IT'S HAPPENING!!!!!!

That's a 219 inch display.
Samsung recently showed a 75 inch 4K display at CES 2019 which just proves how fast this technology has been moving recently.

Nothing can truly be endgame until we get to Holodeck like experiences.

MicroLED will be the first technology to surpass the best CRT's in everything but variable resolutions though.

That is such an old-ass article.
Most of those technologies have been dead in the water for a long time.

The main ones like AMQLED are still listed though.

Well, in that case, AMQLED may not become a mainstream thing. As explained in a scientific study paper published by the Optical Society of America, MicroLED can also be combined with quantum dots (on top, instead of a passive color filter) to expand the color space of the display. This is what Samsung is pursuing with their QLED in the future.

Redpill me on AMQLED.
What would their advantages be over MLED?

Last I heard they were still struggling with producing Blue QLED's.

>everything but variable resolutions though.
This is a meme though, if you ever actually used a CRT, you'd know, even though the grille/mask does not represent pixels, there's only a certain amount of them. Non native resolutions will still look bad an there can even be loss of visual information. While displays with set pixels can only do integer scaling to display resolutions that are not native pixel perfect, CRTs showing any resolution that isn't closest to native is like a messy for of scaling.

I'm pretty sure what you're referring to here is LCD's which use a combination of QD's and MicroLED's as backlight or some shit.

QD Emissive LED is supposed to be different.

it's flexible :^)

I think what I said was right. Micro LEDs will exist, and then QLED will be placed on top in order to expand the color space. Obviously, in that situation, QLEDs would not need to be self-emissive at that point. And, so far as I know, the only company really pushing quantum dot in any real sense is Samsung, who has even got their current QLED TVs under $1000 now (granted, with all sorts of compromises for that price point).

I just told you: >AMQLED is not the QDCF shit though

Cost of production, technically also response times and more vivid colours, even though the color gamut is more important. Plus yes, they can be flexible.

You're wrong though.
Grille/Mask only limits the resolution the display is able to finely render.

Resolutions below your highest available resolution are typically handled very well on CRT's(though of course it varies slightly depending on the quality of the display model itself).

So of course if you push your CRT above what the mask is designed to handle you'll be left with some blemishes to the image quality(only monochrome CRT's really have infinite resolution) but if you lower the resolution it will be displayed correctly which you can't say for modern fixed-pixel display.

You still don't understand the difference between AMQLED and QDCF.
Samsung does not even do AMQLED, only QDCF.

In what way?
You mean bendable like the new OLED's and such?

Does it have better response times than MLED?

Right, which is why I said:
>Well, in that case, AMQLED may not become a mainstream thing.

Handled well is not the question, a very high DPI panel can even show non-integer scaled, non-native resolution very well, even better than CRTs, with less blur now. Plus any integer scaled resolution will be pixel perfect.

Samsung's QLED's are just LCD with Quantum Dot backlight.

I'm pretty sure various Quantum Dot technologies are on R&D right now but I'm not well informed on their progress.

>the technology which is cheaper to produce than MicroLED even without QD layer will not become the mainstream thing
Tell that to the board members of the huge companies pushing this shit and let them have a laugh at you.

I don't care unless I can get a 144hz microled monitor with 1ms response time

>This just in: New tech costs more than old! More at 11.

Of course micro LED costs more. It's brand fucking new. The question is what its cost will be at scale.

>Handled well is not the question, a very high DPI panel can even show non-integer scaled, non-native resolution very well
Proof?
I have yet to see a modern display that can display old 240p games in a way that doesn't make me wanna gag.

>Plus any integer scaled resolution will be pixel perfect.
Which means jackshit.
Integer scaling BLOWS and is inaccurate dogshit.

4x4 pixels will always be larger than 1x1.
Integer scaling is only perfect if all you're displaying is a bunch of squares but fact is majority of the content out there is more complex than this.

Unless they find a way to emulate the CRT behavior with current tech they will always be shit for old games.

retard here, what's the pro and cons of microled vs oled?

*4x1 not 4x4

Microled is basically Oled with much less of a risk of burn-in due to its usage of inorganic materials, much higher brightness, better response times, no problems with yields etc.

OLED is an absolute shit technology when it comes to lifespan. Burn-in is very fucking real, and very common. If you were to use it to watch news channels, play video games with any sort of hub, or as a computer monitor where any part of the screen remains mostly static, you can expect burn in to begin within a year. However, OLED is self-emissive, which makes it very thin. It also has amazing colors and dark levels.

