<commit_before>+++
date = 2022-01-31T00:00:00Z
draft = true
slug = "why-oled-will-win"
title = "Why OLED is winning (for now)"

+++
Most people love colour.

We personalize our clothes, decorate our homes, and choose our foods based on colour. Right from the start of life, every kid has a favourite colour. Colour even affects our moods.

In nature, colour serves a biological purpose - whether it serves as camouflage, a warning (don't eat me!), or as an advertisement to the opposite sex.

In art, we try to mimic nature. Pigments mixed to the precise hue and saturation of a myriad of colours bring a painting to startling life.

In technology, we try to mimic art. Only bright displays with a wide colour gamut are likely to dazzle shoppers strolling through the TV gallery at Best Buy.

At its essence, colour is light. Or more precisely, colours are light waves reflected off an object into the optic nerves of our eyes.

The opposite of light is, of course, darkness. A lot of people are scared of the dark. There is also a biological reason for this, as the most dangerous predators are nocturnal (it's hard to erase a few millions years of evolution). Complete darkness, as you would find deep in a cave underground, is truly black.

Black is the absence of colour. It is not celebrated. Only weird Goths or funeral attendees dress all in black. Only serial killers and <NAME> paint their walls black. It's safe to say that black gets a bad rap (except when I was ten years old and everybody switched their favourite colour to black because of KITT from Knight Rider).

But as a counterpoint to colour, black is essential.

<!--more-->

Most of the time, when we say something is black, it is actually a variation of dark grey. If you've ever tried and failed to see your hand in that aforementioned underground cave, then you've experienced true black. But true black is hard to replicate in nature, art, or technology because light always reflects off "black" objects.

That doesn't mean humans haven't tried. The "blackest" material on earth is [Vantablack](https://magazine.artland.com/in-search-of-the-blackest-black/). Reflecting less than 0.04 % of incident light, the sensors in cameras can't even pick it up, rendering Vantablack invisible to the camera's eye.

It's no surprise that Vantablack became a big hit in the art world - what artist wouldn't want to use the truest representation of black in their true-to-life paintings?

In the world of technology, where display manufacturers have long reached for the holy grail of ultimate black, Vantablack's equivalent has to be OLED.

For colours to really pop, you need unparalleled contrast, and for that you need true black. Simply put, true black is an absolute prerequisite if you want to most accurate image possible.

This extremely long preamble is the reason why OLED screens are so well-regarded by videophiles and why spending more on an OLED is absolutely worth it (this extremely long preamble is also my verbose way of avoiding the overused word "inky" when describing this technology).

OLED screens can display true blacks because each individual pixel turns on or off to product light. LCD or QLED screens, on the other hand, use a backlight to illuminate pixels. As the backlight is always on, dark areas in the display are always grey, never black.

Despite being a videophile's darling, OLED isn't for everyone. It's more like a delicate, ephemeral flower nerds have to babysit (but what a beautiful flower it is).

The main drawback of OLED is a sacrifice in brightness (a uniform backlight can hit over a thousand nits of luminance where those individuals pixels just can't). So, perfect for dimly-lit man caves in the basement - not so much for light-flooded, open-concept condos with floor-to-ceiling windows.

Also, OLEDs degrade more quickly than LED because they are "organic" (the "O" in OLED) so they don't last as long as LED or LCD. You basically pay more for a shorter lifespan.

And, most terrifying of all, they are susceptible to permanent burn-in. You have to avoiding watching content with static elements, especially if the elements use highly-saturated colours. I think it's safe to say that you're [playing with fire](https://youtu.be/hWrFEU_605g) if you use an OLED display as a computer monitor for eight hours a day. OLED TVs are a treat, to be used sparingly and in moderation.

They are also expensive to make - so expensive that, over the past decade, one display manufacturer after another has cancelled OLED production. [The only manufacturer still making them is LG](https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-magazine/brand-story/the-history-of-the-oled-tv).

The rise and fall of display technology is a classic case of capitalism at work. As a case in point, look at [plasma](https://www.techradar.com/news/plasma-tv) - a display technology that also had high contrast ratios, but was ultimately killed by the dominant LCD industry.

So, given these drawbacks, why has the lure of "infinite contrast" (as LG calls it in their marketing jargon) managed to persevere?

One of the main reasons is simply that nobody else has managed to reach OLED-worthy levels of true black without significant black crush (loss of shadow detail). The other guys aren't giving up, and have aggressively put forward mini-LED displays as a contender. Mini-LED displays use a grid of dimming zones in the backlight to control which areas of the screen light up. However, this approach can create "blooming" (a sort of white halo around objects) which can be even more distracting than a wall of grey.

A promising emerging technology is microLED which consists of inorganic self-emitting microscopic LEDs that by all appearances address all of OLED's deficits. However, they are super expensive to the point where it just isn't affordable to the average consumer yet. Whether microLED is the future of display technology is a future that remains to be seen, but it very well could be.

