Eizo CG3145 - First LCD display with 1,000,000:1 static contrast

[Remilia]

http://www.eizoglobal.com/press/rele...ls/cg3145.html
Yay.

The LCD technology was first announced by Panasonic back in 2016 November.
http://news.panasonic.com/global/pre...n161128-4.html

Makes it the first LCD to not have to bother with array backlighting. Hopefully the technology will make it's way to more affordable models, even if it's lower resolution.

[Fascinate]

I remember reading that panasonic press release, so is the eizo a panasonic panel?

Surely there has to be downsides to this tech as with all panels, wonder what it is.

[Alantor]

Why is this better than OLED?

[Remilia]

I remember reading that panasonic press release, so is the eizo a panasonic panel?

Surely there has to be downsides to this tech as with all panels, wonder what it is.

It makes it bulkier due to the extra layer, ill suited for phones and stuff.

Why is this better than OLED?

Well, easier to list the downsides.
LCD problems are slower pixel transition, contrast, and motion clarity.
OLED problems are uneven color degradation (for RGB ones), viewing angle color shifts, burn ins, brightness and motion clarity.
Motion clarity as in perceived motion blur, which at the moment CRT is the master.

You could make an argument for OLED taking more power but it's not as bad as LCD vs Plasma and it's only really a big deal with mobile.

With this it eliminates the biggest weakness of LCDs which is the bad contrast without having to go with array backlight which can cause uneven brightness spots depending on scenes.

[DeltrusDisc]

So... how much will it cost? =X

[Artorius]

LCD problems are slower pixel transition, contrast, and motion clarity.
OLED problems are uneven color degradation (for RGB ones), viewing angle color shifts, burn ins, brightness and motion clarity.
Motion clarity as in perceived motion blur, which at the moment CRT is the master.

You could make an argument for OLED taking more power but it's not as bad as LCD vs Plasma and it's only really a big deal with mobile.

But mobile OLED displays nowadays need comparable power with bright GUIs and dramatically less power when you have black GUIs. LG also cheats the blue degradation problem by using white cells and color filters on top of them, and they cheat the maximum light output problem by using a 4th white subpixel for more light. We can't really do much about burn-ins other than the same old Plasma tricks (insert some invisible noise so the pixels are never really in a static state for example).

The motion resolution problem can be somewhat remedied on both with BFI but OLED obviously suffers more from this due to lower light output. Just give me my Plasmas back!

So... how much will it cost? =X

That's a mastering display, so you can expect at least 10K USD.

[Skalm]

Looking at their comparison pictures is hilarious.

I have not seen an LCD display in years that is washed out/gray instead of black...

This screams Marketing scam. Yeah it may have a good contrast ratio, but to put it next to an image that is basically in grayscale...come on.

[DeltrusDisc]

Looking at their comparison pictures is hilarious.

I have not seen an LCD display in years that is washed out/gray instead of black...

This screams Marketing scam. Yeah it may have a good contrast ratio, but to put it next to an image that is basically in grayscale...come on.

Fact of the matter is, we can't tell on our monitors that literally are the ones they're trying to replace, if they showed what it actually looks like, because your monitor wouldn't be able to replicate it.

[Skalm]

Fact of the matter is, we can't tell on our monitors that literally are the ones they're trying to replace, if they showed what it actually looks like, because your monitor wouldn't be able to replicate it.

So instead they show a grayscale image to represent our current monitor? Should I take that to mean that the black i see on my screen is actually gray and I am color blind?

It's marketing bs. Just like every other company does to push a product.

I'd bet you won't even see a noticeable difference between the screens unless you are doing a side by side benchmark comparison. Which wouldn't even be accurate anyway because it would not be an apples to apples comparison.

Just like going to Best Buy. They calibrate their expensive screens to look good, and the de-calibrate their cheaper screens to make them look like shit. Then they put them next to each other to show you the 'difference' in quality. When in reality, if they were both calibrated correctly, you would likely not even see a difference.

[Remilia]

So instead they show a grayscale image to represent our current monitor? Should I take that to mean that the black i see on my screen is actually gray and I am color blind?

It's marketing bs. Just like every other company does to push a product.

I'd bet you won't even see a noticeable difference between the screens unless you are doing a side by side benchmark comparison. Which wouldn't even be accurate anyway because it would not be an apples to apples comparison.

Just like going to Best Buy. They calibrate their expensive screens to look good, and the de-calibrate their cheaper screens to make them look like shit. Then they put them next to each other to show you the 'difference' in quality. When in reality, if they were both calibrated correctly, you would likely not even see a difference.

It's exaggerated the same as HDR images are exaggerated. Image quality it's the same as going with old LCD to OLED primarily because of contrast ratio.

