is a popular TestUFO Animation demo of motion blur from persistence (MPRT). Click on the animation for a bigger animation. The background looks different depending on which UFO you look at!

For this optical effect, view this on LCD instead of CRT or plasma. If using motion blur reduction (e.g. ULMB, BFI, or interpolation), turn that feature off temporarily for this animation demo. Another great TestUFO animation is TestUFO Persistence-of-Vision.

Warning for flicker-sensitive people: There are other animations further down on this page that utilize flicker to demonstrate scientific principles of display motion blur behaviour.

These are two very different pixel response measurements, as seen in the GtG versus MPRT FAQ. There are many 60Hz displays with <1ms GtG (e.g. OLED) but has 16.7ms MPRT (lots of motion blur).

Persistence (in milliseconds) is also known scientifically as “MPRT” in research papers (Google Scholar search). Quoted as a number, MPRT100% and persistence often mean the same thing by modern virtual reality scientists and newer display engineers. For example, Chief Scientist at Oculus, Michael Abrash, wrote a famous blog article that use the “persistence” terminology.

Motion blur on modern digital displays are reduced via strobing or black frame insertion (BFI) to lower persistence. Many LCD gaming monitors use strobe backlights (such as ULMB) that flicker at the same frequency of the refresh rate, in order to reduce motion blur.

Also, OLED screens used for virtual reality also do this type of rolling scan. This includes the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive, as well as Samsung GearVR compatible smartphones. When a GearVR smartphone is inserted into a GearVR compatible headset, they run in a special low-persistence strobed mode.

Many newer displays, especially OLED displays and modern TN gaming monitors, have the majority of their GtG pixel transitions complete in a tiny fraction of a refresh cycle. This makes GtG an insignificant percentage of MPRT. Such displays exhibit behaviour that closely follows Blur Buster’s Law.

It is an immutable constant (like the speed of light) where you can’t get less display motion blur than this number. Blur Busters Law assumes perfect squarewave persistence, where GtG is 0ms at both leading and trailing edge. So any display with GtG above 0 is always worse than Blur Busters Law.

This is the Blur Busters simplification of the MPRT formula found in this scientific paper. We use MPRT100% instead of MPRT90% (in the scientific paper). A120Hz ideal sample-and-hold display with 0ms GtG has identical motion blur (MPRT100%= 8.333ms) as a 1/120sec photo shutterfor the same physical panning velocity of full frame rate material.

We preferMPRT100%at Blur Bustersfor math simplicity and to match human-perceived motion blur on modern ultrafast sample-and-hold displays. Whereupon 240fps at 240Hz perceives exactly the same motion blur as a 1/240sec camera shutter photograph.And it is also easier for blogs to calculate from TestUFO motion tests.

However, software is limited in precision (erratic flicker) and can only BFI increments of full refresh cycle lengths. Hardware is required to achieve sub-refresh-cycle BFI (e.g. strobe backlights such as ULMB).

These are additional blur-like artifacts above-and-beyond the guaranteed minimum motion blur mandated by Blur Busters Law. See LCD Motion Artifacts and LCD Overdrive Artifacts for examples.

Just like a guitar string that is plucked, high-Hz strings are blurry while low-Hz strings noticeably vibrate. The same is true for display blur versus stutter — Blur Busters Law is simply a function of frequency.

For low Hz where the Hz is so low, the normally high-frequency stutter no longer blends seamlessly into display motion blur. If you stare at www.testufo.com on a common 60 Hz LCD screen, you will see higher framerates tend to show motion blur while lower framerates tend to stutter (vibrate).

Low frame rates such as 15fps (whether be 15Hz, 30Hz, 60Hz or 120Hz sample-and-hold) will noticeably stutter. Instead of “50 pixels of motion blur” it reads as “50 pixels of stutter amplitude” (the vibrate-back-and-fourth span).

However, once the stutter is high-frequency (e.g. 60fps or 120fps) the 60 or 120 stutters per second vibrates so fast, it just blends into motion blur. The “stutters-blends-to-motion-blur” effect is more easily understood in this variable refresh rate simulation, if viewed on a common LCD (non-strobed):

A huge purpose of variable refresh rate gaming displays (G-SYNC and FreeSync gaming displays) is to eliminate stutters induced from frame rate fluctuations. However, it cannot fully eliminate stutter of ultra-low frame rates (e.g. 15fps or 30fps). Whatever leftover stutter remains, exactly follows Blur Busters Law except that the calculated minimum motion blur (in pixels) is instead the stutter amplitude (in pixels).

The threshold blending between stutter and blur will vary from human to human based on their individual flicker fusion threshold on the stutter vibration. Blur Busters Law for high frame rates (240fps) will tend to be motion blur due to ultra-fast 240Hz “stutter” blending into motion blur. While Blur Busters Law on low frame rates (15fps) will tend to be stutter amplitude instead of motion blur.

In the old days, playing 30 fps games on a 60 Hz CRT created a double image effect. This is still a problem today when playing on strobed displays running any frame rates below strobe rate.

This happens when you do fixed-gaze situations. This is also called the Phantom Array Effect. Stare at the middle of the below animation, the TestUFO Mouse Arrow Demo.

Unfortunately, there are many situations where we don’t want motion blur forced upon us by the display above-and-beyond natural human vision blurring. This includes virtual reality headsets. Oculus and other manufacturers found that low-persistence reduces nausea in virtual reality. They cannot add additional motion blur without increasing nausea. So stroboscopic effects are currently the lesser of evil for most people.

At lower refresh rates such as 60 Hz or 75 Hz, amplified flicker can occur because of the flicker curve and flicker duty cycle. On CRTs and plasmas, phosphor gives a gentler fade than square-wave strobe backlight flashes. In addition, global flash strobing (e.g. ULMB) also varies average picture brightness more than a scanning flash (e.g. CRT).

This is why the equivalent refresh rate (e.g. 75 Hz) flickers a lot more on strobed LCD displays than on CRT/plasma displays, because you’re comparing square-waved strobing (e.g. ULMB) versus curved strobing (e.g. CRT).

Today, we sit closer to screens that are bigger and brighter than yesterday’s CRT tubes. This amplifies visibility of flicker. Due to this, most blur-reduction modes (ULMB) run only at higher refresh rates such as 120 Hz instead of 60 Hz to avoid bad flicker.

