tft lcd versus led future for sale

TFT LCD is a mature technology. OLED is a relatively new display technology, being used in more and more applications. As for Micro LED, it is a new generation technology with very promising future. Followings are the pros and cons of each display technology.

TFT Liquid Crystal Display is widely used these days. Since LCD itself doesn"t emit light. TFT LCD relies on white LED backlight to show content. This is an explanation of how TFT LCD works.

Relatively lower contrast：Light needs to pass through LCD glasses, liquid crystal layer, polarizers and color filters. Over 90% is lost. Also, LCD can not display pure black.

Organic Light-Emitting Diode is built from an electro-luminescent layer that contains organic compounds, which emit light in response to an electric current. There are two types of OLED, Passive Matrix OLED (PMOLED) and Active Matrix OLED (AMOLED). These driving methods are similar to LCD"s. PMOLED is controlled sequentially using a matrix addressing scheme, m + n control signals are required to address a m x n display. AMOLED uses a TFT backplane that can switch individual pixels on and off.

Low power consumption and flexible: OLED doesn"t rely on backlight and consumes less power. OLED is essentially created on plastic film. It is bendable and easy to process.

High contrast and vivid color: OLED emits light itself, can produce very bright image with beautiful color. And because OLED can be turned off, it can produce true black.

Stroboscopic effect: most OLED screen uses PWM dimming technology. Some people who are easy perceive stroboscopic frequency may have sore eyes and tears.

​Micro LED, sometimes called μLED is made up of tiny LED, measure less than 100μm. Another way of looking at this is that MicroLEDs are simply traditional LEDs shrunk down and placed into an array.

Replacing organic material with inorganic GaN material eliminates the need of polarizing and encapsulation layer, found in OLED. Micro LED is smaller and thinner, consumes less power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here"s where it comes together. Contrast ratio is the difference between the brightest and the darkest a TV can be. OLED is the winner here because it can get extremely bright, plus it can produce absolute black with no blooming. It has the best contrast ratio of any modern display.

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

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

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

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

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

OLED"s energy consumption is directly related to screen brightness. The brighter the screen, the more power it draws. It even varies with content. A dark movie will require less power than a hockey game or ski competition.

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

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

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

OLED TVs are available in sizes from 48 to 88 inches, but LCD TVs come in smaller and larger sizes than that -- with many more choices in between -- so LCD wins. At the high end of the size scale, however, the biggest "TVs" don"t use either technology.

If you want something even brighter, and don"t mind spending a literal fortune to get it, Samsung, Sony, and LG all sell direct-view LED displays. In most cases these are

You can get 4K resolution, 50-inch LCDs for around $400 -- or half that on sale. It"s going to be a long time before OLEDs are that price, but they have come down considerably.

LCD dominates the market because it"s cheap to manufacture and delivers good enough picture quality for just about everybody. But according to reviews at CNET and elsewhere, OLED wins for overall picture quality, largely due to the incredible contrast ratio. The price difference isn"t as severe as it used to be, and in the mid- to high-end of the market, there are lots of options.

There"s a new TV tech on the horizon, and it promises incredible picture quality and even more incredible sizes. You can buy one right now if you"ve got deep pockets. It"s called MicroLED, and it combines the best features of the current TV technologies into something new -- and huge. Using millions of tiny individually addressable LEDs, MicroLED promises to rival the picture quality of

Although super-expensive now, MicroLED is on the cusp of being the next great display technology. And it could end up in your home sometime in the future, even if you"re not rich. Here"s what you need to know.

With MicroLED, on the other hand, the LEDs themselves directly create the image. The picture you watch is composed of individually-addressable LEDs, which makes it more like how OLED works. No more LCDs.

You can buy mini-LED TVs now for the same price as other technologies. MicroLED TVs are currently huge and expensive, but getting smaller and cheaper.

Here"s how it works. As the name suggests, MicroLED is made of millions of micro, well, LEDs. Tinier versions of what"s in your current LCD TV, or newer flashlights, light bulbs and what myriad other devices

Turns out that process is a lot harder than it sounds. One problem is that when you shrink LEDs, the total amount of light they produce goes down. So you either need to drive them harder, increase their efficiency, or both. Just driving them harder introduces new issues. The TV will need a lot more electricity and have to dissipate a lot more heat. The dozens of LEDs in your current TV don"t emit that much heat, certainly not compared to older technologies like plasma and CRT, but put millions of them right next to each other and things can get toasty.

