future of lcd displays quotation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The global Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market size is projected to reach multi million by 2028, in comparision to 2021, at unexpected CAGR during 2022-2028 (Ask for Sample Report).

The goal of this Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market research is to help consumers gain a more apprehensive, better, and clearer understanding of the industry. The Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market growth analysis includes development trends, competitive landscape analysis, investment plan, business strategy, opportunity, and key regions" development status for international markets. The key manufacturers of the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market include Merck Group,JNC Corporation,DIC Corporation,Shijiazhuang Slichem Display Material,Jiangsu Hecheng Display Technology,Beijing Bayi Space LCD Technology.

The Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD Market Industry Research Report contains:To research analyzes the worldwide Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market by the company, key regions/countries, products, and application, with historical data.

To disseminate precise information on the key elements impacting Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market growth (growth potential, opportunities, drivers, industry-specific challenges, and risks).

Identifies describes, and analyses the sales volume, value, market share, market competitive landscape, SWOT analysis, and development strategies for the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market over the next few years.

The Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market is studied using various approaches and analyses to provide reliable and in-depth information about the industry. It is separated into numerous segments to cover various aspects of the market for a better understanding. The information in the paper was compiled using primary and secondary approaches by the researchers.

The world has reached the recovery phase of the COVID-19 outbreak. We published the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD Market Report in this challenging economic scenario, which provides a detailed study of the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market, this report includes information about the manufacturer, such as sales volume, price, revenue, gross margin, business distribution, among other things. These details assist consumers to learn more about their competition.

Get Covid-19 Impact Analysis for Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD Market research report https://www.reportmines.com/enquiry/request-covid19/2014481

With a thorough analysis of the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market"s competitive landscape and detailed information on vendors and comprehensive details of factors that will challenge the growth of major market vendors, the report covers the key players in the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market industry, including Company Profiles, Product Specifications, Revenue, Price, and Gross Margin Sales.

The Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market industry research report displays the production, revenue, price, market share, and growth rate of each type, primarily split into TFT Type Liquid Crystal Materials,TN Type Liquid Crystal Materials,STN Type Liquid Crystal Materials,HTN Type Liquid Crystal Materials. This Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD market research report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share, and growth rate for each application, including TVs,Smartphone,Monitors,Notebooks and Tablets,Others. Regions Covered in Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD Market Report are North America: United States, Canada, Europe: GermanyFrance, U.K., Italy, Russia,Asia-Pacific: China, Japan, South, India, Australia, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Latin America:Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Middle East & Africa:Turkey, Saudi, Arabia, UAE, Korea.The report is of 180 pages.

Reasons to Purchase the Liquid Crystal Materials for Displays LCD Market Report:Identifying Top Manufacturers will help you plan mergers and acquisitions wisely.

Summary form only given. Displays serve as the main interface between "humans", who are at the center of information society, and "machines", or information processing systems. Displays have over 100 years of history, starting from the invention of the CRT (cathode ray tube) in 1897. After the CRT, several other types of display devices, including LCD, PDP, FED, and OLED displays, were developed and commercialized. Although liquid crystal material was discovered 150 years ago, LCDs have been under development for only 30 years, and TFT-LCD, which is now the mainstream display device, has been undergoing commercialization for only 20 years. In the evolution of the information society, TFT-LCD has been the most successful display device because of its ability to provide timely and cost-effective display performance and functionality. Among the many display technologies, only TFT- LCD technology enables manufacture of displays spanning from 1 inch to over 100 inches diagonal size. This scalability has contributed to an expansion of applications. The technological advantages of LCDs ensure they maintain a market leading position, while also offering promise of continued expansion of displays into new applications. Looking back on the past ten years, there have been three great "waves" in the TFT-LCD industry. These are the success of the notebook PC in the late 90s, the replacement of CRT monitors by LCDs after 2000, and the recent rapid growth of large size LCD-TVs. Ubiquitous applications result in display devices becoming ever more important in our lives. The TFT-LCD industry is now preparing for the 4

wave, which is enormous compared to the previous waves. LCD technology evolution and continuous innovation were stimulated by new demand as the technology moves toward "anytime, any where, anysize" ubiquity.

The evolution of outdoor digital displays continues to transform cities around the globe, and change the way we interact – from transportation to retail shops, hospitality, real estate, construction, education and entertainment.

