view angle lcd panel free sample

The view direction is the right direction marked with Φ which is with respect to the X-axis. The original location is the center point of the display panel surface, the Z axis is Normal, the X-axis is Horizontal and Y-axis is Vertical.

Normally it was defined 4 angles to correspond with 3, 12, 9, and 6 o’clock respectively. So, you can find the 6 o’clock or 12 o’clock parameter in the LCD datasheet.

Viewing Angle is the angle with respect to the Z-axis in a certain direction and marked by θ (θU means upper View Angle). LCD Viewing Angle describes the maximum watching angle, and it is one of the key indicators with the display module.

The LCD bias angle is the angle perpendicular from which the display is best viewed. (See Fig.2) This angle is determined when the display is designed and can be set at any angle or orientation. The orientation of the bias angle of LCD displays is often stated with reference to a clock face. If the offset is above the display, it is referred to as a 12:00 or Top view.

The LCD viewing angle is the angle formed on either side of the bias angle, where the contrast of the display is still considered acceptable. Generally, this contrast is specified as 2:1 for monochrome LCD and 10:1 for color LCD.

For example, assume the display is a 12:00 (topview) type. When the display is viewed from 25 degrees above the vertical, it will be at its maximum contrast and best look. If the viewer moves their eyes further above the display by an additional 30 degrees, they will see a contrast reduction, but the display will still be readable. Moving the view position any further above the display will reduce the contrast to an unacceptable degree.

Adjusting the contrast voltage, VL, effects the Bias Angle to some extent, but not the Viewing Angle. A top view 12:00 display can be optimized for a bottom view 6:00 viewing position by adjusting the contrast voltage. A 12:00 display set for a 6:00 viewing position will not have as great a contrast as a 6:00 display set for 6:00 viewing position and vice versa.

Generally, displays are optimized for straight-on viewing. Either a 6:00 or 12:00 module may be used, and the contrast voltage can be adjusted slightly to optimize the display for that viewing position. In the above example, the viewing angles of both 6:00 and 12:00 modules actually overlap the perpendicular (or straight on) viewing position.

The LCD is positioned at the nominal viewing position and the pot is adjusted to obtain the desired LCD appearance. The voltage on the VL pin is now measured and a pair of resistors are chosen to produce this voltage in the production units.

By adjusting driving voltage and contrast is the most cost-effective way to improve the viewing angle. Different viewing angles need different driving voltage. It is compromising. In discussing the best viewing angle, we have to fix the voltage angle first.

– Positive LCD to Negative LCD (When the LCD is used indoor or dark environment, the contrast will increase a lot, but it will not display well with ambient light only, it is also more expensive)

When a LCD is high density with the segments/icons or very crowded, some customers also complains the viewing angle or contrast are not good. The reason is for crowded display, the layout can be long and thin. The voltage drop along the layout can be big. The solutions are:

Want to find out more about LCD, OLED & TFT solutions? – Check out our knowledge base, where ypu can find tips on electronics operating temperature and differences between LCD and TFT!

Huang YY, Chen YM, Lin CC, Lee CR, Yu HT (2007) Autonomous compensation in improving viewing angle dependent color deviation and maintaining contrast ratio of vertically-aligned TFT-LCD. IDW "07, Sapporo, pp 1877–1580

Suzuki S, Takizawa H (2002) Characterization of color shift and grayscale for wide-viewing-angle AM-LCD technologies. Euro display "02. Nice, pp 107–110

If you usually watch TV alone from directly in front, you most likely don"t need a wide viewing angle. You should just turn the television to face you directly. However, if you watch TV with multiple people in a wide seating arrangement, you should benefit from wide viewing angles as those viewing off-center still see an accurate image.

Also, viewing angles have an effect if you sit very close, and in particular if you use the screen as a computer monitor. If you sit too close to the screen of a TV with narrow viewing angles, the edges of the screen might look darker and washed out. If it has wide viewing angles, however, the image remains accurate no matter where you sit.

There are a few competing TV technologies and panel types that each present their advantages and disadvantages regarding viewing angles. For LED-backlit LCD TVs, the LCD panel technology used is a big determining factor for how well a TV retains picture quality at an angle. There are two main types used in TVs: IPS and VA, and the differences between each panel type are noticeable; you can learn more about them here.