And remember what I said about smaller and more efficient? Samsung"s original 146-inch The Wall microLED prototype has a pixel size under 1mm. The 75-inch has LED chips in the 0.15mm range.

To put it another way, current LCD and OLED TVs have different size pixels for different screen sizes. So a 4K 75-inch LCD has larger pixels, but the same number, as a 4K 50-inch LCD. MicroLED could, possibly, just add more pixels of the same size to make a larger, and higher resolution, TV. This could turn out easier than changing the tiny LED pixel sizes, from a manufacturing standpoint. We"ll have to wait and see if it happens that way. Right now though, Samsung"s three sizes have the same resolution, meaning the 88-inch has the smallest pixels of the lot.

LG is the latest company to announce MicroLED displays, though not every model from their DVLED Home Cinema line is MicroLED. Sizes range from 108-inches to 393-inches, with HD, 4K, and even 8K resolutions. You can even get 32:9 models that allow two full-sized 16:9 shows or games running simultaneously side-by-side.

It wasn"t long ago that OLED was a far-off future tech that never seemed to leave the prototype stage. Now there are multiple sizes and resolutions that would have seemed impossible in the tech"s early days. It"s possible we"re now in the early days of microLED. It"s a technology that holds a lot of promise, in both picture quality, screen size and myriad other uses -- but it"s not without its issues. Heat and price are stumbling blocks, but engineers love a challenge. The fact that you can, if you"ve got $100,000 or so to burn, buy one now says a lot. Could this replace LCD TVs in many homes? Maybe. Could it give OLED a run for its money? Possibly. Will it replace projectors? Could be. As I said, it"s an interesting technology.

KLA is proud to be part of the most significant technological breakthroughs that help create the devices and ideas that transform our current life and shape our future. One of the latest emerging trends is a renewed focus on microLED technology.

As the name suggests, a microLED, or µLED, is a light-emitting diode (LED) – roughly 100 times smaller than conventional LEDs. MicroLEDs can be arranged into arrays to make high-resolution displays for applications ranging from smartwatches to very large displays – unlike conventional LEDs, which are suitable only for very large displays like billboards or stadium screens.

MicroLED technology was invented in 2000. However, it wasn"t until 2012 that a major consumer electronics company demonstrated a 55-inch, high-definition microLED TV. Other companies followed with their own demonstrations in 2018 and 2019 at retail prices of $80,000 for 89-inch models, making the technology out of reach for most consumers. Although microLED can potentially offer significant advantages over LCD or organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screens, technology issues and production costs have prevented widespread commercialization.

KLA – which has supported the global display industry for more than 40 years – has during the past decade been helping leaders in microLED technologies to overcome many of the obstacles to mass production and reduced costs.

"Our proven process and process control products are designed to meet the unique and demanding challenges of the complex microLED production flow to help accelerate wide market adoption," said Chet Lenox, KLA fellow, industry and customer collaboration.

While more products, based on slightly larger "miniLEDs" (typically ~50µm-300µm square), have been brought to market successfully in recent years as a way to improve on traditional LED backlighting for LCD displays, screen manufacturers and their supply chain are still committed to developing the more advanced microLED technology. In addition to the key goal of reducing product cost for consumers, companies are investing heavily in microLEDs for use in small products like watches and augmented reality (AR) headsets because they deliver better energy efficiency, consistent pixel quality and other key benefits as shown in the graphics below.

The potential market is huge. Shipping for microLED displays is expected to total 5 million and generate $7 billion in revenue by 2025, rising to more than 11 million units shipped in 2027, according to global technology research firm Omdia.

A key factor behind the industry"s focus on microLEDs is that LCD and OLED displays are produced on large substrates, where all layers are deposited one after the other. The larger the substrate, the more efficient the process – but large single displays can be difficult to handle and ship. MicroLEDs displays, however, can be produced using seamless tiling of small modules into larger displays.

The schematic cross-section of a typical microLED display (below) shows the simpler and thinner structure of a microLED compared to a thin film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT LCD) or OLED display, with the red/green/blue LED chips and a single electrode encased between the substrate and glass cover. The precise arrangement of the red, green and blue sub-pixels will vary among models and may even be stacked on top of each other.