Increasingly, we are seeing digital outdoor displays such as signs on buildings, train stations, bus stops, parking meters, gas stations and ATMs. In the past couple of decades, large format LED displays have dominated the outdoor display applications. Two display technologies that have begun to grow significantly for outdoor use are LCD (liquid crystal display) and ePaper. Below, we look at the growth and innovation of both, as well as design and function challenges, and what to expect in the future.

Over the last 20 years, the cost of LCD displays has significantly dropped, allowing the technology to be incorporated into many devices we rely on today, such as tablets and mobile phones. For outdoor use, LCD technology, once primarily used for indoor TV, has expanded into outdoor displays for everything from environmental monitoring information to air quality detection, weather forecasting, advertisement, product showcase, information displays, and more.

Industries across the globe continue to find innovative outdoor uses for this modern digital signage technology, which has become lighter, brighter, and provides higher resolution. It’s not surprising that LCD is the most impactful and successful in display technology history, boasting about 80% of the global market, tallying $100 billion, albeit over 95% used indoors.

While LCD technology is more widely used for outdoor displays, there are still some improvements that need to be made. While newer LCDs use power-efficient LED backlight technology, outdoor displays still require a lot of power for the backlight to fight the sun. I’m happy to say that there is a lot of effort in the industry right now to redesign LCD technology to further reduce power consumption. But the fact is, it’s really hard to make displays work well outdoors and those companies that do a good job have benefitted in various sub-market segments.

– Enduring high temperature variations: From Wisconsin winters (I worked for a pioneering LCD company out of Lake Mills, Wis., and it’s bitterly cold there) to Arizona summers (I was GM for a display company out of Phoenix and hot is not the word), incorporating LCD technology into an outdoor setting can be quite challenging. That’s because LCDs have complicated temperature influenced performance; they need to be designed to work well in various temperatures and weather conditions. For example, if you have an outdoor LCD display in Arizona, in the summer, the liquid crystal will tend towards liquid and as it does, it loses contrast rapidly. In the winter, in freezing temps, the liquid crystal will tend towards crystal, which means the display will be as slow as molasses. Imagine a gas pump where all the digits look like 8s – the display just can’t refresh fast enough.

But there is a way to keep the LCDs comfortable, sort of like what we do for humans –when it’s hot, fans come in handy, but the air filters can clog, and you don’t want to circulate gasoline fumes thru a super-hot display, so a better method is heat sinks and internal system wide heat distribution. Similarly, when it’s cold, heaters in the form of ITO (Indium Tin Oxide – transparent conductors) directly on the glass helps keep the LCD within a reasonable temperature range. These designs are non-trivial and not for the novice display designer; the designs call for mechanical integrity together with temperature sensing and management to maintain the display within the system in optimum operating conditions.

– Enduring direct sunlight – For LCD outdoor displays, there is a big difference between being in the shade, beneath an awning versus in direct sunlight. The reflection, glare and brightness of the sun can take its toll on an LCD outdoor display. To help solve this challenge, some manufacturers use anti-glare coatings or anti-reflection materials. From films to coatings to cover glass, they all help, but the key to success is finding the right balance between protecting against the sun’s radiation without dimming the display via films/coatings which in turn means that the backlight must be cranked up and that will generate more heat that is undesirable.

– Withstanding dust, dirt, moisture and pressurized water and corrosives – Having an outdoor LCD display, let’s say, at a street corner, can be a bit of a challenge. For one, it attracts dust and dirt from the road, and despite the roof, the rain can still be swept onto the display by winds, gasoline fumes and other chemicals, which can erode the surfaces and the electronics beneath. To protect these types of displays, many manufactures include an ip65 rated enclosure that can withstand and protect the display.

– Able to run 24/7 in these conditions – Battling all the above elements can take its toll on outdoor LCDs, creating the need to replace and/or maintain them more frequently. Many of these applications require 24/7 operations for years, think billboards, train station displays, street corner signage etc. that are under 10 years contract and need to run continuously for that period. However, there are some panel manufacturers who are creating rugged components that will expand the lifespan of outdoor LCDs, including building rugged panels to reduce the dependence on heaters or fans. Creating modular structures makes it easier to service and maintain the installations, and typically the larger installs are monitored remotely to provide malfunction alerts so they can be repaired quickly.

So, what’s in store for outdoor LCDs in the future? My general thought is LCD will eventually be replaced by other display technologies, but we will see more improvements and uses before that happens. LCDs will continue to become thinner, consume less power. And the cost will drop even more. You would have never dreamed of implanting LCD technology on a T-shirt or shopping bag, but as the price comes down, that could be a possibility. Just imagine a small LCD showcasing something unique about you on a baseball hat.