IPS panels are superior to VA panels when it comes to viewing angles. They"re generally recommended for wide seating arrangements because the image remains accurate when viewing from the side. On the other hand, the image on a VA panel quickly loses accuracy as you move off-center, and it can get pretty noticeable when sitting at a wide angle. This doesn"t mean IPS panels are perfect, however, as they have a lower contrast ratio than VA panels, so choosing one type over the other is a trade-off between viewing angles and contrast.

OLED is a different technology that uses self-emissive pixels. Each pixel turns itself on and off and emits light in all directions. This means that OLEDs have very wide viewing angles, even better than IPS panels, and they also have a near-infinite contrast ratio.

To improve viewing angles on VA panel TVs, companies have introduced viewing angle technology, like Samsung"s "Ultra Viewing Angle" and Sony"s "X-Wide Angle". This improves the viewing angles a bit at the cost of its contrast, but the contrast still isn"t as low as IPS panels. These TVs meet a common ground between viewing angles and contrast, without a decrease in overall picture quality. Samsung and Sony are the only two major manufacturers that have introduced such technology, and they"re generally only available on higher-end models.

In display technology parlance, viewing angle is the angle at which a display can be viewed with acceptable visual performance. In a technical context, the angular range is called viewing cone defined by a multitude of viewing directions. The viewing angle can be an angular range over which the display view is acceptable,

The image may seem garbled, poorly saturated, of poor contrast, blurry, or too faint outside the stated viewing angle range, the exact mode of "failure" depends on the display type in question. For example, some projection screens reflect more light perpendicular to the screen and less light to the sides, making the screen appear much darker (and sometimes colors distorted) if the viewer is not in front of the screen. Many manufacturers of projection screens thus define the viewing angle as the angle at which the luminance of the image is exactly half of the maximum. With LCD screens, some manufacturers have opted to measure the contrast ratio, and report the viewing angle as the angle where the contrast ratio exceeds 5:1 or 10:1, giving minimally acceptable viewing conditions.

The viewing angle is measured from one direction to the opposite, giving a maximum of 180° for a flat, one-sided screen. A display may exhibit different behaviour in horizontal and vertical axes, requiring users and manufacturers to specify maximum usable viewing angles in both directions. Usually the screens are designed to facilitate greater viewing angle in horizontal level, and smaller angle in the vertical level, should the two of them be different in magnitude.

Narrow viewing cones of some types of displays have also been used to bring a measure of security in businesses, where employees handle private information in the presence of customers, banks being one example. Rectangular filters fitting to the computer monitors have also been sold as accessories for this purpose.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Glasses-free three-dimensional (3D) displays are one of the game-changing technologies that will redefine the display industry in portable electronic devices. However, because of the limited resolution in state-of-the-art display panels, current 3D displays suffer from a critical trade-off among the spatial resolution, angular resolution, and viewing angle. Inspired by the so-called spatially variant resolution imaging found in vertebrate eyes, we propose 3D display with spatially variant information density. Stereoscopic experiences with smooth motion parallax are maintained at the central view, while the viewing angle is enlarged at the periphery view. It is enabled by a large-scale 2D-metagrating complex to manipulate dot/linear/rectangular hybrid shaped views. Furthermore, a video rate full-color 3D display with an unprecedented 160° horizontal viewing angle is demonstrated. With thin and light form factors, the proposed 3D system can be integrated with off-the-shelf purchased flat panels, making it promising for applications in portable electronics.

Inspired by the vertebrate eyes, we propose a general approach of 3D display, through which spatially variant information is projected based on the frequency of observation. Densely packaged views are arranged at the center, while sparsely arranged views are distributed at the periphery. In fact, package views in a gradient density are straightforward, but nontrivial. First, the angular separation of the views needs to be varied. Second, the irradiance pattern of each view has to be tailored so as to eliminate overlap between views to avoid crosstalk. Third, one should avoid gaps between views to ensure smooth transition within the field of view (FOV). As a result, views with hybrid dots, lines, or rectangle distributions are desirable to achieve gradient density. However, 3D display based on geometric optics, such as lenticular lens, microlens arrays, or pinhole arrays, can neither manipulate gradient view distribution nor expand the FOV

To manipulate view distribution over a large scale, we design and propose a feasible strategy based on the two-dimensional (2D)-metagrating complex (2DMC). The 2DMCs are proposed to individually control both the propagation direction and the irradiance distribution of the emergent light from each 2D metagrating. As a result, the 3D display system provides a high spatial and angular resolution at the central viewing zone, i.e., the most comfortable observing region. Since the periphery viewing zone is less used in most occasions, we suppress the redundant depth information and broaden the FOV to a range comparable to that of a 2D display panel. Furthermore, a homemade flexible interference lithography (IL) system is developed to enable the fabrication of the view modulator with >1,000,000 2D metagratings over a size >9 inch. With total display information <4 K, a static or video rate full-color 3D display with an unprecedented FOV of 160° is demonstrated. The proposed 3D display system has a thin form factor for potential applications in portable electronic devices.