MicroLEDs offer viewing performance equivalent to or, for some criteria such as brightness and refresh rate, better than OLED and LCD technologies. They also offer a longer life than OLED, thinner packaging and generally better energy efficiencies.

*Mass transferring millions of micro-sized red, green and blue microLEDs in the desired arrangement and precise locations (Solutions to avoid this might include the use of white or blue microLEDs with color conversion, growing uLEDs directly on silicon backplanes or using wafer-bonding of epi layers on the backplane.)

Each of the above would seem to add cost and make LCDs and OLEDs more economical. However, KLA"s metrology, inspection, wafer processing and repair solutions are critical to helping microLED manufacturers address these challenges, optimize yields, reduce the need for built-in redundancy and reduce expenditures to help microLED displays become a viable alternative to the established technologies.

KLA"s comprehensive portfolio of solutions for microLED manufacturing provides a pathway to yield improvement throughout the entire process – from epitaxy wafer to final display. KLA"s proven process and process control products are designed to meet the unique and demanding challenges of complex microLED production.

Reports suggest that Apple is getting closer to implementing MicroLED in its future product releases, including the Apple Watch, with the display technology potentially offering a number of benefits compared to other methods. AppleInsider explains how the current TFT and OLED display technologies work, and how MicroLED differs.

MicroLED shows promise as a display technology, potentially offering power savings and a reduced screen thickness when put beside current-generation display panels. Apple has recognized the potential, and has invested heavily into developing the technology over the last few years, with a view to using it in the company"s future products.

To understand fully how MicroLED can benefit Apple, it is worth understanding how the commonly-used display technologies work in the first place, before examining how different MicroLED really is in a comparison.

The most common display technology used by consumer products today, and the oldest of the technologies examined in this article, TFT"s full name of TFT LCD stands for Thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal display. This technology is extensively used by Apple in its products, found in iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, and iMac lines.

The LCD part relates to the concept of defining small translucent or transparent areas in a thin and flexible liquid crystal-filled panel, like the displays used in calculators. Passing current through the segment changes the molecular properties of the defined segment area, allowing it to switch between being see-through or opaque.

TFT takes this a stage further, by effectively covering an entire panel with a grid of isolated liquid crystal segments, which again can vary between opaque and transparent based on the level of electrical current. In this case, there are far more segments needed to make up the display than with a normal calculator.

Polarizing filters on either side of the TFT display sandwich are used to prevent light from passing through directly, with the liquid crystal reaction of each segment affecting polarized light passing through the first filter to go through the second.

Sometimes these types of display are known as "LED," but this somewhat of a misnomer, as this actually refers to the use of Light Emitting Diodes as a light source. The LED backlight shines light through the various layers making up the TFT LCD.

Displays that use collections of LEDs as individual pixels do exist, but it isn"t usually found in consumer products. LED screens are commonly used for billboards, in attractions, and as a large-scale display for events.

TFT LCD screens continue to be widely used in production for a number of reasons. Manufacturers have spent a long time perfecting the production of the display panels to make it as cheap as possible, while its high usage allows it to benefit from economies of scale.

Used in consumer devices in a similar way to TFT LCD, OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode) is a display technology that is similar in the basic concept, but differs considerably in its execution. Again, the idea is for a thin panel to be divided up into segments, with charge applied to each section to alter its molecular properties, but that"s where the techniques diverge.

As the name implies, OLED uses an organic compound film that is put between two electrodes, which are used to provide charge. Instead of the charge changing how light passes through, the current instead causes the emissive electroluminescent layer to emit light, without the need for a rear light source.

These self-emitting pixels gives OLED a considerable advantage over LCD-based systems in a number of areas. Most obviously, by not needing a backlight, OLED panels can be made far thinner than an equivalent LCD-based display, allowing for the production of thinner devices or more internal area for other components, like a larger battery.

The power efficiency of OLED panels can be far greater, as while a TFT screen requires an always-on backlight, the brightness of OLED pixels themselves determine power usage, with a black pixel consuming no power at all. OLED screens are also faster to respond than LCD displays, making them more useful for VR displays, where response time needs to be as rapid as possible.

This also allows OLED to provide superior contrast ratios compared to TFT, as the lack of backlight bleed-through that occurs in TFT simply doesn"t happen in OLED.