While the amount of outdoor LCDs is growing and how we use them is constantly evolving, the technology needs to continue to improve to keep hold of a strong market share. LCD has one of the best features that the consumers – OEMs, city planners, signage companies (except perhaps the panel makers) – love; it’s the lowest cost display technology that is widely available from dozens of manufacturers in hundreds of diagonal sizes. I’m excited about what the industry will come up with next.

While outdoor LCD technology still leads the outdoor display industry, ePaper is beginning to have its day in the sun, so to speak. And with good reason. ePaper uses a dual pigment electrophoretic display used in reading applications such as the Amazon Kindle. Low power, and paper-like appearance makes this technology valuable.

ePaper is also becoming quite popular for outdoor applications like bus stops, airports and train stations in cities around the globe, which tell you arrival and departure information. Retail is even starting to showcase some unique uses of ePaper, especially during the COVID pandemic, such as counting the number of people in a store.

ePaper is a “green” technology, mainly sipping power from solar panels. Another tremendous advantage of ePaper is it’s a reflective display — the brighter the sun, the better the display. In contrast, with LCD, the brighter the sun, the harder the system must work for you to see.

ePaper will also most likely become the “de facto” outdoor display choice during emergencies. For example, when the Fukushima earthquake hit Japan in March 2011, most outdoor digital displays were ordered to be shut down. The only displays allowed to operate were ePaper, which city leaders used to communicate with their citizens. I see this becoming the norm for all cities, not just to communicate to the public during emergencies but also for relaying other important messages, such as for public health. And, as we continue to go more “green,” cities and other organizations will choose ePaper over other display technologies that are considered power hogs.

Conclusion:While both LCD and ePaper technologies for outdoor use are growing, traditional large format LED signs will continue to be replaced.   LCD itself could eventually be replaced by MicroLED, but that’s for another discussion in the future. For the foreseeable future, the growing market for outdoor displays will offer billions of dollars of market opportunity for LCD and ePaper while attracting investments into newer display technologies.

Sri Peruvemba is CEO of Marketer International Inc. in California. He has also served on the Executive Board and was former Chair of Marketing for many years for the Society for Information Display (SID’s Display Week 2022 will be held in San Jose, CA, May 8-13, 2022). With over 30 years of experience in the technology industry, Peruvemba has been an influential advocate in the advancement of electronic hardware technologies. He is an acknowledged expert on sensors, electronic displays, haptics, touch screens, electronic materials and related technologies; and consults, writes, and presents on those subjects globally. Contact Mr. Peruvemba at sri@miinc.co.

If you"re looking for ~500-1000 display panels with the intent to buy, I would strongly suggest speaking with an account manager, sales rep, and/or applications engineer at a distributor. Such an order will likely generate enough revenue for them to give you a whole lot more than the time of day. I know the local account managers and FAE"s for a few large component distributors in my area (Future Electronics and Allied Electronics), and they are usually helpful, though not always prompt.

Looking at Future, they do seem to have a few LCDs quoted on their site, however it is certainly not a comprehensive list. If you contact a sales rep (there or anywhere) and provide them your requirements, they may come back with additional parts that their manufacturers produce that better fit your need.

Unless your volumes are going to be in the millions, let me dispel any thoughts you have of "Why not just talk to (LCD mfc) directly?". Said manufacturers will not care about you, and the premium they will charge to deal with you (if they bother at all) will be higher than what a typical distributor would, because, frankly, they do not want your direct business. Use the middlemen. They will make specifying, finding, and sourcing LCD panels vastly easier and cheaper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve been in the display industry for the past 17 years, and I never cease to be amazed by the ability of LCD to reinvent itself. Time and again, as alternative display technologies emerge, questions arise about LCD’s future, prompting new developments that defy expectations and demonstrate its versatility.

Over the last 20 years, LCD displays have become thinner and lighter, and have expanded to larger sizes, as well as offering huge increases in screen performance, including resolution, colour, contrast, brightness and refresh rate. The next evolution is set to bring these developments to more products than ever before – the future lies with flexible displays.

Our organic LCD (OLCD) technology makes use of carbon-based, rather than silicon, transistors, allowing us to sidestep the limitations of flat screens and embrace curved surfaces. This novel feature will bring many benefits to both existing and future products, and there are three key areas where our technology stands to make a significant positive impact. The most obvious application for flexible OLCD is as a replacement for glass LCD screens in products – such as tablets, laptops and TVs – that will benefit from thinner, lighter or unbreakable displays. There’s also the potential to make borderless screens without the bezel or border around their edge, which enlarges the usable screen space, as well as simply being more aesthetically pleasing.