Generally, the spatial resolution (multiview display pixels Nmul) and the angular resolution (angular separation ∆θ) determine the visual experience provided by a multiview 3D display

where ID represents the information density. A higher information density provides a higher spatial resolution with more fluidic motion parallax. In prior studies, constant information density was provided within the viewing angle by views with the same distribution pattern (Fig. ​(Fig.1a).1a). In contrast, we propose 3D display with spatially variant information density by precisely manipulating the view distribution into hybrid dot/line/rectangle shape (Fig. ​(Fig.1b1b).

a State-of-the-art glasses-free 3D display with uniformly distributed information. The irradiance distribution pattern of each view is a dot or a line for current 3D displays based on microlens or cylindrical lens array. b The proposed glasses-free 3D display with variant distributed information. The irradiance distribution pattern of each view consists of dots, lines, or rectangles. To make a fair comparison, the number of views (16 views) is consistent with a. c Schematic of a foveated glasses-free 3D display. An LCD panel matches the view modulator pixel by pixel. For convenience, two voxels are shown on the view modulator. Each voxel contains 3 × 3 pixelated 2D metagratings to generate View 1–View 9

Figure ​Figure1c1c illustrates the schematic of the view modulator with 2DMCs. To generate a horizontally variant display information density, we define 9 irradiance patterns with variant widths. Pixelated 2D metagratings (3 × 3), which are grouped into a voxel, are designed to provide the predefined view distribution. We reserve detailed calculation of the 2D metagratings in the view modulator pixel by pixel to the Supplementary Information (Section 1). As a result, the information density distribution will be modulated as in the foveated vision.

The cornerstone of the proposed display architecture is a large-scale 2DMC on the view modulator. With a size up to 9 inch, the data volume of 2DMCs is >1.8 Tb. Due to the large data volume, both the design and fabrication of 2DMCs is nontrivial.

Figure ​Figure2a2a illustrates the schematic of the design process of 2DMCs. We first designed the phase hologram of the nanostructures according to the target view distribution by the Gerchberg–Saxton algorithm​Table1,1, and they can be applied in different scenarios. For example, dot-shaped views provide the highest information density. The vertically oriented and horizontally oriented line-shaped views reduce the information density in one direction while maintaining the information density in the other direction. The rectangular-shaped views reduce the information density along both directions, which are typically adopted for peripheral observing region. Although the diffractive pattern for each voxel is the same, the position of each pixel and the diffraction angle for the emergent beam varied. As a result, a unique nanostructure is donated to each pixel over the entire view modulator. Furthermore, with negligible tolerance, it has been proven that the 2D metagratings corresponding to the same view have similar shapes but with different scaling factors of periods and orientations (for additional information, see Section 2 in the Supplementary Information).

a Design and fabrication process for 2D metagratings in the view modulator: ① generating the phase hologram by the GS algorithm according to the target view distribution; ② fabricating the binary optical element (BOE) by a laser direct writing (LDW) system; ③ patterning 2DMCs on the view modulator by a self-developed interference lithography (IL) system. The red dashed line marks a pixelated 2D metagrating. b Schematic of the self-developed interference lithography system. c Illustration of controlling the BOE to adjust the scaling factor of periods and orientation of the patterned 2D metagratings

The fabrication of a view modulator with complex nanostructures remains a challenge. On the one hand, electron-beam lithography (EBL) is a typical nanopatterning tool in the laboratory​Fig.2b.2b. A collimated and expanded laser beam illuminates a phase-modulated system, which consists of two Fourier transform lenses and a binary optical element (BOE) inserted in between. Then an interference pattern is formed by the multiple diffractive beams of the BOE at the back focal plane of the second Fourier transform lens. Finally, the interference pattern light field is minified by an objective lens and projected on the photoresist. The patterned structures on the photoresist are a minified multibeam interference pattern of the BOE. Details about the principles of our versatile IL system can be found in the Supplementary Information (Sections 2 and 3). Therefore, we enabled the fabrication of 2DMCs on the view modulator to form dot, linear, and rectangular hybrid shaped view distribution shown in Table ​Table11.

