SED and FED died for this

Still doesn't solve the issue of having a non existent contrast ratio
>inb4 local dimming
Even VA screens still have issues with blooming, unless you have really tiny dimiming zones IPS would only exacerbate the problem

>buying anything other than an CRT

By having a better contrast ratio, brainlet

Yeah, it would be so nice if we had CRT screens in laptops, tablets and phones.

VA can have the opposite issue, no back light bleed but slight darkness on the edges and corners

>buying anything other than a VA monitor
it takes many years of experience to reach the conclusion that VA and OLED are the only panels worth it.

I bought my monitors 10 years ago and still use them

Attached: 1527961578240.jpg (1632x1224, 237K)

Wait.
You're telling me displays in 2018 have blooming? That thing CRTs fixed in the mid 80s?

LCDs with a standard back light shouldn't bloom, but in newer displays (mostly TVs) they sometimes have full array backlights that dim locally to try to increase the contrast. Some displays do it better than others but sometimes it leaves a cloud around contrasting images

Attached: m-series-uniformity-fald-medium.jpg (790x444, 30K)

Yeah, I know it hadn't been an issue on displays for quite a long time. But this is just absolutely stupid. You can turn that shit off, right?

>You can turn that shit off, right?
Yes there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to turn it off. I have a TV with local dimming and for PC use its off but for just watching stuff I switch to a picture profile that has it on, its not noticeable only under extreme cases

Extremely based

not using crt

SED and FED died because, like every other vaporware tech, they were unworkable shit. It wasn't some silly patent lawsuit that really killed them, it was that the panels are inherently self-destructing in a way that make OLED look positively robust.

The entire premise with all these micro-emitter CRTs was to have a cheaply electro-chemically etched array of extremely sharp points, that would somehow not get whittled down to non-emitting dull mounds despite continuous exposure to stray ions bouncing around the gap space. Simply, nobody every figured out how to make them out of a cheap material that was cheap to fabricate and also robust enough to survive non-trivial amounts of use.

LCD survived because even though the earlier products were absolute shit quality, people are more willing to buy lower-fidelity products with some other novel aspect (e.g., portable laptops, TV that can hang on a wall, etc.) than a product with a minor to moderate improvement in quality but a massive problem in lifetime (see also: plasma burn-in stigma, that lasted a decade past the problem being mostly resolved).

>people are more willing to buy lower-fidelity products with some other novel aspect
This is how its always been.
Very few technologies that were considered the best for the time ever make it to be the most adopted, Only enthusiasts would be the ones to jump trough hoops for a quality improvement like getting a 4k blu-ray over just streaming it

SED and FED died for OLED. People claming they're flatscreen CRTs are idiots who don't know why CRTs are memed to hell and back. They're bulky, only came in 4:3 unless you're lucky and/or rich, but their analog nature meant they could look nice at any resolution up to the maximum supported mode. SED/FED is the same as any fixed-pixel display except each pixel is a CRT on its own.

Point me to the nearest laptop with a CRT as the monitor

My 4k IPS monitor

Attached: IMG_20180911_232517-2304x1728.jpg (2304x1728, 323K)

Works on my monitor

>OLED
lmao why would anyone want even less color accuracy than TN
stop equating oversaturation to quality color, eyelet