All newer tech, like QLED and MicroLED, are attempts to recreate the benefits of OLED without the very severe drawback that comes with it, as well as a way to reduce costs over time.

the genes of that girl
holy shit
masterrace

Her face is busted lad.
The guy looks much better.

>I have yet to see a modern display that can display old 240p games in a way that doesn't make me wanna gag.
It's called integer scaling. It's *literally* pixel perfect.

>Integer scaling BLOWS and is inaccurate dogshit.
>4x4 pixels will always be larger than 1x1.
>Integer scaling is only perfect if all you're displaying is a bunch of squares but fact is majority of the content out there is more complex than this.
What are you even talking about? No, 4x4 pixels can be smaller than 1x1, it depends on the size of the pixels. This is not even remotely related to anything.
The pixels your CRT displays are technically square too, you can see it better on aperture grille or high resolution CRTs, not so well on TVs. A high DPI monitor looks no different displaying 240p content than a high end PVM of the same size in terms of square "pixels".

4x1 is not integer scaling. 1x1 to 4x4 is, not 1x1 to 4x1.
Educate yourself.

he is a burger mulatto mixed race mongrel. his bar for genetics is as low as anyone could possibly go, 2bh bra if you know whatimean

Like I said before.
Integer scaling BLOWS.
Integer scaling is only perfect if you're just displaying a bunch of squares.

I can already use integer scaling for retro games in emulators and it fucking blows. It's oversharpened, overpixelated DOGSHIT

>modular tv
Why the fuck is every mLED TV modular? I don't want creases all over my TV.

it's 4x1
For example 960p is 4x1 compared to 240p.

There is only like 3 of them at this point.
We will see more of them as times passes on.

Not who you were responding to, but I have no complaints when playing old SNES and PS1 games on my PS3, Wii U, and Vita.

Obviously N64, PS2, GC, etc look fine on flat screens.

I think you mean it's scaled 4:1. I'm not familiar with integer scaling (as I don't really fuck around trying to get old games to work on my PC), but if it's a pixel perfect scaling, and it doesn't look right, that means that there's a problem with the user's screen or the user's memory of what the game looked like.

You don't even know what you're talking about.
Integer scaling only works one way.
Go to /vr/, people buy expensive Sony PVMs to get square perfect, sharp pixels on CRTs. If you have a high DPI screen, you can apply a filter to make it look like a TV set over composite from the late 80's if you want.

Don't talk about things you have no idea about though.

No, that would be 4:1.
4x4 would mean 4:1, in the sense that 240p, each pixel gets drawn instead with 4 and you get 960p.

>there are people who are so confused by CRTs that they think the representative data they display is not in a grid of squares
just because the shadow mask or whatever CRT technology you use dithers the image and technically has no _pixels_, doesn't mean they aren't square
here, pic related, that's how the developers intended the game to look

Attached: file.png (1503x1432, 3.09M)

That's because you don't know any better.
Old games look like shit on modern displays.

And not only because of the resolution issue but also because of the terrible motion clarity of modern displays which use sample-and-hold(aka don't flicker)
Though the latter is somewhat alleviated by lightboost/ulmb monitors which imitate the flicker of CRT to provide cleaner motion clarity and MLED will improve this significantly with its much improved brightness.

I can stomach PS2, GC, Dreamcast on a modern displays(even if they're blurrier) but the N64 looks like complete trash on modern displays.

Nope, that's not how it works idiot.
There's a reason why TV's don't use integer scaling and that's because it sucks ass for any content that isn't rudimentary geometric shapes.

Most games have more complex looking graphics than that so integer scaling blows for those.

Integer scaling is only good in theory but it doesn't work as you'd think in the real world.
It only introduces more jaggies and not much else.

I swear to God I hate this dumbass integer scaling meme. It is fucking shit and will always be shit.
More pixels will always be more pixels which will lead to a gross, overpixelated and inaccurate representation of the original image.

>Go to /vr/, people buy expensive Sony PVMs to get square perfect, sharp pixels on CRTs.
You're a retard.
PVM's are much more than just "sharpness".

But anyways if integer scaling was perfect nobody would bother with CRT's anymore.
Even a consumer Trinitron >>>>>>>> modern display for retro gaming.

Fact is integer scaling is a meme. It looks like trash in the real world and no amount of wanking to the mathematics of it can change the truth.