Furthermore, the axial movement and axial rotation of the BOEs between two Fourier transform lenses lead to variations in the scaling factor of periods and orientation of the patterned 2D metagratings​(Fig.2c).2c). A pixelated 2D metagrating can be fabricated by pulse exposure. On the one hand, the 2DMCs for one view can be patterned by precisely controlling the scaling factor of periods and the orientation. On the other hand, the 2DMCs for views with different irradiance shapes can be achieved by inserting the corresponding BOEs in the homemade IL system. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the periodic tuning accuracy of fabricated 2D-metagrating can reach within 1 nm. The processing efficiency of the IL system can reach 20 mm2 mins−1, 500 times faster than the speed of EBL.

Enabled by the homemade IL system, we fabricated several view modulators with different screen sizes and complexity (for details about the fabrication, see “Materials and methods”). The typical parameters of the three prototypes are summarized in Table ​Table2.2. To prove the concept, we made a 6-inch view modulator with horizontal-variant information density. Figure ​Figure3a3a shows the variation of the scaling factor for periods of the 2D metagratings on the view modulator. The proposed 6-inch view modulator contains a total of 800 × 600 voxels, and each voxel is composed of 3 × 3 pixels for 9 views. That is to say, a total of 4,320,000 2D metagratings need to be patterned on the view modulator. A microscopic image of the 2DMCs on the view modulator is shown in Fig. ​Fig.3b.3b. Figures ​Figures3c3c and S4 presents the measured and simulated radiation pattern of the 9-view modulator prototype (for details about the simulation, see “Materials and methods”), respectively. Seven views (Views 2–8) are uniformly distributed in the central region with an angular separation of 10°, while the peripheral views (Views 1 and 9) cover 40° on each side of the central views. The crosstalk is measured as 14.88% (for detailed measurement, see Section 4 in the Supplementary Information). Compared with the theoretical value of 8%, a slight increment in experimental value is observed. Besides, the diffraction efficiency of 2DMC for red/green/blue (R/G/B) color is measured as 8.89, 7.72, and 11.92%, respectively. In contrast, the theoretical diffraction efficiency of 500 nm deep 2DMC is 20%. The experimental deviations for both crosstalk and diffraction efficiency are induced by nanofabrication inaccuracy and the misalignment in system assembly.

3D imaging characteristicsView modulator in Fig. ​Fig.3e3eView modulator in Fig. ​Fig.5a5aView modulator in Fig. ​Fig.5b5bScreen size12 cm × 9 cm5.4 cm × 5.4 cm20.6 cm × 12.9 cm

a Variation of the scaling factor for periods of the 2D metagratings. The blue dashed line marks an area containing 3 × 3 voxels. The red dashed line marks a voxel. b The microscopic image of the 2DMCs, captured by a laser confocal microscope (OLYMPUS, OLS4100). The red dashed line also marks a voxel. c The irradiance of view distribution and the intensity distribution along the white dashed line of the views. d The variant information density distribution (blue solid line) and its comparison with two cases for uniformly distributed information. Case A is that the angular separation between views is set to 10° with decreased FOV (green dashed line). In case B, the FOV is kept to 160°, but the information density is greatly reduced (red dashed line). e Images of numbers “1–9” observed from left to right views. A dinosaur toy is adhered to the left corner of the view modulator and is served as a reference for the viewing angle. See another 3D images in Figs. S5 and S7

A shadow mask with hybrid images of numbers is adopted to match the 9-view modulator pixel by pixel. When the light from a collimated light-emitting diode (LED) illuminates the prototype, we record the “1–9” numbers projected to each view, as shown in Fig. ​Fig.3e.3e. The horizontal FOV is 160°, and the vertical FOV is 50° (Visualization 1). The information density is modulated to 80 PPD at the central region and 26.7 PPD at the periphery (Fig. ​(Fig.3d3d).