A possible stepping stone between OLED and microLED was announced by Samsung at CES this year, a new development which will ironically keep LG in the OLED manufacturing business for years to come. That new technology is called [Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED)](https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/qd-oled-hybrid-display-technology-fully-explained/). In simple terms, by placing a quantum-dot layer over an OLED panel, Samsung claims a significant boost to brightness and colour volume while decreasing burn-in risk. The key innovation here is efficiency - by fusing Quantum Dot technology with OLED, the OLED pixels don't have to work as hard, thus lasting longer.

How expensive these displays end up being remains to be seen, as CES is notorious as a hive of scum, villainy, and vapourware. Sony is also jumping on the QD-OLED train this year, so the hype is real, but QD-OLED TVs will likely be more expensive than LG's OLEDs. I assume, however, that LG will continue to supply OLEDs to Samsung and Sony, which is great for LG and their huge bet on OLED.

Indeed, in 2021, OLED shipments were on an [upwards trajectory](https://www.oled-a.org/2021-oled-panel-yy-shipments-and-revenue-up-47-and-273-respectively_070421.html), and 2022 will continue that trend as OLED starts to go mainstream. One of the main reasons for OLEDs rise in popularity and profitability are smartphone manufacturers. In particular, Apple, the biggest player in the game, is going all-in on OLED for iPhones, the Apple Watch, and are rumoured to bring it to iPads and MacBooks in the future as well.

Also, foldable Android phones with flexible OLED screens are making a big splash on the bleeding edge and could signal a sea-change in the smartphone form factor if they continue to capture consumer interest.

............... QD-OLED

OLED displays only accounted for [30 percent of the global display market](https://www.oled-a.org/2021-oled-panel-yy-shipments-and-revenue-up-47-and-273-respectively_070421.html) in 2021, but their growth forecast is outstanding.

..... growth in mobile and wearables

Good article:

[https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-oled](https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-oled "https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-oled")<commit_msg>Update from Forestry.io wordbit updated content/posts/infinite-contrast.md<commit_after>+++
date = 2022-01-31T00:00:00Z
draft = true
slug = "why-oled-is-winning-for-now"
title = "Why OLED is winning (for now)"

+++
Most people love colour.

We personalize our clothes, decorate our homes, and choose our foods based on colour. Right from the start of life, every kid has a favourite colour. Colour even affects our moods.

In nature, colour serves a biological purpose - whether it serves as camouflage, a warning (don't eat me!), or as an advertisement to the opposite sex.

In art, we try to mimic nature. Pigments mixed to the precise hue and saturation of a myriad of colours bring a painting to startling life.

In technology, we try to mimic art. Only bright displays with a wide colour gamut are likely to dazzle shoppers strolling through the TV gallery at Best Buy.

At its essence, colour is light. Or more precisely, colours are light waves reflected off an object into the optic nerves of our eyes.

The opposite of light is, of course, darkness. A lot of people are scared of the dark. There is also a biological reason for this, as the most dangerous predators are nocturnal (it's hard to erase a few millions years of evolution). Complete darkness, as you would find deep in a cave underground, is truly black.

Black is the absence of colour. It is not celebrated. Only weird Goths or funeral attendees dress all in black. Only serial killers and <NAME> paint their walls black. It's safe to say that black gets a bad rap (except when I was ten years old and everybody switched their favourite colour to black because of KITT from Knight Rider).

But as a counterpoint to colour, black is essential.

<!--more-->

Most of the time, when we say something is black, it is actually a variation of dark grey. If you've ever tried and failed to see your hand in that aforementioned underground cave, then you've experienced true black. But true black is hard to replicate in nature, art, or technology because light always reflects off "black" objects.

That doesn't mean humans haven't tried. The "blackest" material on earth is [Vantablack](https://magazine.artland.com/in-search-of-the-blackest-black/). Reflecting less than 0.04 % of incident light, the sensors in cameras can't even pick it up, rendering Vantablack invisible to the camera's eye.

It's no surprise that Vantablack became a big hit in the art world - what artist wouldn't want to use the truest representation of black in their true-to-life paintings?

In the world of technology, where display manufacturers have long reached for the holy grail of ultimate black, Vantablack's equivalent has to be OLED.

For colours to really pop, you need unparalleled contrast, and for that you need true black. Simply put, true black is an absolute prerequisite if you want to most accurate image possible.

This extremely long preamble is the reason why OLED screens are so well-regarded by videophiles (this extremely long preamble is also my verbose way of avoiding the overused word "inky" when describing this technology).

OLED screens can display true blacks because each individual pixel turns on or off to product light. LCD or QLED screens, on the other hand, use a backlight to illuminate pixels. As the backlight is always on, dark areas in the display are always grey, never black.

Despite being a videophile's darling, OLED isn't for everyone. It's more like a delicate, ephemeral flower nerds have to babysit (but what a beautiful flower it is).

