TVs, including LCD/LED, plasma, OLED, and more. Ask for buying advice, or help others, share experiences etc.
I was looking around for rec 2020 coverage figures for new oled displays and came across a foreign forum with a guy that had talked to a calibrator in the west. He said the gut told him all new oled displays this year would be 1000 nits and 85% rec2020 coverage. What dyes that mean? I can believe they might have improved current LG panel technology to get 1000 nit peak and adjusted the filters to get 85% rec2020 coverage, but to get 1000 nit standard would give great color volume at 85% coverage, really enjoyable. But going through panel specifications you realise how woeful oled panel brightness on displays are. You are talking 250-400cd/m2 often, with peak brightness often quoted instead. You basically would need Quantum dot filters on blue oled to sustain that brightness properly, with peaks brighter again. Do, unless sine other scheme is used, I'll take it as potentially some primary color changes, and a few other things including improving the oled, if it's right at all. I'm not saying which other things yet, but I have a notion of his they could do it. Now I remember more what I thought last night, one trick is to band the light better from the oled process and make better use of the light, giving a boost to get peaks up there. You could play with the existing oled formulae to produce more desirable frequencies for a filter to interact with before you go the full qd on blue oled route. However, the flexible oled process is different and can produce this sort of gamut.
I think I might know what is happening. assuming it's real, we might see such panels announced by Christmas. They might have simply misunderstood when in 2019 it was meant. At 85% perceptual, that may struggle to look better than a Q7.

Those brightness figures for thus years panels, are they peak, or actual. If they are actual, that would line up with a Q7. Some OLED are doing 250cd/m actual full screen. I've Vern reading the display specifications.

A shock, is that the 65 inch Panasonic (800? there) is 100cd/m more than the 55 inch sane model.

What are these customisations to the GZ2000's panel Rasmus? Any primary or brightness shifts?

If you are under embargo, so you can't talk about significant increases in rec2020 over 80%, or significant increases in primary brightness (700 CD/m+ native without peak) could you are least say it would be "more interesting" for me, or "really more interesting"?

Samsung Q7 doesn't hit much higher than 400-500 nits peak brightness in actual use, unless you put in far more aggressive picture modes and is willing to sacrifice color accuracy and other parameters. This is the nature of an edge-lit VA LCD panel. The native contrast of a VA LCD panel is around 3-5000:1 so whenever it has to go beyond that it will have to sacrifice something.

In my opinion, no edge-lit LCD TVs can do HDR. Don't get fooled about the high numbers that especially LCD manufacturers tout. These are purely theoretical. They can only be achieved in torch mode (Dynamic picture mode) and on specific test pattern. Peak brightness in actual use is always much, much lower on both edge-lit LCDs and full array LCDs. You can see our measurements of actual HDR peak brightness on TVs here: ... 1503292479

HDR peak brightness numbers for OLED panels are actual since these are controlled on the pixel level. However, for high APL content brightness drops.

I don't know much as the custom OLED panel in GZ2000 yet but it's still an LG Display panel so it will still have roughly the same specs. Panasonic may be doing some custom controller stuff. They are claiming a less aggressive ABL limiter this year but so is LG Electronics so I suspect that at least part of it can be attributed to improvements achieved by LG Display.

The only TV panels I have seen with 80%+ Rec.2020 coverage are prototypes and often TV manufacturers like to showcase these displays at trade shows. However, when panels go into mass production they will have to make sacrifices, conform to regulations (reduce the use of cadmium-free quantum dots) etc. It can be done but the question is if it can be done at mass production scale. That's a whole different challenge than showcasing vaporware at CES.
That's the nature of working with HDR. But actual HDR comes across really good. But I noticed you have not tested the latest Q7, which is a significant improvement over last years, or any I see in store HDR near the current sale price. The test of this years Q7 at the site below was 697 out of theoretical 700 in this years model.