For video rate full-color 3D displays, we successively stack a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel, color filter, and view modulator together to keep the system thin and compatible (Fig. ​(Fig.4a).4a). Since most LCD panels have already been integrated with a color filter, the system integration can be simply achieved by pixel to pixel alignment of the 2D-metagrating film with the LCD panel via one-step bonding assembly. The layout of 2DMCs on the view modulator is designed according to the off-the-shelf purchased LCD panel (P9, HUAWEI) (Fig. ​(Fig.4b).4b). To minimize the thickness of the prototype, 2D metagratings are nanoimprinted on a flexible polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film with a thickness of 200 µm (Fig. ​(Fig.4c),4c), resulting in a total thickness of <2 mm for the whole system (Fig. ​(Fig.4d4d).

a Schematic of the full-color video rate 3D displays that contain an LCD panel, a color filter, and a view modulator. b The microscopic image of the RGB 2DMCs on the view modulator. The red dashed line marks a voxel containing 3 × 3 full-color pixels, and the blue dashed line marks a full-color pixel containing three subpixels for R (650 nm), G (530 nm), and B (450 nm). c Photo of the nanoimprinted flexible view modulator with a thickness of 200 µm. d A full-color, video rate prototype of the proposed 3D display. The backlight, battery, and driving circuit are extracted

a Images of “Albert Einstein” and b “whales” and “lotus leaves” observed from various views with natural motion parallax and color mixing. The number shown in the lower left corner represents the viewing angle of the image. See other 3D images in Fig. S6

Here we achieved full-color 3D display with significantly suppressed color dispersion by several ways. First, since 2D-metagratings are wavelength sensitive, the structure of 2DMC is designed pixel by pixel according to the wavelength. Second, from the system point of view, the introduction of color filter significantly filters out the influence of color dispersion. Third, we pre-calibrate the white balance of the prototype. The displayed images can be pre-processed to further reduce the color dispersion.

In the experiment, we changed the information density by varying the angular resolution. In another strategy, we can assign more pixels to the central views, thereby the spatial resolution is increased as in the foveated vision.

Facilitated by the rapid advancement of nano-optics, we presented a general design strategy of glasses-free 3D display from view modulation aspect. The view modulator for multiple view projection is no longer a simple conjugate relation between image and object. We proved that 2DMC can be designed to precisely tailor the view distribution for gradient view arrangement and enlarged viewing angle. The view modulator with 2DMCs can be further designed to eliminate crosstalk or increase viewing depth. Moreover, by combining views with a fan-shaped irradiance pattern, a tabletop 3D display system with variant information density can be realized.

In summary, we propose a facile and robust approach for spatially variant information density 3D display with a large-scale 2DMC served as a view modulator. A homemade flexible IL system is developed to enable the nanopatterning of view modulator with increased complexity for portal electronic devices. As a result, high angular resolution is preserved in the central region, while a wide viewing angle is maintained. The display information is arranged nonuniformly based on the observing habit of human beings. Hence, we demonstrate a full-color, video rate 3D display with a thin form factor. The viewing angle sets a record of 160° for the glasses-free 3D display.

The demonstrated spatially variant information density 3D display opens a new avenue for glasses-free 3D displays by tackling the critical trade-off among the spatial resolution, angular resolution, and viewing angle. We anticipate the ultrawide-FOV foveated 3D display to be used in commercial applications, such as consumer electronic devices.

(1) For the inserted BOE: First, a 2.5-inch quartz plate was precleaned and spin coated with hexamethyldisilazane (DisChem, SurPass 3000) and positive photoresist (MicroChemicals, AZ® P4620) at a total thickness of 1 μm. Then the quartz plate was micropatterned with various binary phase holograms using a homemade LDW system (SVG Optronics, MiScan200). After photolithography, the phase holograms were developed in a NaOH solution and blown dry. Finally, the BOE structures were etched to a depth of 700 nm, and the minimum period was approximately 7.5 μm. The BOEs were finally inserted in the self-developed IL system for the fabrication of view modulator.

(2) For the view modulators: First, a glass substrate was cut and precleaned. The glass substrate was then coated with positive photoresist (RUIHONG Electronics Chemicals, RJZ-390) at a thickness of 1 μm. Then the 2DMCs were successively patterned by a self-developed IL system. The pixel size of each unit can be adjusted according to the aperture size. It took 27 h to prepare a 6-inch 2DMC with 2400 × 1800 pixels. After IL, the nanopatterns were developed in a NaOH solution and blown dry, and then it was electroplated with a layer of nickel (NI) to make a master mold. The NI-plated mold was then used to imprint the 2D metagratings onto the polyurethane (PUA) resin, adopting roll-to-plate nanoimprint lithography. The PUA resin was then subsequently cured by ultraviolet light for 3 min. Finally, those 2DMCs were effectively mass transferred on a flexible PET membrane to form a view modulator.