I have an FG2421 with a 5000:1 static (both paper and in practice) contrast. Max brightness setting the black level is about 0.08cd/m2 with peak brightness about 400cd/m2. This however the black level is 0.0001cd/m2 and brightness 1000cd/m2.
Reality is you're not replicating it without exaggerating.

But mobile OLED displays nowadays need comparable power with bright GUIs and dramatically less power when you have black GUIs. LG also cheats the blue degradation problem by using white cells and color filters on top of them, and they cheat the maximum light output problem by using a 4th white subpixel for more light. We can't really do much about burn-ins other than the same old Plasma tricks (insert some invisible noise so the pixels are never really in a static state for example).

The motion resolution problem can be somewhat remedied on both with BFI but OLED obviously suffers more from this due to lower light output. Just give me my Plasmas back!

True. LG's WOLED is basically an LCD with OLED backlight.

No more plasmas, just like no more CLED.

[Artorius]

So instead they show a grayscale image to represent our current monitor? Should I take that to mean that the black i see on my screen is actually gray and I am color blind?

But it is grey. Nothing to do with being colorblind though.

Go to any decent TV store that lets you watch them in a fairly dark environment, watch 10 seconds of anything in an OLED TV then do the same on the best LCD set you can find there. You'll see how dramatic the difference is. And that has nothing to do with "OLED saturated colors", LCDs nowadays can get more saturated than OLEDs, it's simply because OLEDs offer infinite contrast ratios and contrast is the single most perceivable thing in image quality. And those expensive LCD TVs are all using VA panels that can go up to 7000:1, with FALD they can look even darker sometimes. Your average IPS/TN monitor can't really go that much higher than 1000:1. 1600:1 is what professional IPS monitors currently can get, and those are expensive.

[Fascinate]

But it is grey. Nothing to do with being colorblind though.

Go to any decent TV store that lets you watch them in a fairly dark environment, watch 10 seconds of anything in an OLED TV then do the same on the best LCD set you can find there. You'll see how dramatic the difference is. And that has nothing to do with "OLED saturated colors", LCDs nowadays can get more saturated than OLEDs, it's simply because OLEDs offer infinite contrast ratios and contrast is the single most perceivable thing in image quality. And those expensive LCD TVs are all using VA panels that can go up to 7000:1, with FALD they can look even darker sometimes. Your average IPS/TN monitor can't really go that much higher than 1000:1. 1600:1 is what professional IPS monitors currently can get, and those are expensive.

For tv's i agree contrast is king, but monitors? I dont know a single person who watches tv or movies on their monitor, i know they exist of course but its not something most people do. OLED is just too expensive still when you compare to vizio's P series imo, half the price gets you 90% of the experience.

[Remilia]

For tv's i agree contrast is king, but monitors? I dont know a single person who watches tv or movies on their monitor, i know they exist of course but its not something most people do. OLED is just too expensive still when you compare to vizio's P series imo, half the price gets you 90% of the experience.

I do!

For games you'd also see a difference. There's a noticeable black level difference between my FG2421 and U2414H and that's only 5x the difference, now exacerbate that by 1000x or 200x (for the FG2421). While yes there's diminishing return, human eyes perceive contrast quite well.

That said, this is Eizo CG series, which is the most expensive of their line, but it's great to see that the product isn't just press but actually a thing now. It'd probably be better to wait for other companies to pick up the same tech for lower price (reduced professional features of course).
Basically it slaps OLED in the face for desktop use due to less draw backs. Only non fixable issue atm is pixel response. Granted overdrive up the wazoo and then a black frame insert right after the spike will increase the pixel response and get rid of the overdrive artifact but it is only a work around really.

[Lathais]

But it is grey. Nothing to do with being colorblind though.

Yeah the thing that a lot of people can not understand, until they see the difference side-by-side, is that what they are seeing is grey. Your brain knows it's supposed to be black, so you see black, until you see real black right next to it.

[Fascinate]

Oh i dont disagree that deep blacks is great on monitors as well, i just think given the choice between a good contrast ratio or a high refresh rate most would pick the latter in regards to monitors. Not saying they cant be mutually exclusive, but if you had to pick kind of thing.

[Remilia]

Oh i dont disagree that deep blacks is great on monitors as well, i just think given the choice between a good contrast ratio or a high refresh rate most would pick the latter in regards to monitors. Not saying they cant be mutually exclusive, but if you had to pick kind of thing.

They're not mutually exclusive which is the great part, however I'd always prioritize image quality over refresh rate. This is a personal thing though, so it's up to people to decide.
We've seen a few number of people here asking for good blacks in monitor and a few number asking for high refresh rate.