We simply use use overkill BFI/strobe rate to compensate for the lack of flicker curve-softening (phosphor fade). Thankfully, 120 Hz square wave strobing (ULMB or LightBoost) still flickers a lot less than an old 50 Hz or 60 Hz CRT.

Real life has no frame rate. Frame rates and refresh rate are an artificial digital image-stepping invention of humankind (since the first zoetropes and first movie projectors) that can never perfectly match analog-motion reality.

Also, real life has no flicker, no strobing and no BFI. Today’s strobe backlight technologies (e.g. ULMB) are a good interim workaround for display motion blur. However, the ultimate displays of the distant future will fully eliminate motion blur without strobing. The only way to do that is ultra-high frame rates & refresh rates.

The limiting factor is human-eye tracking speed on full-FOV retina-resolution displays. As a result, with massive screen 4K TVs, 8K TVs, and virtual reality headsets, higher refresh rates are needed to compensate for degradation of motion resolution via persistence.

The Blur Busters Law (1ms of persistence = 1 pixel of motion blurring per 1000 pixels/sec) becomes a vicious cycle when it comes to increasing resolutions and increasing FOV. Persistence limitations and stroboscopic artifacts are more easily noticed with the following:

Higher resolution displays:The same physical motion speed travels more pixels per second. This creates more pixels of motion blur for the same persistence (MPRT).

Wider field of vision (FOV) displays:The same angular display motion speed (eye tracking speed) stays onscreen longer. This extra time makes display motion blur more easily seen.

In the most extreme future case (theoretical 180+ degree retina-resolution virtual reality headsets), display refresh rates far beyond 1000 Hz may someday be required (e.g. 10,000 Hz display refresh rate, defined by the 10,000 Hz stroboscopic-artifacts detection threshold), and also explained in The Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rates. This is in order to pass a theoretical extreme-motion “Holodeck Turing Test” (becoming unable to tell apart real life from virtual reality) for the vast majority of the human population.

This will eventually be necessary for virtual reality, but also useful for huge wall-sized retina displays needing blur-free motion. It will take time, but fortunately, it is closer this century than many think. Experimental 1000 Hz displays now exist.  For example, ViewPixx has a 1440 Hz DLP projector for display research, and there are several other vendors.

It will be challenging for graphics processors to generate the ultra high frame rates necessary for future 1000+ Hz gaming displays of the 2020s and 2030s.

Solutions are being accelerated out of necessity by virtual reality research. For example, Oculus’ asynchronous time-warping and spacewarp technologies converts 45 frames per second to 90 frames per second at low GPU processing cost via clever 3D interpolation tricks.

In addition, future lagless 3D interpolation technologies with geometry-awareness and parallax-reveal capabilities, may potentially convert 100fps to 1000fps with no visible artifacts for 1000Hz.

Another theoretical route to successful high-detail 1000fps+ could be a co-GPU embedded in the display (Imagine a G-SYNC 4 or FreeSync 4 with strobeless ULMB!), working in conjunction with a main computer’s GPU, in order to get around display cable bandwidth limitations. The future of “Frame Rate Amplification Technologies” (FRAT) is full of exciting research!

In recent years, China and other countries have invested heavily in the research and manufacturing capacity of display technology. Meanwhile, different display technology scenarios, ranging from traditional LCD (liquid crystal display) to rapidly expanding OLED (organic light-emitting diode) and emerging QLED (quantum-dot light-emitting diode), are competing for market dominance. Amidst the trivium strife, OLED, backed by technology leader Apple"s decision to use OLED for its iPhone X, seems to have a better position, yet QLED, despite still having technological obstacles to overcome, has displayed potential advantage in color quality, lower production costs and longer life.

Zhao: We all know display technologies are very important. Currently, there are OLED, QLED and traditional LCD technologies competing with each other. What are their differences and specific advantages? Shall we start from OLED?

Huang: OLED has developed very quickly in recent years. It is better to compare it with traditional LCD if we want to have a clear understanding of its characteristics. In terms of structure, LCD largely consists of three parts: backlight, TFT backplane and cell, or liquid section for display. Different from LCD, OLED lights directly with electricity. Thus, it does not need backlight, but it still needs the TFT backplane to control where to light. Because it is free from backlight, OLED has a thinner body, higher response time, higher color contrast and lower power consumption. Potentially, it may even have a cost advantage over LCD. The biggest breakthrough is its flexible display, which seems very hard to achieve for LCD.

Liao: Actually, there were/are many different types of display technologies, such as CRT (cathode ray tube), PDP (plasma display panel), LCD, LCOS (liquid crystals on silicon), laser display, LED (light-emitting diodes), SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display), FED (filed emission display), OLED, QLED and Micro LED. From display technology lifespan point of view, Micro LED and QLED may be considered as in the introduction phase, OLED is in the growth phase, LCD for both computer and TV is in the maturity phase, but LCD for cellphone is in the decline phase, PDP and CRT are in the elimination phase. Now, LCD products are still dominating the display market while OLED is penetrating the market. As just mentioned by Dr Huang, OLED indeed has some advantages over LCD.

Huang: Despite the apparent technological advantages of OLED over LCD, it is not straightforward for OLED to replace LCD. For example, although both OLED and LCD use the TFT backplane, the OLED’s TFT is much more difficult to be made than that of the voltage-driven LCD because OLED is current-driven. Generally speaking, problems for mass production of display technology can be divided into three categories, namely scientific problems, engineering problems and production problems. The ways and cycles to solve these three kinds of problems are different.

At present, LCD has been relatively mature, while OLED is still in the early stage of industrial explosion. For OLED, there are still many urgent problems to be solved, especially production problems that need to be solved step by step in the process of mass production line. In addition, the capital threshold for both LCD and OLED are very high. Compared with the early development of LCD many years ago, the advancing pace of OLED has been quicker.While in the short term, OLED can hardly compete with LCD in large size screen, how about that people may change their use habit to give up large screen?

Liao: I want to supplement some data. According to the consulting firm HIS Markit, in 2018, the global market value for OLED products will be US$38.5 billion. But in 2020, it will reach US$67 billion, with an average compound annual growth rate of 46%. Another prediction estimates that OLED accounts for 33% of the display market sales, with the remaining 67% by LCD in 2018. But OLED’s market share could reach to 54% in 2020.