>That's because you don't know any better.
Nigger, I was born in 1986. I played my first video game in 1990. I got my first console for my 5th birthday, and played it on a tube TV. I played the N64 on a CRT. I played my GameCube on a CRT. I played my PS2 on a CRT. I even played my PS3 on a CRT until the summer of 2007, when I purchased my first flatscreen: a 27" 1080i/720p Olevia LCD on sale from Circuit City for $350.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, and your eliteist attitudes and presumptions of others doesn't change fuck or all.

>it sucks ass for any content that isn't rudimentary geometric shapes.
You are literally describing video games right now. I could see why it wouldn't work on actual 3D shit, like FF7 or Super Mario 64, as those are polygons, but all games before the PS1 were literally pixels. All the CRTs would potentially do is soften the edges of the colors because of color bleed, which you wouldn't know about if you had a decent TV, S-Video, or Component cables.

it's still going to have shit contrast
anyone that wants the big screen movie experience has a projector and an actually big screen in a blackened room

>I was born in 1986
So a zoomer then.

>You are literally describing video games right now.
No not really.
Any game newer than Pong and Space Invaders is far too complex graphically for integer scaling.

Look at Mario World, look at Sonic, Neo Geo games etc. they all have more complex images than just rudimentary geometric shapes.

All integer scaling does is make things oversharpened and overpixelated, which isn't much of a problem with rudimentary geometric shapes and simplistic UI's like in mobile trash and such where it's not really noticeable but anything with the slightest bit of complexity suffers greatly using integer scaling.

Just because it's 2D doesn't mean it will magically scale better than 3D stuff.

Take a DVD of an old Disney film or whatever and tried to integer scale that shit to 4x scale and tell me how good it looks.
Same fucking concept here, it's not too hard to grasp.

I agree with you but that's not even how the game looks. You could've just posted a screenshot. Also, the American box art isn't canon.

Are you stupid?
MicroLED have pure blacks like OLEDs.
Not to mention it will have insane brightness.

There's a couple of Cinemas that already use the technology and some people who went there confirmed that it blows conventional projectors out of the water.

>Born in 1986
>A zoomer
Not him, but are you retarded? That's barely outside of GenX.

>Look at Mario World.
Ok. I can make out the individual pixels. Can you?

Attached: SMW1.png (1024x768, 292K)

I wasn't aware the SNES was capable of running at 1024x768.
What a joke, that shit pictured is not even scaled "properly" considering that the SNES runs at 256x224.

Now here's how the game actually looks like.

Attached: Supermarioworld.jpg (256x223, 27K)

Ok. Now let's stretch that image over 32 inches, because you didn't play on a 5" screen.

When you're multiplying the pixels the image will always look different compared to the original.
720p will always look different from 240p.

240p on a 30 inch CRT looks much much different than 240p upscaled to 960p on a modern 30 inch LCD monitor.

And here is your image when shown at a more likely size. It is 10x as big.

Attached: smw.png (2560x2230, 2.27M)

Right. You're talking about how blurry the CRTs were, which obscured the pixels, making them blurry. You can argue that the video game makers designed their games around the tech of CRTs, and that might be true. Unfortunately, claiming that puts the burden of proof on you for each and every game ever made.

Just stop, user. He's a retarded purist with rose colored glasses on. Let him cling to his Sony WEGA while everyone, including the very people who created his beloved video games, moves forward without him.

Nice fallacy.
That's not how CRT's work.
A shitty upscale =/= how 240p will look on a bigger CRT

>Le CRT's are blurry meme
Look at pic related.
Lacie graphics design monitor(forced to run at 240p@144hz). Probably 20+ inches.

Looks sharp as a tank and also looks completely different to how a modern display would display 240p.

Attached: dll252b7gc921.jpg (4032x3024, 1.09M)

If integer scaling is so good then why doesn't anyone use it?
Why don't movies use it? Live action or animated?

It's because adding more squares is retarded you fucking dumb faggot.

> 65 replies
> 12 posters
If you autistic fucks want to argue about shit no one cares about, go find a fucking discord.

Yeah, you're right. He's already convinced that his obsolete technology is irreplaceable, as evidenced by the post beneath yours. I'll stop beating my head against a wall, and he can keep using his shitty outdated tech.

>and technically has no _pixels_
Yes there are, 3 photophores make 1 pixel on a CRT.

Hahahhahahaha.
Cry more you retarded faggot.