3D simulations were performed using the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, and FDTD simulations were conducted using Lumerical’s FDTD solver. The refractive index of the photoresist was set as 1.476. We used a plane wave source with an incident angle of 30°, and the wavelength was 540 nm. We used Bloch and perfectly matching layer boundary conditions for the transverse and longitudinal directions, respectively. The practical 2DMCs were replaced with spatial-multiplexing gratings with multiple periods. The periods ranged from 600 to 1400 nm. The mesh accuracy was chosen as a compromise among the accuracy, memory requirements, and simulation time.

1. Nam D, et al. Flat panel light-field 3-D display: concept, design, rendering, and calibration. Proc. IEEE.2017;105:876–891. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2017.2686445. [CrossRef]

3. Fattal D, et al. A multi-directional backlight for a wide-angle, glasses-free three-dimensional display. Nature.2013;495:348–351. doi: 10.1038/nature11972. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

7. Teng DD, et al. Multiview three-dimensional display with continuous motion parallax through planar aligned OLED microdisplays. Opt. Express.2015;23:6007–6019. doi: 10.1364/OE.23.006007. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

10. Takaki Y, Nago N. Multi-projection of lenticular displays to construct a 256-view super multi-view display. Opt. Express.2010;18:8824–8835. doi: 10.1364/OE.18.008824. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

12. Okaichi N, et al. Integral 3D display using multiple LCD panels and multi-image combining optical system. Opt. Express.2017;25:2805–2817. doi: 10.1364/OE.25.002805. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

13. Liao HE. Super long viewing distance light homogeneous emitting three-dimensional display. Sci. Rep.2015;5:9532. doi: 10.1038/srep09532. PubMed] [CrossRef]

15. Wan WQ, et al. Multiview holographic 3D dynamic display by combining a nano-grating patterned phase plate and LCD. Opt. Express.2017;25:1114–1122. doi: 10.1364/OE.25.001114. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

16. Zhou F, et al. Pixelated blazed gratings for high brightness multiview holographic 3D display. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett.2020;32:283–286. doi: 10.1109/LPT.2020.2971147. [CrossRef]

17. Watanabe H, et al. Pixel-density and viewing-angle enhanced integral 3D display with parallel projection of multiple UHD elemental images. Opt. Express.2020;28:24731–24746. doi: 10.1364/OE.397647. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

22. Yang L, et al. Viewing-angle and viewing-resolution enhanced integral imaging based on time-multiplexed lens stitching. Opt. Express.2019;27:15679–15692. doi: 10.1364/OE.27.015679. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

23. Xia XX, et al. Time-multiplexed multi-view three-dimensional display with projector array and steering screen. Opt. Express.2018;26:15528–15538. doi: 10.1364/OE.26.015528. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

24. Fan H, et al. Full resolution, low crosstalk, and wide viewing angle auto-stereoscopic display with a hybrid spatial-temporal control using free-form surface backlight unit. J. Disp. Technol.2015;11:620–624. doi: 10.1109/JDT.2015.2425432. [CrossRef]

25. Liu BY, et al. Time-multiplexed light field display with 120-degree wide viewing angle. Opt. Express.2019;27:35728–35739. doi: 10.1364/OE.27.035728. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

33. Yang L, et al. Demonstration of a large-size horizontal light-field display based on the LED panel and the micro-pinhole unit array. Opt. Commun.2018;414:140–145. doi: 10.1016/j.optcom.2017.12.069. [CrossRef]

38. Ni YB, et al. Metasurface for structured light projection over 120° field of view. Nano Lett.2020;20:6719–6724. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02586. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

46. Chen YF. Nanofabrication by electron beam lithography and its applications: a review. Microelectron. Eng.2015;135:57–72. doi: 10.1016/j.mee.2015.02.042. [CrossRef]

51. Wan WQ, et al. Efficient fabrication method of nano-grating for 3D holographic display with full parallax views. Opt. Express.2016;24:6203–6212. doi: 10.1364/OE.24.006203. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