Huang: While different sources may have different prediction, the advantage of OLED over LCD in small and medium-sized display screen is clear. In small-sized screen, such as smart watch and smart phone, the penetration rate of OLED is roughly 20% to 30%, which represents certain competitiveness. For large size screen, such as TV, the advancement of OLED [against LCD] may need more time.

Xu: LCD was first proposed in 1968. During its development process, the technology has gradually overcome its own shortcomings and defeated other technologies. What are its remaining flaws? It is widely recognized that LCD is very hard to be made flexible. In addition, LCD does not emit light, so a back light is needed. The trend for display technologies is of course towards lighter and thinner (screen).

But currently, LCD is very mature and economic. It far surpasses OLED, and its picture quality and display contrast do not lag behind. Currently, LCD technology"s main target is head-mounted display (HMD), which means we must work on display resolution. In addition, OLED currently is only appropriate for medium and small-sized screens, but large screen has to rely on LCD. This is why the industry remains investing in the 10.5th generation production line (of LCD).

Xu: While deeply impacted by OLED’s super thin and flexible display, we also need to analyse the insufficiency of OLED. With lighting material being organic, its display life might be shorter. LCD can easily be used for 100 000 hours. The other defense effort by LCD is to develop flexible screen to counterattack the flexible display of OLED. But it is true that big worries exist in LCD industry.

LCD industry can also try other (counterattacking) strategies. We are advantageous in large-sized screen, but how about six or seven years later? While in the short term, OLED can hardly compete with LCD in large size screen, how about that people may change their use habit to give up large screen? People may not watch TV and only takes portable screens.

Some experts working at a market survey institute CCID (China Center for Information Industry Development) predicted that in five to six years, OLED will be very influential in small and medium-sized screen. Similarly, a top executive of BOE Technology said that after five to six years, OLED will counterweigh or even surpass LCD in smaller sizes, but to catch up with LCD, it may need 10 to 15 years.

Xu: Besides LCD, Micro LED (Micro Light-Emitting Diode Display) has evolved for many years, though people"s real attention to the display option was not aroused until May 2014 when Apple acquired US-based Micro LED developer LuxVue Technology. It is expected that Micro LED will be used on wearable digital devices to improve battery"s life and screen brightness.

Micro LED, also called mLED or μLED, is a new display technology. Using a so-called mass transfer technology, Micro LED displays consist of arrays of microscopic LEDs forming the individual pixel elements. It can offer better contrast, response times, very high resolution and energy efficiency. Compared with OLED, it has higher lightening efficiency and longer life span, but its flexible display is inferior to OLED. Compared with LCD, Micro LED has better contrast, response times and energy efficiency. It is widely considered appropriate for wearables, AR/VR, auto display and mini-projector.

However, Micro LED still has some technological bottlenecks in epitaxy, mass transfer, driving circuit, full colorization, and monitoring and repairing. It also has a very high manufacturing cost. In short term, it cannot compete traditional LCD. But as a new generation of display technology after LCD and OLED, Micro LED has received wide attentions and it should enjoy fast commercialization in the coming three to five years.

Peng: It comes to quantum dot. First, QLED TV on market today is a misleading concept. Quantum dots are a class of semiconductor nanocrystals, whose emission wavelength can be continuously tuned because of the so-called quantum confinement effect. Because they are inorganic crystals, quantum dots in display devices are very stable. Also, due to their single crystalline nature, emission color of quantum dots can be extremely pure, which dictates the color quality of display devices.

Interestingly, quantum dots as light-emitting materials are related to both OLED and LCD. The so-called QLED TVs on market are actually quantum-dot enhanced LCD TVs, which use quantum dots to replace the green and red phosphors in LCD’s backlight unit. By doing so, LCD displays greatly improve their color purity, picture quality and potentially energy consumption. The working mechanisms of quantum dots in these enhanced LCD displays is their photoluminescence.

For its relationship with OLED, quantum-dot light-emitting diode (QLED) can in certain sense be considered as electroluminescence devices by replacing the organic light-emitting materials in OLED. Though QLED and OLED have nearly identical structure, they also have noticeable differences. Similar to LCD with quantum-dot backlighting unit, color gamut of QLED is much wider than that of OLED and it is more stable than OLED.

Another big difference between OLED and QLED is their production technology. OLED relies on a high-precision technique called vacuum evaporation with high-resolution mask. QLED cannot be produced in this way because quantum dots as inorganic nanocrystals are very difficult to be vaporized. If QLED is commercially produced, it has to be printed and processed with solution-based technology. You can consider this as a weakness, since the printing electronics at present is far less precision than the vacuum-based technology. However, solution-based processing can also be considered as an advantage, because if the production problem is overcome, it costs much less than the vacuum-based technology applied for OLED. Without considering TFT, investment into an OLED production line often costs tens of billions of yuan but investment for QLED could be just 90–95% less.

Given the relatively low resolution of printing technology, QLED shall be difficult to reach a resolution greater than 300 PPI (pixels per inch) within a few years. Thus, QLED might not be applied for small-sized displays at present and its potential will be medium to large-sized displays.

Zhao: Quantum dots are inorganic nanocrystal, which means that they must be passivated with organic ligands for stability and function. How to solve this problem? Second, can commercial production of quantum dots reach an industrial scale?

Peng: Good questions. Ligand chemistry of quantum dots has developed quickly in the past two to three years. Colloidal stability of inorganic nanocrystals should be said of being solved. We reported in 2016 that one gram of quantum dots can be stably dispersed in one milliliter of organic solution, which is certainly sufficient for printing technology. For the second question, several companies have been able to mass produce quantum dots. At present, all these production volume is built for fabrication of the backlighting units for LCD. It is believed that all high-end TVs from Samsung in 2017 are all LCD TVs with quantum-dot backlighting units. In addition, Nanosys in the United States is also producing quantum dots for LCD TVs. NajingTech at Hangzhou, China demonstrate production capacity to support the Chinese TV makers. To my knowledge, NajingTech is establishing a production line for 10 million sets of color TVs with quantum-dot backlighting units annually.China"s current demands cannot be fully satisfied from the foreign companies. It is also necessary to fulfill the demands of domestic market. That is why China must develop its OLED production capability.

