Even ageing

>even ageing
loss of brightness, gamma drift
>uneven ageing
burn-in

How can anyone defend this garbage tech?

Attached: oled.jpg (1200x1200, 89K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pinterest.com/kchemical/women-posing/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Simply because I like my displays how I don't like my women: heavy blacks

Attached: bAqAUhC_d.jpg (640x621, 25K)

Fpbp

But deep blacks! Unparalleled blacks!

/thread

Attached: XKWqEP1.jpg (500x730, 131K)

Because it's cheap... lul it's not.

QDOLED will save it.

*QDmicroLED

Well yeah they will both use a blue LED arrangement and QD for red and green.

Name? Google gives nothing

did he dieded

Blue OLEDs are the most short-lived, so I doubt about that.

>>even ageing
>loss of brightness, gamma drift
Why post things that can be instantly proven wrong? Do you enjoy being made to look like an idiot?

Attached: real-burn-in-hdr-10-large.jpg (3840x4320, 802K)

>6000 hours

maybe its ur eyes that are aging

Attached: 1520531155253.jpg (142x250, 14K)

>OLEDs get brighter as they age

wow, why don't they just sell vintage aged OLED displays then?

Those 2014 LG OLED displays must have aged like milk.

6400 hours, which is 48 weeks of the TVs being used 20 hours a day. A completely unrealistic use case scenario. Even if you want to be generous and say that the average person watches TV for 5 hours a day 365 days a year, that's still well over 3 and a half years of normal usage accounted for. Imagine worrying about whether your TV is going to develop some slight brightness loss over 3 and a half years down the line. Imagine being so poor that spending $1500 to enjoy the best picture quality on the market for 4 years or more is an outrageous concept to you.

Keep making these threads. I laugh at them every time. The fact that somebody's so poor and bitter that they can't afford an OLED without knowing that it'll still be pristine 10 years from now, and is so mad that they spam anti-OLED threads on fucking Jow Forums of all places is hilarious.

Attached: real-burn-in-color-gamut-large.jpg (3840x2160, 460K)

>Imagine worrying about whether your TV is going to develop some slight brightness loss over 3 and a half years down the line. Imagine being so poor that spending $1500 to enjoy the best picture quality on the market for 4 years or more is an outrageous concept to you.
Shill harder, faggot.

Attached: real-burn-in-week-48-tv-3-yellow-large.jpg (3840x2160, 1012K)

Anyone else seeing Jesus?

Or you could spend $50 on a used CRT and enjoy the best picture quality possible indefinitely.

>Or you could spend $50 on a used CRT and enjoy the best picture quality possible indefinitely.
Thanks for the laugh.

OLED does not give the best picture quality except in a very narrow way of looking at things. OLEDs are not bright enough for HDR content and something like the Q9FN blows it away at everything except native contrast.

It has nothing to do with being poor, a Q9FN is more expensive than the OLEDs and it's infinitely better value in every regard.

LED lifespan is practically the same as OLED.

LED backlit LCDs already suffer from even ageing. microLED is basically going to be same as OLED burn in wise.

>(citation needed)

Objectively wrong. Fuck off, retard.

Attached: 1525111729478.png (1291x983, 219K)

pinterest.com/kchemical/women-posing/
Scroll down a bit