The main drawback of OLED is a sacrifice in brightness (a uniform LED backlight can hit over a thousand nits of luminance where those individuals OLED pixels just can't). So, perfect for dimly-lit man caves in the basement - not so much for light-flooded, open-concept condos with floor-to-ceiling windows.

Also, OLEDs degrade more quickly than LED because they are "organic" (the "O" in OLED) so they don't last as long as LED or LCD. You basically pay more for a shorter lifespan.

And, most terrifying of all, they are susceptible to permanent burn-in. You have to avoiding watching content with static elements, especially if the elements use highly-saturated colours. I think it's safe to say that you're [playing with fire](https://youtu.be/hWrFEU_605g) if you use an OLED display as a computer monitor for eight hours a day. OLED TVs are a treat - a special experience - to be used sparingly and in moderation. They are the fine-dining of TVs - you don't leave it on all day, but it's the best part of your night.

They are also expensive to make - so expensive that, over the past decade, one display manufacturer after another has cancelled OLED production. [The only manufacturer still making them is LG](https://www.lg.com/uk/lg-magazine/brand-story/the-history-of-the-oled-tv).

The rise and fall of display technology is a classic case of capitalism at work. As a case in point, look at [plasma](https://www.techradar.com/news/plasma-tv) - a display technology that also had high contrast ratios, but was ultimately killed by the dominant LCD industry.

So, given these drawbacks, why has the lure of "infinite contrast" (as LG calls it in their marketing jargon) managed to persevere?

One of the main reasons is simply that nobody else has managed to reach OLED-worthy levels of true black without significant black crush (loss of shadow detail). The other guys aren't giving up, and have aggressively put forward mini-LED displays as a contender. Mini-LED displays use a grid of dimming zones in the backlight to control which areas of the screen light up. However, this approach can create "blooming" (a sort of white halo around objects) which can be even more distracting than a wall of grey.

A promising emerging technology is [microLED](https://www.whathifi.com/us/features/what-is-micro-led-tv-and-is-it-any-good), consisting of inorganic self-emitting microscopic LEDs that by all appearances address all of OLED's deficits. However, they are super expensive to the point where it just isn't affordable to the average consumer yet. Whether microLED is the future of display technology is a future that remains to be seen, but it very well could be.

A possible stepping stone between OLED and microLED was announced by Samsung at CES this year, a new development which will ironically keep LG in the OLED manufacturing business for years to come. That new technology is called [Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED)](https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/qd-oled-hybrid-display-technology-fully-explained/). In simple terms, by placing a quantum-dot layer over an OLED panel, Samsung claims a significant boost to brightness and colour volume while decreasing burn-in risk. The key innovation here is efficiency - by fusing Quantum Dot technology with OLED, the OLED pixels don't have to work as hard, thus lasting longer.

How expensive these displays end up being (and how good they really are) remains to be seen, as CES is notorious as a hive of scum, villainy, and vapourware. Sony is also jumping on the QD-OLED train this year, so the hype is real, but QD-OLED TVs will likely be more expensive than LG's OLEDs. I assume, however, that LG will continue to supply OLEDs to Samsung and Sony, which is great for LG and their bottom line.

Indeed, in 2021, OLED shipments were on an [upwards trajectory](https://www.oled-a.org/2021-oled-panel-yy-shipments-and-revenue-up-47-and-273-respectively_070421.html), and 2022 will continue that trend as OLED starts to go mainstream. One of the main reasons for OLEDs rise in popularity and profitability are smartphone manufacturers. In particular, Apple, the biggest player in the game, is going all-in on OLED for iPhones, Apple Watches, and are rumoured to bring it to iPads and MacBooks in the future as well.

Also, foldable Android phones with flexible OLED screens are making a big splash on the bleeding edge and could signal a sea-change in the smartphone form factor if they continue to capture consumer interest.

So, to answer the question in this post's title - OLED is winning because once you see the black, you can't go back. The picture quality isn't just absurdly great - it's the best. Despite its drawbacks, which aren't insignificant by the way, OLED will convert just about anybody who experiences it into a display snob overnight.

It happened to me - slowly at first - starting with my Apple Watch (my first OLED display, albeit extremely tiny). Then, I recently got the [iPhone XS]({{< relref "2021-11-12-the-seven-year-itch.markdown" >}}), and had this to say about the display:

> A high-quality display is the only component that directly impacts the level of joy and delight you get from using a smartphone. I get that now.
>
> In night mode, OLED literally transforms the user experience. The pitch-black background completely subsumes the notch and bezels so that you get the illusion of an uninterrupted edge-to-edge plane of glass flowing seamlessly into the stainless-steel frame.

And so it goes...
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052530874934771266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006667826288629906, 'mean_word_length': 4.320172732880938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 8, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 11, 'https://': 17, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 13, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '2212174', 'n_tokens_mistral': 4616, 'n_tokens_neox': 4276, 'n_words': 2673}