OLED also can be produced on plastic substrates instead of glass, allowing it to be used to create flexible displays. While this is currently embodied in curved and other non-flat screens in some devices, it has the potential to be employed in foldable smartphones or rolled up for storage, an area Apple is also allegedly examining.

Despite the advantages, OLED is still lagging behind TFT in terms of adoption. The cost of production is far higher, in part due to the need for extremely clean environments, as a single speck of dust can potentially ruining a display during fabrication.

OLED panels are also affected by the presence of water, both in production and in use. Small amounts of water contacting the organic substrate can cause immediate damage to the display, rendering parts of the screen useless.

So far, Apple"s usage of OLED consists of the premium iPhone X and the Apple Watch. As the cost of production drops down, it is plausible for Apple to use OLED in more future products, providing a better screen for customers to use.

Thought to be the next big thing in display technology, MicroLED basically takes the idea of using LEDs for pixels in a large stadium-style screen and miniaturizes it all.

Using extremely small LEDs, three MicroLEDs are put together to create each pixel, with each subpixel emitting a different color from the usual red, blue, and green selection. As each LED emits light, there is no need for a backlight as used in TFT screens.

MicroLED doesn"t use an organic compound to produce light, making it less susceptible to failure compared to OLED. Just like OLED, it can be applied onto a flexible material, allowing it to be used for curved displays or non-stationary components, like a watch strap, and can result in an extremely thin display panel.

MicroLED offers the same lower power consumption and high contrast ratio benefits as OLED when compared to TFT. However, MicroLED is also capable of producing a far brighter image than OLED, up to 30 times brighter, and is in theory more efficient in converting electricity into light.

As a relatively new and in-development technology, the cost of MicroLED production is extremely high in comparison to the more established OLED and TFT mass production lines, in part due to lower than required yields. Manufacturing equipment vendors have produced hardware for MicroLED production that cuts defects in half and reduces deposition deviance from 3 nanometers down to 1 nanometer, but it is unclear if this is enough to help mass production move forward.

While MicroLED is an attractive proposition for Apple, it is not the only technology under development by the company"s engineers. Apple has previously filed patent applications for a technology described as "Quantum Dot LED and OLED Integration for High Efficiency Displays."

Quantum Dots are photoluminescent particles included in an LED-backed TFT display that can produce brighter and more vibrant colors, with the colors produced depending on their size. While available in current QLED televisions, the technology is only really being used to enhance the backlight, rather than being used to illuminate individual pixels.

The technology in theory can create an even thinner display than OLED, along with a more streamlined manufacturing process. True QD displays are also capable of high pixel densities of up to 1,000ppi, multiple times the density required to be called a Retina-quality display, and based on Apple"s hybrid invention, will also boast the response times of OLED technology.

As is usually the case, Apple does produce a considerable number of patent applications every week that are filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, and not everything it files will be fully commercialized.

The QD patent application certainly shows Apple is thinking about display technology in multiple ways, and how it can be applied to future devices, but short of getting firm supply chain information or an official announcement from Apple directly, it is difficult to confirm which direction it will be heading.

Apple has been interested in using the technology for some time now, with the first notable sign being its acquisition of LuxVue in May 2014, alongside assorted related patents. A MicroLED specialist, LuxVue was rumored to have been the display producer for the ill-fated Google Glass headset, but was also the holder of assorted patents in the LED display field, including MicroLED.

At the time, the acquisition was thought to be an attempt by Apple to bring part of its display technology development in-house, with suggestions the MicroLED technology would be used in another rumored-at-the-time device, the Apple Watch. A more recent report suggests Apple is working with TSMC to make small panels for a future premium Apple Watch, potentially starting mass production by the end of the year.

Apple has also reportedly set up a secret facility just 15 minutes away from Apple Park, believed to be used for developing MicroLED. The 62,000 square-foot facility is thought to house around 300 engineers on a project named "T159," relating directly to the technology"s development.

The facility is also claimed to be sufficient in size to perform small scale manufacturing of display panels, allowing the company to keep development and testing in-house without involving third-parties. Considering Apple"s previous history in developing technologies before issuing information to manufacturing partners, it is possible that Apple is trying to work out the kinks in production before suppliers even attempt to make MicroLED panels.

Reports from last year also suggest Apple"s investment in MicroLED was a cause for concern for Samsung, LG, and other South Korean suppliers who provide display panels for the company"s products. Owning the process for MicroLED manufacturing could allow Apple to migrate away from its existing display suppliers in the coming years, reducing revenues and profits.

