Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

New Article - Exploring OLED Brightness – Improvements, WOLED vs QD-OLED and the Need for New Metrics and Specs (Patreon)

Published:
2024-02-15 16:46:48
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Our detailed new article investigates OLED brightness, it's incomplete testing and marketing approach and tests which panel technology is really brighter in real-world HDR experience between WOLED and QD-OLED!

There's loads of really interesting findings in here which will hopefully provide a far more complete picture of what really matters when it comes to a displays "brightness". Loads of testing and data, and information about how we are going to update our testing methodology in the future so we can bring you even more complete information and content!

It's a long and detailed read, but hopefully very interesting to anyone who follows the monitor and display market

https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/exploring-oled-brightness-improvements-woled-vs-qd-oled-and-the-need-for-new-metrics-and-specs

Files

Previews only

Comments

BingBong

Great article. I agree that peak luminance is a misleading metric to use for comparison especially for WOLED displays. I do have some concerns about the new metrics you are using though. For example, the choice to show full-color XCR comparison charts only at 1% APL is confusing. Why not choose to highlight 5%, 15%, or 25% as more representative of real-world content? And your graphs that do cover the full luminance range have a weird x-axis scale. It isn’t linear, it isn’t logarithmic, instead it seems you just put your (arbitrary) measurement points at equal distances from each other and then connect them with a line. This gives a big emphasis to low APL, is there a justification for this? If so, I would have liked to see the justification in the article. Another concern I have is with the choice to use *relative* CIE L*a*b* for color volume. Those charts are relative to each display’s peak white luminance, the metric you spent the beginning of the article lambasting! If you had a WOLED with identical color-subpixel performance to a typical QD-OLED, but additionally had a hypothetical super-bright white subpixel that gave the display a 10,000 nits peak white luminance, its color volume numbers in your review would look absolutely abysmal despite having the same absolute color volume as the QD-OLED. This to me renders relative CIE L*a*b* unsuitable for making comparisons between displays. It could still be useful for understanding a display’s color performance relative to its own peak brightness, but an absolute color volume measurement is necessary for comparative purposes. Overall I’m glad you’ve chosen to expand your HDR testing suite and I definitely think this is a big step forward. Just wanted to share some feedback as an enthusiast who wants the best data possible to base my buying decisions on.

TFTCentral
>>130162760

Hi @BingBong. Thank you for the feedback and thoughts. These are some topics I've been pondering myself as well, and looking to evolve further. I'll explain my current logic for how it's presented, and where I'm looking to make some adjustments. 1) The original intention for comparing the 1% XCR scores only was that the article was focused on the "peak brightness" spec largely, and it was making a point that using peak white luminance only is very incomplete and can be misleading. But the industry is so focused on that one figure as a single metric, that's why for now I'd only included those comparison graphs at 1% APL. But i do agree, there is a bigger picture here than only considering that peak 1% comparison, and i was looking to add in further comparisons and commentary for other APL. 2) The X-axis scale is something I am looking in to and had already identified that as an oddity. For now, they were designed to replicate the scale and style of the graphs our readers would be used to based on previous white luminance ("peak brightness") graphs in our reviews, and the same kind of scale that's used elsewhere. Perhaps bar charts would be more appropriate here than a line graph, or fixing the scale like you say to be either linear or logarithmic. I will investigate further and provide an update on that topic 3) I agree re: colour volume. I am not happy with that as a metric at the moment and am investigating and discussing this further with various people. CIE L*a*b* seemed the best, or at least most widely adopted approach at the moment, but the volume % varies by APL and could unfairly penalise a display as you've said when its fixed to the relative white measurement. ICtCp is arguably a more accurate and useful approach, but i don't like the numbers that come from that, it's just a simple "xx million colours" figure, not % coverage etc. I am exploring this topic further, but for now i think i agree it makes sense to leave colour volume out of reviews/comparisons. I will also update this article in the near future with some further clarification and updates :)