Talk:Thin film transistor liquid crystal display

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Missing overdrive referring

TN panels in 2006-2007 usually include Overdrive functionality to increase response time (2-4ms vs. 8-16ms). This is not even mentioned in this article, not even here: [[1]]


The lowest response time to date is 15 ms overall for the ViewSonic 191b. Numbers in this article are just marketing repeats [2].

Is it really true, that TFT's use CRT technology (first phrase of the article)? Sounds a bit odd. Isn't CRT a competing technology?!

That's a bit like saying that to the apple, the orange represents a competing fruit technology -66.251.26.93 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.237.194 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more technical depth

This article needs much more technical depth. It currently looks like a consumer magzine article, and, as such, it contains mostly very time sensitive information. It talks, in qualitative terms about current limitations, but doesn't explain the engineering reasons behind them.

An article that concentrated on the engineering wouldn't date anything like as quickly. --David Woolley 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope someone knowledgeable on the subject could add a lot of missing information; comparison to CRTs, discussion of limitations, refresh rates, types of interpolations used for non-native resolutions, temporary over- and under-voltaging to achieve faster pixel transitions, standards used in measuring viewing angle and reponse time, future directions... ++Ehudshapira 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It would also be good to see how LCD screens compare in terms of power consumption with their CRT equivalents. User:DafDaf 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redone Pic

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l52/TheKittenKiller/TFTLCDdisplay.jpg

i photoshop'd it cuz i was bored. feel free to use it and replace it with the image already in use in the main page. Its the same one but with the desk and everything scrapped becuase i think it lets everyone focus on the main subject better and does away with any distractions. KittenKiller

Hi,
I’m the author of the original photo. I’ve just seen the new cropped-version, and I think the only objection of mine to it is the “feathering” of the borders, which could be a little less than the current version.--MaGioZal 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with this sentence

"There is no or minor effect on the eyes, if we use TFT-LCD monitors." Does this really belong in the introduction paragraph? It seems kind of out of place to me, especially as a single sentence paragraph. Also, the use of "we" is improper for an encyclopedic article. -70.74.135.191 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification please

"the pixels are addressed in rows and columns which reduce the connection count from millions to thousands. If all the pixels in one row are driven with a positive voltage and all the pixels in one column are driven with a negative voltage, then the pixel at the intersection has the largest applied voltage and is switched. The problem with this solution is that all the pixels in the same column see a fraction of the applied voltage as do all the pixels in the same row, so although they are not switched completely, they do tend to darken. The solution to the problem is to supply each pixel with its own transistor switch which allows each pixel to be individually controlled."

This extract does not satisfactorily explain how the addressing of an individual pixel can be achieved without seriously interfering with other pixels. Each pixel has its own transistor switch, but how is that switch itself addressed individually? In the extract the problem is merely deferred, not solved. Also, if a particular row experiences a positive voltage and a particular column experiences a negative voltage, then the pixel at their intersection is at zero voltage. Could an expert rewrite this section please? - AG, Stockport, UK.

[edit] FFS?

I remember seeing a section about FFS(Fringe Field Switching) along with other technologies like TN, IPS and MVA/PVA. But it's gone and I can't find it in the history. What happened? 1wonjae 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toxicity

Saying LC's are poisonous may be a gross oversimplification. While it's probably a good general policy to clean up any LC material from your skin; it might be alarmist to say that LC's are entirely poisonous. Here's one article from Merck that shows that most of the LC's that they have tested are non-toxic: http://www.merck.de/servlet/PB/menu/1119540/index.html 64.25.15.162 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile phones

What about TFT displays in mobile phones? This would be nice to add at least few sentences aout this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varciasz (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TN Panel Section Biased

The section on TN panels seems quite negatively biased against the technology. I agree that more technical depth needs to be added to the article as a whole, but certainly the TN panel section needs a reworking entirely. It merely lists the failings of the technology, and none of the strengths.

"These panels can display interpolated 24-bit color using a dithering method which combines adjacent pixels to simulate the desired shade. They can also use FRC (Frame Rate Control), which quickly cycles pixels over time to simulate a given shade. These color simulation methods are noticeable to most people and bothersome to some"

This particular excerpt is outdated, as many TN panels employ much more advanced and complex dithering methods now to produce a much better colour gamut.

I would update the section myself, but I feel my expertise on the subject are a little lacking, and my input would therefore be too inaccurate for an online encyclopedia such as this.

  • I don't see why the first paragraph in the TN section was deleted (May 8)... I'm restoring it, if only for the part that says what TN is and links to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.59.173 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)