Aside from Apple"s development, there has been little in the way of announcements from other firms for products using the technology that could be bought by consumers in the coming months. The exception is Samsung, Apple"s main rival in the mobile marketplace and a major supplier of display panels, but its usage of MicroLED is not aimed at producing smaller screens.

At CES 2018, Samsung introduced The Wall, a 148-inch TV claimed to be the "world"s first consumer modular MicroLED" television. According to the South Korean electronics giant, The Wall"s modularity meant consumers would be able to customize their television"s size and shape to suit their needs.

The impending use of the technology in a high-priced consumer product could be considered proof that MicroLED display technology is maturing enough for use in devices. If the reports claiming Apple is getting close to mass producing panels is true, the inclusion of MicroLED in the Apple Watch could end up being the first mainstream usage of the technology.

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.

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.

Another reason is customers’ demands. Apple has refrained itself from using OLED for some years due to various reasons, including the patent disputes with Samsung. But after Apple began to use OLED for its iPhone X, it exerted a big influence in the whole industry. So now Samsung began to harvest its accumulated investments in the field and began to expand the capacity more.

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.

The third advantage is the national supports. The government has input huge supports and manufacturers’ technological capacity is improving. I think Chinese manufacturers will have a great breakthrough in OLED.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Before you get a new monition for your organization, comparing the TFT display vs IPS display is something that you should do. You would want to buy the monitor which is the most advanced in technology. Therefore, understanding which technology is good for your organization is a must. click to view the 7 Best Types Of Display Screens Technology.

Technology is changing and becoming advanced day by day. Therefore, when you are looking to get a new monitor for your organization, LCD advantages, and disadvantage,  you have to be aware of the pros and cons of that monitor. Moreover, you need to understand the type of monitor you are looking to buy.

That is why it is important to break it down and discuss point by point so that you can understand it in a layman’s language devoid of any technical jargon. Therefore, in this very article, let’s discuss what exactly TFT LCDs and IPS LCDs are, and what are their differences? You will also find out about their pros and cons for your organization.

The word TFT means Thin-Film-Translator. It is the technology that is used in LCD or Liquid Crystal Display. Here you should know that this type of LCD is also categorically referred to as active-matrix LCDs. It tells that these LCDs can hold back some pixels while using other pixels. So, the LCD will be using a very minimum amount of energy to function. TFT LCDs have capacitors and transistors. These are the two elements that play a key part in ensuring that the display monitor functions by using a very small amount of energy without running out of operation.

Now, it is time to take a look at its features that are tailored to improve the experience of the monitor users significantly. Here are some of the features of the TFT monitor;

No radiation, no scintillation, no harm to the user’s health. In particular, the emergence of TFT LCD electronic books and periodicals will bring humans into the era of a paperless office and paperless printing, triggering a revolution in the civilized way of human learning, dissemination, and recording.

It can be normally used in the temperature range from -20℃ to +50℃, and the temperature-hardened TFT LCD can operate at low temperatures up to -80 ℃. It can not only be used as a mobile terminal display, or desktop terminal display but also can be used as a large screen projection TV, which is a full-size video display terminal with excellent performance.

The manufacturing technology has a high degree of automation and good characteristics of large-scale industrial production. TFT LCD industry technology is mature, a mass production rate of more than 90%.

TFT LCD screen from the beginning of the use of flat glass plate, its display effect is flat right angles, let a person have a refreshing feeling. And LCDs are easier to achieve high resolution on small screens.

The word IPS refers to In-Plane-Switching which is a technology used to improve the viewing experience of the usual TFT displays. You can say that the IPS display is a more advanced version of the traditional TFT LCD module. However, the features of IPS displays are much more advanced and their applications are very much widespread. You should also know that the basic structure of the IPS LCD is the same as TFT LCD if you compare TFT LCD vs IPS.

As you already know, TFT displays do have a very quick response time which is a plus point for it. But, that does not mean IPS displays a lack of response time. In fact, the response time of an IPS LCD is much more consistent, stable, and quick than the TFT display that everyone used to use in the past. However, you will not be able to gauge the difference apparently by watching TFT and IPS displays separately. But, once you watch the screen side-by-side, the difference will become quite clear to you.