Huang: Based on my understanding of Samsung, the leading Korean player in OLED market, we cannot say it had foresight in the very beginning. Samsung began to invest in AMOLED (active-matrix organic light-emitting diode, a major type of OLED used in the display industry) in about 2003, and did not realize mass production until 2007. Its OLED production reached profitability in 2010. Since then, Samsung gradually secured a market monopoly status.

So, originally, OLED was only one of Samsung"s several alternative technology pathways. But step by step, it achieved an advantageous status in the market and so tended to maintain it by expanding its production capacity.

Also, Samsung has spent considerable time and efforts on the development of the product chain. Twenty or thirty years ago, Japan owned the most complete product chain for display products. But since Samsung entered the field in that time, it has spent huge energies to cultivate upstream and downstream Korean firms. Now the Republic of Korea (ROK) manufacturers began to occupy a large share in the market.

Liao: South Korean manufacturers including Samsung and LG Electronics have controlled 90% of global supplies of medium and small-sized OLED panels. Since Apple began to buy OLED panels from Samsung for its cellphone products, there were no more enough panels shipping to China. Therefore, China"s current demands cannot be fully satisfied from the foreign companies. On the other hand, because China has a huge market for cellphones, it would be necessary to fulfill the demands through domestic efforts. That is why China must develop its OLED production capability.

Huang: The importance of China"s LCD manufacturing is now globally high. Compared with the early stage of LCD development, China"s status in OLED has been dramatically improved. When developing LCD, China has adopted the pattern of introduction-absorption-renovation. Now for OLED, we have a much higher percentage of independent innovation.

Then it is the scale of human resources. One big factory will create several thousand jobs, and it will mobilize a whole production chain, involving thousands of workers. The requirement of supplying these engineers and skilled workers can be fulfilled in China.

Although we cannot say that our advantages triumph over ROK, where Samsung and LG have been dominating the field for many years, we have achieved many significant progresses in developing the material and parts of OLED. We also have high level of innovation in process technology and designs. We already have several major manufacturers, such as Visionox, BOE, EDO and Tianma, which have owned significant technological reserves.

Peng: As mentioned above, there are two ways to apply quantum dots for display, namely photoluminescence in backlightingFor QLED, the three stages of technological development [from science issue to engineering and finally to mass production] have been mingled together at the same time. If one wants to win the competition, it is necessary to invest on all three dimensions.

units for LCD and electroluminescence in QLED. For the photoluminescence applications, the key is quantum-dot materials. China has noticeable advantages in quantum-dot materials.

After I returned to China, NajingTech (co-founded by Peng) purchased all key patents invented by me in the United States under the permission of US government. These patents cover the basic synthesis and processing technologies of quantum dots. NajingTech has already established capability for large-scale production of quantum dots. Comparatively, Korea—represented by Samsung—is the current leading company in all aspects of display industry, which offers great advantages in commercialization of quantum-dot displays. In late 2016, Samsung acquired QD Vision (a leading quantum-dot technology developer based in the United States). In addition, Samsung has invested heavily in purchasing quantum-dot-related patents and in developing the technology.

China is internationally leading in electroluminescence at present. In fact, it was the 2014 Nature publication by a group of scientists from Zhejiang University that proved QLED can reach the stringent requirements for display applications. However, who will become the final winner of the international competition on electroluminescence remains unclear. China"s investment in quantum-dot technology lags far behind US and ROK. Basically, the quantum-dot research has been centered in US for most of its history, and South Korean players have invested heavily along this direction as well.

For electroluminescence, it is very likely to co-exist with OLED for a long period of time. This is so because, in small screen, QLED’s resolution is limited by printing technology.

Peng: If electroluminescence can be successfully achieved with printing, it will be much cheaper, with only about 1/10th cost of OLED. Manufacturers like NajingTech and BOE in China have demonstrated printing displays with quantum dots. At present, QLED does not compete with OLED directly, given its market in small-sized screen. A while ago, Dr. Huang mentioned three stages of technological development, from science issue to engineering and finally to mass production. For QLED, the three stages have been mingled together at the same time. If one wants to win the competition, it is necessary to invest on all three dimensions.

Huang: When OLED was compared with LCD in the past, lots of advantages of OLED were highlighted, such as high color gamut, high contrast and high response speed and so on. But above advantages would be difficult to be the overwhelming superiority to make the consumers to choose replacement.

It seems to be possible that the flexible display will eventually lead a killer advantage. I think QLED will also face similar situation. What is its real advantage if it is compared with OLED or LCD? For QLED, it seems to have been difficult to find the advantage in small screen. Dr. Peng has suggested its advantage lies in medium-sized screen, but what is its uniqueness?

Peng: The two types of key advantages of QLED are discussed above. One, QLED is based on solution-based printing technology, which is low cost and high yield. Two, quantum-dot emitters vender QLED with a large color gamut, high picture quality and superior device lifetime. Medium-sized screen is easiest for the coming QLED technologies but QLED for large screen is probably a reasonable extension afterwards.

Huang: But customers may not accept only better wider color range if they need to pay more money for this. I would suggest QLED consider the changes in color standards, such as the newly released BT2020 (defining high-definition 4 K TV), and new unique applications which cannot be satisfied by other technologies. The future of QLED seems also relying on the maturity of printing technology.

Peng: New standard (BT2020) certainly helps QLED, given BT2020 meaning a broad color gamut. Among the technologies discussed today, quantum-dot displays in either form are the only ones that can satisfy BT2020 without any optical compensation. In addition, studies found that the picture quality of display is highly associated with color gamut. It is correct that the maturity of printing technology plays an important role in the development of QLED. The current printing technology is ready for medium-sized screen and should be able to be extended to large-sized screen without much trouble.

Xu: For QLED to become a dominant technology, it is still difficult. In its development process, OLED precedes it and there are other rivaling technologies following. While we know owning the foundational patents and core technologies of QLED can make you a good position, holding core technologies alone cannot ensure you to become a mainstream technology. The government"s investment in such key technologies after all is small as compared with industry and cannot decide QLED to become mainstream technology.

Peng: Domestic industry sector has begun to invest in these future technologies. For example, NajingTech has invested about 400 million yuan ($65 million) in QLED, primarily in electroluminescence. There are some leading domestic players having invested into the field. Yes, this is far from enough. For example, there are few domestic companies investing R&D of printing technologies. Our printing equipment is primarily made by the US, European and Japan players. I think this is also a chance for China (to develop the printing technologies).