Finally, there is the limitless possibility of adding displays to everyday objects or surfaces that can’t make effective use of glass displays. This will introduce new, previously unattainable, functionality into our homes, offices and cars. One particular application that is gaining traction is using OLCD displays on the inside of the A-pillar in your car. Combined with an external camera, you can make the pillar ‘invisible’, increasing visibility and improving safety.

OLCD is set to transform the world around us. Thanks to the existing, low-cost manufacturing supply chain for LCDs, it’s a small step for designers to begin developing the next generation of products that take advantage of the flexibility afforded by this innovative technology.

I have been staring at a computer or TV monitor for over 25 years and between the CRT and aging, my eyes have been getting worst every year. I am interested in getting the best video quality monitor for under $1000 per monitor. After reading your article, I would assume that a CRT would be the best choice. However, I am in the market to purchase TWO monitors. This is so I can view two programs simultaneously or when a client comes over, rotate the second monitor for their viewing. I mostly stare at numbers, words and Internet images. Also, I prefer larger monitors (i.e. 19"+). Should I consider two CRTs, CRT as my primary and LCD as the secondary, or match monitors and save real estate with two LCDs? What models would you recommend?

Also, it seems that marketing is mostly centered on inches instead resolution. A bit too often this is also true for reviews which tend to place things like elegance of design, or number of USB ports or some such, above petty details like displayable desktop area.

One thing I"d like to know is why is that usual native resultion for 19" LCDs 1280x1024? Or more specifically, why do 17" and 19" LCDs generally have the same native resolution.

But no, you generally have to go up to 21" LCD to get a 1600x1200 native resolution. And it can"t be a technical problem, because we have 15" notebook LCDs with 1600x1200 (and higher) resolution.

PS. And don"t bother pointing out that there are a few 1600x1200 19" LCDs. I"m aware of these exceptions. I just don"t understand why this isn"t the standard.

#55: on the contrary, lg.philips actually informed us of the opposite. While technically the dithering does not impact the response time, electrical modulation does. This is a direct result of how many bits the signal is capable of.

Are there any formal reviews on new substrates that offer 10-bit gamma correction? In particular, I am considering either the Sharp T1820 or the EIZO L695 (L685EX), and considering that their specs are fairly similar, I assume they are using the same substrate. Supposedly the 10-bit gamma correction is capable of displaying a 1024-step greyscale, which can help prevent banding in subtle gradiants.

Unfortunately, neither of these LCDs are widely available for me to perform my own eye-testing. Ideally if someone can offer advice on whether this is an overpriced two-step-conversion technology (as with using an analog cable on an LCD), or if this truly offers discernable benifits, that would be great!

Heilmeier, G. H., Zanoni, L. A. & Barton, L. A. Dynamic scattering: a new electrooptic effect in certain classes of nematic liquid crystals. Proc. IEEE56, 1162–1171 (1968).

Schiekel, M. F. & Fahrenschon, K. Deformation of nematic liquid crystals with vertical orientation in electrical fields. Appl. Phys. Lett.19, 391–393 (1971).

Gaspar, D. J. & Polikarpov, E. OLED Fundamentals: Materials, Devices, and Processing of Organic Light-Emitting Diodes. (Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2015).

Tull, B. R. et al. High brightness, emissive microdisplay by integration of III-V LEDs with thin film silicon transistors. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers46, 375–377 (2015).

Templier, F. GaN-based emissive microdisplays: a very promising technology for compact, ultra-high brightness display systems. J. Soc. Inf. Disp.24, 669–675 (2016).

Takeda, A. et al. A super-high image quality multi-domain vertical alignment LCD by new rubbing-less technology. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers29, 1077–1080 (1998).

Lee, S. H., Lee, S. L. & Kim, H. Y. Electro-optic characteristics and switching principle of a nematic liquid crystal cell controlled by fringe-field switching. Appl. Phys. Lett.73, 2881–2883 (1998).

Féry, C. et al. Physical mechanism responsible for the stretched exponential decay behavior of aging organic light-emitting diodes. Appl. Phys. Lett.87, 213502 (2005).

Kim, H. J. et al. Optical efficiency enhancement in wide color gamut LCD by a patterned quantum dot film and short pass reflector. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers47, 827–829 (2016).

Soh, M. Y. et a