The main drawback of the TFT displays as figured above is the narrow-angle viewing experience. The monitor you buy for your organization should give you an experience of wide-angle viewing. It is very much true if you have to use the screen by staying in motion.

So, as IPS displays are an improved version of TFT displays the viewing angle of IPS LCDs is very much wide. It is a plus point in favor of IPS LCDs when you compare TFT vs IPS. With a TFT screen, you cannot watch an image from various angles without encountering halo effects, blurriness, or grayscale that will cause problems for your viewing.

It is one of the major and remarkable differences between IPS and TFT displays. So, if you don’t want to comprise on the viewing angles and want to have the best experience of viewing the screen from wide angles, the IPS display is what you want. The main reason for such a versatile and wonderful viewing angle of IPS display is the screen configuration which is widely set.

Now, when you want to achieve wide-angle viewing with your display screen, you need to make sure it has a faster level of frequency transmittance. It is where IPS displays overtake TFT displays easily in the comparison because the IPS displays have a much faster and speedier transmittance of frequencies than the TFT displays.

Now the transmittance difference between TFT displays and IPS displays would be around 1ms vs. 25ms. Now, you might think that the difference in milliseconds should not create much of a difference as far as the viewing experience is concerned. Yes, this difference cannot be gauged with a naked eye and you will find it difficult to decipher the difference.

However, when you view and an IPS display from a side-by-side angle and a TFT display from a similar angle, the difference will be quite evident in front of you. That is why those who want to avoid lagging in the screen during information sharing at a high speed; generally go for IPS displays. So, if you are someone who is looking to perform advanced applications on the monitor and want to have a wider viewing angle, then an IPS display is the perfect choice for you.

As you know, the basic structure of the IPS display and TFT displays are the same. So, it is quite obvious that an IPS display would use the same basic colors to create various shades with the pixels. However, there is a big difference with the way a TFT display would produce the colors and shade to an IPS display.

The major difference is in the way pixels get placed and the way they operate with electrodes. If you take the perspective of the TFT display, its pixels function perpendicularly once the pixels get activated with the help of the electrodes. It does help in creating sharp images.

But the images that IPS displays create are much more pristine and original than that of the TFT screen. IPS displays do this by making the pixels function in a parallel way. Because of such placing, the pixels can reflect light in a better way, and because of that, you get a better image within the display.

As you already know the features of both TFT and IPS displays, it would be easier for you to understand the difference between the two screen-types. Now, let’s divide the matters into three sections and try to understand the basic differences so that you understand the two technologies in a compressive way. So, here are the difference between an IPS display and a TFT display;

Now, before starting the comparison, it is quite fair to say that both IPS and TFT displays have a wonderful and clear color display. You just cannot say that any of these two displays lag significantly when it comes to color clarity.

However, when it comes to choosing the better display on the parameter of clarity of color, then it has to be the IPS display. The reason why IPS displays tend to have better clarity of color than TFT displays is a better crystal oriental arrangement which is an important part.

That is why when you compare the IPS LCD with TFT LCD for the clarity of color, IPS LCD will get the nod because of the better and advanced technology and structure.

IPS displays have a wider aspect ratio because of the wide-set configuration. That is why it will give you a better wide-angle view when it comes to comparison between IPS and TFT displays. After a certain angle, with a TFT display, the colors will start to get a bit distorted.

But, this distortion of color is very much limited in an IPS display and you may see it very seldom after a much wider angle than the TFT displays. That is why for wide-angle viewing, TFT displays will be more preferable.

When you are comparing TFT LCD vs. IPS, energy consumption also becomes an important part of that comparison. Now, IPS technology is a much advanced technology than TFT technology. So, it is quite obvious that IPS takes a bit more energy to function than TFT.

Also, when you are using an IPS monitor, the screen will be much larger. So, as there is a need for much more energy for the IPS display to function, the battery of the device will drain faster. Furthermore, IPS panels cost way more than TFT display panels.

1. The best thing about TFT technology is it uses much less energy to function when it is used from a bigger screen. It ensures that the cost of electricity is reduced which is a wonderful plus point.

2. When it comes to visibility, the TFT technology enhances your experience wonderfully. It creates sharp images that will have no problems for older and tired eyes.

1. One of the major problems of TFT technology is that it fails to create a wider angle of view. As a result, after a certain angle, the images in a TFT screen will distort marring the overall experience of the user.