Their is a lot you can do with LCD issues simply by light control. Which Samsung probably did with this s years, and us doing with the upcoming Q9 4k eliminating blooming and increasing high brightness color, by a report I read. There was a private room show of the panel there. The Q7 already has lower light output which would make it easier to control light. The tests I've seen indicate it does more coverage, but lower overall volume then the Q9. Which indicates to me that Q7 is doing well on normal lower brightness, but the technology couldn't handle the Q9's high brightness completely. Maybe the Q9 used a lesser technology due to its proximity to the best if the LEDs (and the led purity is another matter). The top color volume is a Vizio. I imagine that the technology they use is related to the technology reportedly in this years Q9 4k and the Sharp 8k TV panel. I know I read something about some new wonder black film around three+ years ago. That's his long a roll out into production readiness may take. The principles are simple, I used to try to figures out new technologies for displays. One thing you can do, is a filter that rejects off frequencies of light along with tight frequency light sources (and polarisation, and directional distribution and filtering (VA's need this). Now, when the light works its way through panels it interacts with it and the light gets changed, these changes are rejected by the filters, increasing black levels. That is a lot of the light problems with LCD. But you know what acts by rejecting off frequencies that you could put in front of a LCD pixel, a quantum dot color filter. I don't expect it to completely eliminate issues, and you may still get glow. But, instead of making a dual cell lcd pixel, why not make a deeper cell of a type which more fully blocks glow?
Another innovation I'm looking at, is to change materials to guarantee light changes to an off frequency when undesired. This may or may not be practical in cost or panel life expectancy, but is simple. You may now look at performance better then that sharp dual pixel idea. I even came up with an idea to provide greater than rec2020, and maybe another one which might be applied Instead of QD cheaply, blindingly obvious.

Looking at actual test scores across OLED sets at the rtings color volume page, there are a lot more variance between OLED models of the same year on all measure then expected, even lower model out doing a higher model. I wonder what is going on. Sony was surprisingly down.

Remember when LG did a panel rated to do around 1000 nits peak, well this years panels outdo this years on those measurements. I wonder if they are model dying materials and dulling light output etc, for manufacturing and panel life purposes? 250 nit panel brightness is not much on the bottom end models.

One thing Panasonic could do easily, is change the color filter primaries to get rec2020, or to get a 8k panel and use it as a 4k 12 bit display using sub pixels, like I posted in an article recently. They could change the filter to 6 color in combination with this. A custom colour filter certification costs, and could take the time from going with LG instead if the previous plan, until now to get sorted out. So, I wonder if something is possible. It makes little sense for Panasonic to advertise it's image credentials and to Just use everybody else's Panel and have it look lacklustre in shops, even with dark details lost (the original 950 etc in shop). They have to have a better plan before people start realising that an LG with their superior technics color scheme is a viable alternative for personal and work.
OK, here is a picture of the pixels in the panel. ... 82391.html

The article refers to the pixel structure on OLED being replaced three times in 12 months. One to allow better dci coverage at higher brightness. But no indication of new sub pixels (unless they are in that black gap between Ines of pixels :). But seriously, if they wanted to increase brightness they could just use up that area, which should give them Q7FN level brightness performance. There are solutions to the cooling, apart from cooling technology. One is a form of high heat transfer crystal/glass with the pixel printed on the back. One other thing I wanted to do. Is yo increase surface area by steeply curving the pixel, which is an issue for heat dissipation, but this can be put into indentations on the heat transfer front. You might allow 1000 nit fill screen by this stage. Unless you use lensing, you will loss image quality at extreme angles which doesn't matter. Another option is to put the material on bumps. Which ever way it might be combined with lensing to manage distribution. There is further that can be done for thermal management, but they are my own priority technology. Just remembered an obscure alternative technology to generate light, but it likely generates to much heat. Anyway. These things may be superior ways to do OLED etc. But the reality is they maybe a lot more expensive when the industry wants to move to printing on plastic, where this might last longer and reduce profit, the industry doesn't want that. But, the reality is, you can virtually do an electro wetting display from home, which will give enough DCI performance to satisfy people. The pimax, was it, used it. You could do a projector with this (actually I think that might be how those NASA projectors worked. The reality, is a manufacture should be able to simply manufacture cheaply 8k displays this way, sub $500 8k with DCI coverage. But a small non TV manufacture maybe able to do it at prices not so cheap but cheaper than premium. Such as most TV brands our there, who get their panels from third party oem LCD plants.
I'll justify this. Electro-wetting is a reasonably low tech technology manufacture wise. The pixel spacing is so wide, as to give somebody a chance to make equipment to trace them out at home. I have innovative designs to produce higher quality pictures with it. But, cheap printable OLED, why bother to do it, but that hasn't turned out yet. It leads to a question, if the process of producing printable OLED doesn't come down, you would he left with the possibility of things like LCD and electrowetting continuing to exist in the TV market.
Looking at the side by side pictures of the new and old Panasonic panels in articles, the new panel looks like at least a clear grade better. So, how close to this brightness of a Q6 or Q7. Reading the articles it appears they have used their own panel drivers. So brightness might be driven brighter overall. Maybe this will be as bright as that panel in 2016.