It's hilarious how you zoomers can't accept that some older technology can possibly be better at some aspect than newer tech.

Fact is CRT's are the only display technology right now that can properly display non-native resolutions, rectangular pixels, half-pixel rendering and other pecularities that modern displays can't due to their fixed pixel nature.

CRT's are way better for old shit which is why nobody can refute my post here which btfo of everyone.

Attached: 15465465654654.jpg (1280x1115, 195K)

>this stupid shit again
Just because Nintendo of America was lazy and just put this shit here and in some magazines that doesn't mean this is how they were supposed to look like.

If you ever actually used a CRT you'd know that anything bellow the "native" resolution is still displayed nice and sharp, unlike upscalled pictures on an LCD panel.

>nobody can refute my post
It's not that we can't, it's just that arguing with children get boring after a while.

> Subpixel rendering is a way to increase the apparent resolution of a computer's liquid crystal display (LCD) or organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display by rendering pixels to take into account the screen type's physical properties. It takes advantage of the fact that each pixel on a color LCD is actually composed of individual red, green, and blue or other color subpixels to anti-alias text with greater detail or to increase the resolution of all image types on layouts which are specifically designed to be compatible with subpixel rendering.
> LCD
> OLED

If anyone else wants to reply to this hyper autist, please be sure to sage. This guy knows whats up.

>a zoomer calling me a child
Hahahahhahahahaha
Fucking idiot

By half-pixel rendering I mean shit like pic related you dumb cunt.

>This guy knows whats up.
>samefagging this hard
LMAO

Attached: 1542269197971.jpg (500x500, 88K)

> by X I mean Y
Tell us more.

More on this

>Some graphic designers toyed with these specificities and mastered the 0.5 dot technique. The word “pixel” translates in Japanese to “ドット” (”dot”). It seems that Hiroshi Ono (AKA Mr Dotman) was the first to use that word to describe his work, talking about dot-e (ドット絵, the “e” is the same as in “Ukiyo-e” and means picture) and dot character (ドットキャラクター or ドットキャラ) in the February 1983 issue of Namco NG.

>“It’s a technique where by slightly changing the color of surrounding pixels, to the human eye it looks like the pixels move by around 0.5 pixels.” explains Kazuhiro Tanaka, graphic designer on Metal Slug (1996). His colleague Yasuyuki Oda adds that “Back in the old days, we’d say [to our artists] “add 0.5 of a pixel”, and have them draw in the pixels by taking scanlines into account.

>But with the modern Full HD monitor, the pixels comes out too clearly and too perfectly that you can’t have that same taste.“

>Ayano Koshiro (Streets of Rage 2), Eiji Koyama (Galaxy Fight), Yoshinori Yamamoto (Marvel Vs Capcom) as well as some people who worked with Nobuyuki Kuroki at SNK said that they used this half pixel technique back in the day. Tatsuro Iwamoto, graphic designer on the first episodes of the Phoenix Wright / Gyakuten Saiban series released on Game Boy Advance, explained that he took account of that (sometimes unwanted) effect on Nintendo’s portable console.

>The Famicom version Wizardry (1987), a famous example to illustrate the differences in rendering between an old CRT (scanlines, blur, colors) and an HD monitor from nowadays. These sprites have been created on and with a certain kind of screen in mind

Here you retarded underage faggot.

Nice! Any more sources that discuss 20+ year old technical limitations that are no longer relevant? Please post more tumblr pasta, we all know what a reliable source of information that joint is.

They're clearly relevant to old games you dumbass.
And they're clearly relevant to the subject of upscaling.

The effect doesn't work on newer displays because newer displays can't display non-native resolutions properly.

Integer scaling blows, this is why displays don't use it and opt for other scaling methods/algorithms that don't look as shit.

nice, it really sucks that when all is considered (esp. burn in) IPS is still the best commercially available display hands down.

okay grandad you can keep your ancient CRT for your ancient games, take your heart medication and go back to sleep

Now it all comes down to how good these are at sensible resolutions like 1440p. Will it still be 4:4:4? Good refresh rate? HDR? Etc?

actually it's plasma or crt

What are the refresh rates on micro led?

I still have an old Samsung TV from 2003, should I switch now?

Attached: scp_demon.png (2000x2000, 1.29M)

Whatever you want
mLED is much like OLED without the downsides so it has the potential to have a MUCH higher refresh rate than LCDs