Xu: Our industry wants to collaborate with universities and research institutes to develop kernel innovative technologies. Currently they heavily rely on imported equipment. A stronger industry-academics collaboration should help solve some of the problems.

Liao: Due to their lack of kernel technologies, Chinese OLED panel manufacturers heavily rely on investments to improve their market competitiveness. But this may cause the overheated investment in the OLED industry. In recent years, China has already imported quite a few new OLED production lines with the total cost of about 450 billion yuan (US$71.5 billion).Lots of advantages of OLED over LCD were highlighted, such as high color gamut, high contrast and high response speed and so on …. It seems to be possible that the flexible display will eventually lead a killer advantage.

The short of talent human resources perhaps is another issue to influence the fast expansion of the industry domestically. For an example, BOE alone demands more than 1000 new engineers last year. However, the domestic universities certainly cannot fulfill this requirement for specially trained OLED working forces currently. A major problem is the training is not implemented in accordance with industry demands but surrounding academic papers.

Huang: The talent training in ROK is very different. In Korea, many doctoral students are doing almost the same thing in universities or research institutes as they do in large enterprises, which is very helpful for them to get started quickly after entering the company. On the other hand, many professors of universities or research institutes have working experience of large enterprises, which makes universities better understand the demand of industry.

Liao: However, Chinese researchers’ priority pursuit of papers is in disjunction from industry demand. Majority of people (at universities) who are working on organic optoelectronics are more interested in the fields of QLED, organic solar cells, perovskite solar cells and thin-film transistors because they are trendy fields and have more chances to publish research papers. On the other hand, many studies that are essential to solve industry"s problems, such as developing domestic versions of equipment, are not so essential for paper publication, so that faculty and students shed from them.

Xu: It is understandable. Students do not want to work on the applications too much because they need to publish papers to graduate. Universities also demand short-term research outcomes. A possible solution is to set up an industry-academics sharing platform for professionals and resources from the two sides to move to each other. Academics should develop truly original basic research. Industry wants to collaborate with professors owning such original innovative research.

Zhao: Today there are really good observations, discussions and suggestions. The industry-academics-research collaboration is crucial to the future of China"s display technologies. We all should work hard on this.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. for commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

According to The Elec (via AppleInsider) Apple will be using a hybrid OLED panel for the first iPad it produces with an OLED display, something that the report notes will be a few years from now. Currently, Apple uses an LCD backlit screen on its tablets which it calls a "Liquid Retina" display. The one exception is the latest 12.9-inch iPad Pro which uses a mini-LED backlit screen that Apple calls the "Liquid Retina XDR" display.

So what is a hybrid OLED panel? It is a panel that uses a combination of rigid and flexible OLED technologies. For example, a hybrid OLED panel would use rigid glass as a foundation with a plastic layer of flexible thin-film OLED on top. Apple does not want to use flexible OLED panels alone because they tend to crumple. This occurs from the heat used by lasers to remove a glass substrate that starts out as part of a flexible OLED panel during its production.

Besides being less likely to crumple, Apple might also like that hybrid OLED panels are thinner than rigid panels and should also be cheaper to produce than flexible panels. Apple currently uses flexible OLED panels for the iPhone. The report notes that if the issues (including the propensity of these panels to crumple) can be resolved, Apple could choose to use flexible OLED panels for the iPad instead of hybrid panels.

LG Display and Samsung Display are said to be working on an ultra-thin glass substrate for hybrid OLED panels. Replacing the current 5nm substrate with one measuring 2mm, the two companies are trying to reduce the thickness of hybrid OLED panels. The latest update reveals that the new technology is still at least one year away from being commercialized, but we are sure that Apple is closely monitoring the developments.

The reason why Apple and other phone manufacturers can get away with using flexible OLED panels for their handsets without crumpling issues is because this flaw isn"t as noticeable on smaller screens like the ones used for smartphones. However, the crumpling is noticeable on larger displays like the ones used for the company"s iPad tablets. And that is one of the reasons why Apple would probably choose to use a hybrid OLED panel instead of a flexible one for future iPad models.

Mini-LED backlit screens deliver some of the same features that users receive from OLED displays. The mini-LED displays use smaller LEDs as a backlight. Because of their smaller size, as much as 120 times smaller than the ones employed on traditional LCD screens, these panels have a larger number of LEDs behind the scenes. As a result, instead of the 72 LEDs used on the previous 12.9-inch iPad Pro model, there are 10,000 mini-LEDs used on the current model. They are arranged in four "dimming zones," each with 2,500 mini-LEDs, to provide the super 1,000,000:1 contrast that these screens can offer.

As we just noted, the mini-LED displays offer a high contrast ratio and they are less likely to suffer burn-ins which lead to a permanent image seen on a screen. They also deliver deeper blacks and more true-to-life colors. Last year an Apple executive explained that the mini-LED panel might make the 11-inch iPad Pro too heavy which is why the technology was only used on the larger 12.9-inch variant.

Keep in mind that mini-LED panels are considered the next step in LCD display technology. So even if Apple were to use it for all of its iPad models, the company would probably continue working toward the ultimate goal of offering OLED-screened iPad models. Due to cost though, we"d expect Apple to offer such a feature first on the pricier 12.9-inch iPad Pro just like it is doing with mini-LED.

To evaluate the performance of display devices, several metrics are commonly used, such as response time, CR, color gamut, panel flexibility, viewing angle, resolution density, peak brightness, lifetime, among others. Here we compare LCD and OLED devices based on these metrics one by one.

A fast response time helps to mitigate motion image blur and boost the optical efficiency, but this statement is only qualitatively correct. When quantifying the visual performance of a moving object, motion picture response time (MPRT) is more representative, and the following equation should be used

From Figure 5, we can gain several important physical insights: (1) Increasing the frame rate is a simple approach to suppress image motion blur, but its improvement gradually saturates. For example, if the LC response time is 10 ms, then increasing the frame rate from 30 to 60 fps would significantly reduce the MPRT. However, as the TFT frame rate continues to increase to 120 and 240 fps, then the improvement gradually saturates. (2) At a given frame rate, say 120 fps, as the LC response time decreases, the MPRT decreases almost linearly and then saturates. This means that the MPRT is mainly determined by the TFT frame rate once the LC response time is fast enough, i.e., τ≪Tf. Under such conditions, Equation (1) is reduced to MPRT≈0.8Tf. (3) When the LC response is <2 ms, its MPRT is comparable to that of an OLED at the same frame rate, e.g., 120 fps. Here we assume the OLED’s response time is 0.