*IDC Whitepaper “Optimizing Performance with Frequent Server Replacements for Enterprises” commissioned by Dell Technologies and Intel, March 2021. Results are based on interviews with 18 IT practitioners and decision makers at midsize and large enterprises and a web survey of 707 IT practitioners and decision makers at midsize and larger enterprises using Dell Technologies server solutions across 7 industries. See full whitepaper: https://www.delltechnologies.com/resources/en-us/asset/white-papers/products/servers/server-infrastructure-resiliency-enterprise-whitepaper.pdf

*IDC Whitepaper “Optimizing Performance with Frequent Server Replacements for Enterprises” commissioned by Dell Technologies and Intel, March 2021. Results are based on interviews with 18 IT practitioners and decision makers at midsize and large enterprises and a web survey of 707 IT practitioners and decision makers at midsize and larger enterprises using Dell Technologies server solutions across 7 industries. See full whitepaper: https://www.delltechnologies.com/resources/en-us/asset/white-papers/products/servers/server-infrastructure-resiliency-enterprise-whitepaper.pdf

Edge Lighting: the lights are arranged around the edge of the screen, directing the light across the back. They are also known as edge-lit TVs. The main advantage is the panel is usually cheap, thin and light. The main disadvantages are reduced black levels and inconsistent lighting across the screen.

In short, a VA panel will have the best picture quality, especially when viewed straight-on in a dark room, i.e., it is better for your home theater TV.

However, an IPS panel will give a better picture in a living room with wider viewing angles, where people watch from various locations around the room.

To date, typical OLED TV screens are known as WOLED panels, aka White OLED or WRGB OLED, and these work in a different way to the RGB OLED screens used in phones and other mobile devices.

WOLED panels use white pixels and an RGB filter to make the colors, creating a fantastic image, but they can’t match the maximum brightness of LED TV screens.

The article about understanding TV viewing distance investigates this in more detail and also includes calculators for working out your ideal viewing distance and TV size.

If that is too much for you, you can either check out independent recommendations and reviews (hey, you know, like here!) or go to a store to look for yourself.

However, the refresh rate is an excellent example of a specification that sounds exciting – but, in reality, it won’t make that much difference to your daily viewing.

Historically, LCD and LED TVs have always had problems with the viewing angle, and if you want an LED TV that looks good from the side, look out for one made with an IPS panel.

One of the strengths of QLED TV technology is to improve the viewing angle over standard LED TVs, and you may find an improved viewing angle with these – although still not as good as an OLED TV.

While it uses the same QD-OLED panel as the Samsung S95B, the outstanding Sony video-processing engine might give it the edge over the Samsung on pure picture quality.

If you watch your TV with people sitting in different locations around the room, the viewing angles of this TV are excellent, as you would expect from any OLED TV.

Fortunately, it also handles reflections exceptionally well, with the excellent Ultra Viewing Angle anti-glare layer coping well with any bright light shining on the glossy screen.

The larger models with the Ultra Viewing Angle layer have excellent off-axis performance for an LED panel, while the two smaller screens suffer accordingly.

However, you will only get the best from this TV if you sit straight on. Being a VA panel, the viewing angles aren’t the best when you are watching the screen from the side.

Therefore, it will be a good choice for a home theater screen and as your main TV for watching movies and sports – but not ideal if you just want a TV for casual viewing in the kitchen or bedroom.

Currently, there are two main TV types – OLED and LED. Generally, an OLED TV offers the best picture quality and viewing angles – so it would often be a better choice for a home theater screen and movie viewing. However, LED TVs work better for more general viewing and have more screen sizes and cheaper options. Ultimately, one isn’t necessarily better than the other, and either might be more suitable depending on your requirements.

For most people, it’s probably not worth investing in an 8K TV at present. There is very little native 8K content available, so most things you watch will be upscaled to 8K and will not have any extra detail. Plus, you will need to sit so close to see the additional detail in an 8K picture; most people won’t want to do this anyway. If you have a game console that can display 8K content, you might decide that an 8K screen is worth it, but for movie and TV viewing, the extra cost of an 8K screen is unlikely to be worthwhile at the moment.

Established in 2010, Topfoison has devoted itself to the manufacturing and development of high-quality products for the Wearable device, Smart Watch, VR, Medical device, Industrial LCD display including Color LCD modules/OLED/LCD display/Round lcd screen/Round AMOLED/ Square transflective lcd screen/ IPS full wide display/ 1080p fhd AMOLED and 2K 1440p lcd. Topfoison focus on1.22-7.0 inch small size displays, all the products produced in our company enjoys the most advanced production craft and technology as well as the strictly ISO quality management system.