Although IPS screen technology is very good, it is still a technology based on TFT, the essence of the TFT screen. Whatever the strength of the IPS, it is a TFT-based derivative.

Finally, as you now have a proper understanding of the TFT displays vs IPS displays, it is now easier for you when it comes to choose one for your organization. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace. You should not be surprised if you see more advanced display screens in the near future. However, so far, TFT vs IPS are the two technologies that are marching ahead when it comes to making display screens.

STONE provides a full range of 3.5 inches to 15.1 inches of small and medium-size standard quasi TFT LCD module, LCD display, TFT display module, display industry, industrial LCD screen, under the sunlight visually highlight TFT LCD display, industrial custom TFT screen, TFT LCD screen-wide temperature, industrial TFT LCD screen, touch screen industry. The LCD module is very suitable for industrial control equipment, medical instruments, POS system, electronic consumer products, vehicles, and other products.

In one corner is LED (light-emitting diode). It’s the most common type of display on the market, however, it might be unfamiliar because there’s slight labelling confusion with LCD (liquid crystal display).

For display purposes the two are the same, and if you see a TV or smartphone that states it has an ‘LED’ screen, it’s an LCD. The LED part just refers to the lighting source, not the display itself.

In a nutshell, LED LCD screens use a backlight to illuminate their pixels, while OLED’s pixels produce their own light. You might hear OLED’s pixels called ‘self-emissive’, while LCD tech is ‘transmissive’.

The light of an OLED display can be controlled on a pixel-by-pixel basis. This sort of dexterity isn’t possible with an LED LCD – but there are drawbacks to this approach, which we’ll come to later.

In cheaper TVs and LCD-screen phones, LED LCD displays tend to use ‘edge lighting’, where LEDs sit to the side of the display, not behind it. The light from these LEDs is fired through a matrix that feeds it through the red, green and blue pixels and into our eyes.

LED LCD screens can go brighter than OLED. That’s a big deal in the TV world, but even more so for smartphones, which are often used outdoors and in bright sunlight.

Take an LCD screen into a darkened room and you may notice that parts of a purely black image aren’t black, because you can still see the backlighting (or edge lighting) showing through.

You’ll often see a contrast ratio quoted in a product’s specification, particularly when it comes to TVs and monitors. This tells you how much brighter a display’s whites are compared to its blacks. A decent LCD screen might have a contrast ratio of 1,000:1, which means the whites are a thousand times brighter than the blacks.

Contrast on an OLED display is far higher. When an OLED screen goes black, its pixels produce no light whatsoever. That means an infinite contrast ratio, although how great it looks will depend on how bright the screen can go. In general, OLED screens are best suited for use in darker rooms, and this is certainly the case where TVs are concerned.

OLED panels enjoy excellent viewing angles, primarily because the technology is so thin, and the pixels are so close to the surface. You can walk around an OLED TV or spread out in different spots in your living room, and you won’t lose out on contrast. For phones, viewing angles are extra important because you don’t tend to hold your hand perfectly parallel to your face.

Viewing angles are generally worse in LCDs, but this varies hugely depending on the display technology used. And there are lots of different kinds of LCD panel.

Perhaps the most basic is twisted nematic (TN). This is the type used in budget computer monitors, cheaper laptops, and very low-cost phones, and it offers poor angled viewing. If you’ve ever noticed that your computer screen looks all shadowy from a certain angle, it’s more than likely it uses a twisted nematic panel.

Thankfully, a lot of LCD devices use IPS panels these days. This stands for ‘in-plane switching’ and it generally provides better colour performance and dramatically improved viewing angles.

IPS is used in most smartphones and tablets, plenty of computer monitors and lots of TVs. It’s important to note that IPS and LED LCD aren’t mutually exclusive; it’s just another bit of jargon to tack on. Beware of the marketing blurb and head straight to the spec sheet.

The latest LCD screens can produce fantastic natural-looking colours. However, as is the case with viewing angles, it depends on the specific technology used.

OLED’s colours have fewer issues with pop and vibrancy, but early OLED TVs and phones had problems reining in colours and keeping them realistic. These days, the situation is better, Panasonic’s flagship OLEDs are used in the grading of Hollywood films.

Where OLED struggles is in colour volume. That is, bright scenes may challenge an OLED panel’s ability to maintain levels of colour saturation. It’s a weakness that LCD-favouring manufactu