The last finding is somehow counter to the intuition that a LCD should have a more severe motion picture image blur, as its response time is approximately 1000 × slower than that of an OLED (ms vs. μs). To validate this prediction, Chen et al.

If we want to further suppress image blur to an unnoticeable level (MPRT<2 ms), decreasing the duty ratio (for LCDs, this is the on-time ratio of the backlight, called scanning backlight or blinking backlight) is mostly adopted

As Figure 6 depicts, there are two types of surface reflections. The first one is from a direct light source, i.e., the sun or a light bulb, denoted as A1. Its reflection is fairly specular, and in practice, we can avoid this reflection (i.e., strong glare from direct sun) by simply adjusting the display position or viewing direction. However, the second reflection, denoted as A2, is quite difficult to avoid. It comes from an extended background light source, such as a clear sky or scattered ceiling light. In our analysis, we mainly focus on the second reflection (A2).

To investigate the ACR, we have to clarify the reflectance first. A large TV is often operated by remote control, so touchscreen functionality is not required. As a result, an anti-reflection coating is commonly adopted. Let us assume that the reflectance is 1.2% for both LCD and OLED TVs. For the peak brightness and CR, different TV makers have their own specifications. Here, without losing generality, let us use the following brands as examples for comparison: LCD peak brightness=1200 nits, LCD CR=5000:1 (Sony 75″ X940E LCD TV); OLED peak brightness=600 nits, and OLED CR=infinity (Sony 77″ A1E OLED TV). The obtained ACR for both LCD and OLED TVs is plotted in Figure 7a. As expected, OLEDs have a much higher ACR in the low illuminance region (dark room) but drop sharply as ambient light gets brighter. At 63 lux, OLEDs have the same ACR as LCDs. Beyond 63 lux, LCDs take over. In many countries, 60 lux is the typical lighting condition in a family living room. This implies that LCDs have a higher ACR when the ambient light is brighter than 60 lux, such as in office lighting (320–500 lux) and a living room with the window shades or curtain open. Please note that, in our simulation, we used the real peak brightness of LCDs (1200 nits) and OLEDs (600 nits). In most cases, the displayed contents could vary from black to white. If we consider a typical 50% average picture level (i.e., 600 nits for LCDs vs. 300 nits for OLEDs), then the crossover point drops to 31 lux (not shown here), and LCDs are even more favorable. This is because the on-state brightness plays an important role to the ACR, as Equation (2) shows.

Calculated ACR as a function of different ambient light conditions for LCD and OLED TVs. Here we assume that the LCD peak brightness is 1200 nits and OLED peak brightness is 600 nits, with a surface reflectance of 1.2% for both the LCD and OLED. (a) LCD CR: 5000:1, OLED CR: infinity; (b) LCD CR: 20 000:1, OLED CR: infinity.

Recently, an LCD panel with an in-cell polarizer was proposed to decouple the depolarization effect of the LC layer and color filtersFigure 7b. Now, the crossover point takes place at 16 lux, which continues to favor LCDs.

For mobile displays, such as smartphones, touch functionality is required. Thus the outer surface is often subject to fingerprints, grease and other contaminants. Therefore, only a simple grade AR coating is used, and the total surface reflectance amounts to ~4.4%. Let us use the FFS LCD as an example for comparison with an OLED. The following parameters are used in our simulations: the LCD peak brightness is 600 nits and CR is 2000:1, while the OLED peak brightness is 500 nits and CR is infinity. Figure 8a depicts the calculated results, where the intersection occurs at 107 lux, which corresponds to a very dark overcast day. If the newly proposed structure with an in-cell polarizer is used, the FFS LCD could attain a 3000:1 CRFigure 8b), corresponding to an office building hallway or restroom lighting. For reference, a typical office light is in the range of 320–500 luxFigure 8 depicts, OLEDs have a superior ACR under dark ambient conditions, but this advantage gradually diminishes as the ambient light increases. This was indeed experimentally confirmed by LG Display

Calculated ACR as a function of different ambient light conditions for LCD and OLED smartphones. Reflectance is assumed to be 4.4% for both LCD and OLED. (a) LCD CR: 2000:1, OLED CR: infinity; (b) LCD CR: 3000:1, OLED CR: infinity. (LCD peak brightness: 600 nits; OLED peak brightness: 500 nits).

For conventional LCDs employing a WLED backlight, the yellow spectrum generated by YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) phosphor is too broad to become highly saturated RGB primary colors, as shown in Figure 9aTable 2. The first choice is the RG-phosphor-converted WLEDFigure 9b, the red and green emission spectra are well separated; still, the green spectrum (generated by β-sialon:Eu2+ phosphor) is fairly broad and red spectrum (generated by K2SiF6:Mn4+ (potassium silicofluoride, KSF) phosphor) is not deep enough, leading to 70%–80% Rec. 2020, depending on the color filters used.

Transmission spectra of color filters and emission spectra of (a) YAG WLED, (b) KSF WLED, (c) QDEF and (d) Vivid Color LED. KSF, potassium silicofluoride; QDEF, quantum dot enhancement film; WLED, white light-emitting diode; YAG, yttrium aluminum garnet.

A QD-enhanced backlight (e.g., quantum dot enhancement film, QDEF) offers another option for a wide color gamutFigure 9c), so that high purity RGB colors can be realized and a color gamut of ~90% Rec. 2020 can be achieved. One safety concern is that some high-performance QDs contain the heavy metal Cd. To be compatible with the restriction of hazardous substances, the maximum cadmium content should be under 100 ppm in any consumer electronic product

Recently, a new LED technology, called the Vivid Color LED, was demonstratedFigure 9d), which leads to an unprecedented color gamut (~98% Rec. 2020) together with specially designed color filters. Such a color gamut is comparable to that of laser-lit displays but without laser speckles. Moreover, the Vivid Color LED is heavy-metal free and shows good thermal stability. If the efficiency and cost can be further improved, it would be a perfect candidate for an LCD backlight.

A color filter array is another effective approach to enhance the color gamut of an OLED. For example, in 2017, AUO demonstrated a 5-inch top-emission OLED panel with 95% Rec. 2020. In this design, so-called symmetric panel stacking with a color filter is employed to generate purer RGB primary colors

As mentioned earlier, TFT LCDs are a fairly mature technology. They can be operated for >10 years without noticeable performance degradation. However, OLEDs are more sensitive to moisture and oxygen than LCDs. Thus their lifetime, especially for blue OLEDs, is still an issue. For mobile displays, this is not a critical issue because the expected usage of a smartphone is approximately 2–3 years. However, for large TVs, a lifetime of >30 000 h (>10 years) has become the normal expectation for consumers.

Here we focus on two types of lifetime: storage and operational. To enable a 10-year storage lifetime, according to the analysis−6 g (m2-day)−1 and 1 × 10−5 cm3 (m2-day)−1, respectively. To achieve these values, organic and/or inorganic thin films have been developed to effectively protect the OLED and lengthen its storage lifetime. Meanwhile, it is compatible to flexible substrates and favors a thinner display profile

The next type of lifetime is operational lifetime. Owing to material degradation, OLED luminance will decrease and voltage will increase after long-term drivingT50) can be as long as >80 000 h with a 1000 cd m−2 luminanceT50, half lifetime) with an initial luminance of 1000 nits. However, this is still ~20 × shorter than that of red and green phosphorescent OLEDs

To further enhance the lifetime of the blue OLED, the NTU group has developed new ETL and TTF-EML materials together with an optimized layer structure and double EML structureFigure 10a shows the luminance decay curves of such a blue OLED under different initial luminance values (5000, 10 000, and 15 000 nits). From Figure 10b, the estimated T50 at 1000 nits of this blue OLED is ~56 000 h (~6–7 years)

Power consumption is equally important as other metrics. For LCDs, power consumption consists of two parts: the backlight and driving electronics. The ratio between these two depends on the display size and resolution density. For a 55″ 4K LCD TV, the backlight occupies approximately 90% of the total power consumption. To make full use of the backlight, a dual brightness enhancement film is commonly embedded to recycle mismatched polarized light

The power efficiency of an OLED is generally limited by the extraction efficiency (ηext~20%). To improve the power efficiency, multiple approaches can be used, such as a microlens array, a corrugated structure with a high refractive index substrateFigure 11 shows the power efficiencies of white, green, red and blue phosphorescent as well as blue fluorescent/TTF OLEDs over time. For OLEDs with fluorescent emitters in the 1980s and 1990s, the power efficiency was limited by the IQE, typically <10 lm W−1(Refs. 41, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118). With the incorporation of phosphorescent emitters in the ~2000 s, the power efficiency was significantly improved owing to the materials and device engineering−1 was demonstrated in 2011 (Ref. 127), which showed a >100 × improvement compared with that of the basic two-layer device proposed in 1987 (1.5 lm W−1 in Ref. 41). A white OLED with a power efficiency >100 lm W−1 was also demonstrated, which was comparable to the power efficiency of a LCD backlight. For red and blue OLEDs, their power efficiencies are generally lower than that of the green OLED due to their lower photopic sensitivity function, and there is a tradeoff between color saturation and power efficiency. Note, we separated the performances of blue phosphorescent and fluorescent/TTF OLEDs. For the blue phosphorescent OLEDs, although the power efficiency can be as high as ~80 lm W−1, the operation lifetime is short and color is sky-blue. For display applications, the blue TTF OLED is the favored choice, with an acceptable lifetime and color but a much lower power efficiency (16 lm W−1) than its phosphorescent counterpartFigure 11 shows.

Power efficiency of white, red, green and phosphorescent blue and fluorescent/TTF blue OLEDs over time. Data are compiled from Refs. 41, 45, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133.

To compare the power consumption of LCDs and OLEDs with the same resolution density, the displayed contents should be considered as well. In general, OLEDs are more efficient than LCDs for displaying dark images because black pixels consume little power for an emissive display, while LCDs are more efficient than OLEDs at displaying bright images. Currently, a ~65% average picture level is the intersection point between RGB OLEDs and LCDs

Flexible displays have a long history and have been attempted by many companies, but this technology has only recently begun to see commercial implementations for consumer electronics

In addition to the aforementioned six display metrics, other parameters are equally important. For example, high-resolution density has become a standard for all high-end display devices. Currently, LCD is taking the lead in consumer electronic products. Eight-hundred ppi or even >1000 ppi LCDs have already been demonstrated and commercialized, such as in the Sony 5.5″ 4k Smartphone Xperia Z5 Premium. The resolution of RGB OLEDs is limited by the physical dimension of the fine-pitch shadow mask. To compete with LCDs, most OLED displays use the PenTile RGB subpixel matrix scheme

The viewing angle is another important property that defines the viewing experience at large oblique angles, which is quite critical for multi-viewer applications. OLEDs are self-emissive and have an angular distribution that is much broader than that of LCDs. For instance, at a 30° viewing angle, the OLED brightness only decreases by 30%, whereas the LCD brightness decrease exceeds 50%. To widen an LCD’s viewing angle, three options can be used. (1) Remove the brightness-enhancement film in the backlight system. The tradeoff is decreased on-axis brightness

In addition to brightness, color, grayscale and the CR also vary with the viewing angle, known as color shift and gamma shift. In these aspects, LCDs and OLEDs have different mechanisms. For LCDs, they are induced by the anisotropic property of the LC material, which could be compensated for with uniaxial or biaxial films

Cost is another key factor for consumers. LCDs have been the topic of extensive investigation and investment, whereas OLED technology is emerging and its fabrication yield and capability are still far behind LCDs. As a result, the price of OLEDs is about twice as high as that of LCDs, especially for large displays. As more investment is made in OLEDs and more advanced fabrication technology is developed, such as ink-jet printing

New York, US, Sept. 22, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- According to a comprehensive research report by Market Research Future (MRFR), “Smartphone Display Market Research Report - By Type, Display Technology, Size, resolution - Forecast till 2030”, poised to reach USD 123.7 BN by 2030, growing at an 8.30% CAGR during the forecasted period (2022-2030).

The global smartphone display market is witnessing rapid revenue growth. The market rises attributes to technological advances in displays and smartphones. Besides, substantial R&D investments made into the development of displays and connectivity solutions drive the growth of the market. The increasing adoption of advanced display technologies, such as OLED and AMOLED in Smartphones, boosts the market size.

As technologies mature, they influence market trends and market opportunities. Additionally, the increasing use of HD interfaces in smartphones influences market revenue. Furthermore, the increasing trend of live streaming and OTT content positively impact the market growth. OLED technology is rapidly replacing existing LED and LCD technologies from various smartphone brands.

Conversely, the high cost of OLED and AMOLED displays is a major factor impeding the market growth. Nevertheless, the augmenting demand for high image quality and better image resolution would support the market growth throughout the assessment period. The display quality is measured by contrast ratio, color calibration, brightness, and sunlight legibility.

There are many types of displays available in the market today. These include LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), IPS-LCD (In-Plane Switching Liquid Crystal Display), OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode), AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode), and others. The screen combined with the touch element is a major element of the user interface. LCDs consist of a matrix of Liquid Crystals and can be very visible in direct sunlight.

IPS-LCDs have become a common display type for mid-range to high-end phones, providing a superior viewing angle and better color reproduction. OLEDs & AMOLEDs emit light, which eliminates the need for the backlight and, therefore, can allow a potentially thinner panel. The main benefit of OLED and AMOLED displays is that they can produce their own light, eliminating the need for a backlight and cutting down on energy requirements.

AMOLED technology is far superior to LED and LCD technology and has low power consumption. The increasing adoption of these displays across the smartphone industry boosts the market size. Additionally, the growing demand for energy-efficient displays for smartphones and other electronic devices escalates the market on the global level.

The smartphone display market is segmented into types, display technologies, sizes, resolutions, and regions. The type segment is sub-segmented into capacitive, resistive display screens, and others. The display technology segment is sub-segmented into TFT-LCD, IPS-LCD, OLED, AMOLED, and others.

The size segment is sub-segmented into 0–4 inches, 4–5 inches, 5–6 inches, and above 6 inches. The resolution segment is sub-segmented into 720 x 1280, 1920 x 1080, and others. The region segment is sub-segmented into Americas, Europe, APAC, and Rest-of-the-World.

The Asia Pacific dominates the global smartphone display market. The region has long been attracting foreign investors with its raw material advantage and the availability of cost-competitive workforces, impacting its market share. Besides, increasing numbers of smartphone users and vast smartphone industries in the region boost the market size. With the presence of a large number of smartphone industries, China, Japan, and India hold sizable shares in the regional market.

North America gains the second spot globally in terms of smartphone display market revenues. The market is primarily driven by vast advances in display technologies and the proliferation of smartphones in the region. Moreover, the strong presence of notable industry players, such as Apple Inc. and Google, pushes the regional market growth. Augmented demand and availability of quality smartphone displays in the region drive the growth of the market.

Europe is another promising market for smartphone displays. The smartphone display market in this region is witnessing a rapid expansion stage. Factors such as the growing adoption of smartphone display technologies, such as OLED and AMOLED, stimulate market growth in the region. The European smartphone display market is expected to witness fabulous growth during the review period.

The highly competitive smartphone display market witnesses the presence of several well-established players. These players focus on innovations and improvements in product, service, and product innovations. Players incorporate strategic initiatives such as collaboration, acquisition, partnership, product & technology launch, and expansion to gain a larger competitive share.

For instance, on Aug.27, 2022, Samsung, a leading smartphone brand, announced that it is developing a dual-screen phone featuring a transparent display on the back. The patent application for the new Samsung dual-screen phone was submitted in January 2022. The World Intellectual Property purportedly develops the dual-screen technology of this smartphone Organization (WIPO), a South Korean tech business.

Market Research Future (MRFR) is a global market research company that takes pride in its services, offering a complete and accurate analysis regarding diverse markets and consumers worldwide. Market Research Future has the distinguished objective of providing the optimal quality research and granular research to clients. Our market research studies by products, services, technologies, applications, end users, and market players for global, regional, and country level market segments, enable our clients to see more, know more, and do more, which help answer your most important questions.

From large outdoor interactive screens on buildings to tiny displays in wristwatches, the display industry has created applications and entire industries over the past 60 years, transforming our entire society. Just take a look at laptops, tablets, mobile phones, and other handheld devices, which were all possible thanks to display technology innovation.

Older TV’s took half the space in your room; now they are like a painting on the wall, and in some cases thinner than a portrait frame. Modern displays are everywhere now - from the back of the seat in an airplane and taxicab, to stadiums and other public venues, tiny kiosks that serve one person at a time, and of course, medical devices, military vehicles, and more. Display innovation can also be found in factory equipment, oil rigs, trains, trucks and boats and airplanes. Other unique display applications include displays embedded in a credit card.

It has been thrilling to be part of this industry the past 25 years. Right out of engineering school, I worked on vacuum tubes - CRTs ruled then - and later on, monochrome LCD. I got my real start with displays at Standish Industries in Wisconsin, which was a pioneer in wide temperature monochrome TN (twisted nematic)) and STN (super-twisted nematic) LCDs, which were used in a variety of rugged applications.

It was exciting to work on rugged displays that provided valuable information that made them indispensable - from gas pumps to ATMs, parking meters, aircraft displays, and John Deere tractor consoles. Later I was fortunate to work on TFEL displays while at Planar; on early AMLCD while at TFS; best in class AMLCD while at Sharp; on electrophoretic ePaper while at E Ink; and presently, I get to work on every major cutting edge display technology.

One thing I find fascinating about this industry is that you can"t write off any display technology when something new enters the market. Some of these technologies linger on for much longer than you expect; some should have been out of the industry 20 years ago, but they are not - they find niche applications and continue to make a living for someone.

In honor of the Society for Information Display’s (SID) 60th anniversary, I’d like to take a look at some of the direct view display technologies (excluding projectors) and their impact over the past six decades:

CRT (Cathode Ray Tube): Traditionally used for computer monitors and televisions, and also made its way into military and even maritime applications. Demand for CRT screens dropped in the late 2000s, and they were replaced by LCD.

TN and STN LCD Monochrome: This display te