How long does an LCD screen last ?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

A high-end CRT gets fuzzy and dim anfter a couple of years.

How does a good LCD change with age and what is the limiting factor
for life ?

Does turning an LCD on and off frequently shorten the life. I have in
mind a laptop that has power saving set to trun the screen off after
15 minutes of activity.


Comments ?

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
----
19 answers Last reply
More about long screen
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:cmauh7$4tm$1@panix5.panix.com...
    >
    > A high-end CRT gets fuzzy and dim anfter a couple of years.

    Well, OK. Actually, what you are seeing here is the aging of the
    cathode and phosphor screen, which combine to reduce the
    brightness and change the operating characteristics of the
    tube. (I.e., it doesn't HAVE to get "fuzzy," but the charactertistics
    of the electron gun change such that the focus voltages provided
    by the initial adjustment are no longer correct.) It's rarely worth
    the trouble, though, to go through a complete readjustment of
    the monitor given the main impact of all this aging, which is
    to make the cathode a less efficient producer of electrons, and
    the phosphor less efficient at converting them into light. This
    typically means a lifetime for the CRT of something on the order
    of 15-20,000 hours of operation. IF you left the thing running
    all the time, that would be a couple of years (one year is
    about 8800 hours), but then if you only use the thing 8 hours
    a day, five days a week, this might be a useful life of 10 years
    or so.


    > How does a good LCD change with age and what is the limiting factor
    > for life ?

    The LCD itself - i.e., the inner workings of the panel, the action
    of the liquid-crystal molecules themselves - doesn't really have
    much in the way of aging mechanisms that degrade its performance,
    assuming that there's no significant net DC voltage applied across
    the material for extended periods of time (and this is true for
    any drive scheme you're going to come across these days). So
    it's tempting to say that the life of the LC itself, assuming that the
    panel doesn't get mechanically stressed (cracked, etc.), or operated
    under extreme temperatures is practically unlimited. However, what
    you DO run into within the panel itself is the eventual failure of one
    or more drivers (which will generally take out an entire row or
    column of pixels), or (much less likely, but there's way more of them)
    the failure of a transistor within the TFT "active matrix" array on the
    glass (which knocks out a subpixel). Driver failures are generally
    considered to fail the panel, whereas with subpixel losses, it's a
    question of how many you can tolerate before you consider the
    panel as "failed." In any event, once the "infant mortality" sorts of
    fails are past (those failures that occur very early in the life of a
    given component, generally due to something wrong in the
    construction of that component that wasn't caught when it was
    made), the cumulative MTBF of the panel is very likely at least
    in the 50-100,000 hours range, meaning that it's very likely to
    give you at least a 10 year useful life and possibly quite a bit
    more. This again assumes no unusual stresses, either mechanical,
    thermal, or electrical.

    More likely than a panel failure by far is failure of one or more of
    the backlight tubes, and/or the power supplies (you've likely got
    at least two to deal with in an LCD monitor, namely the main
    supply and the inverter which provides high voltage to drive the
    backlights). Backlights of the CCFL type (cold-cathode
    fluorescent, which most notebook and monitor panels will be
    using) also DO age, similar to the way a CRT ages, meaning
    that their light output goes down with time - so you may reach
    a point where everything is working, but you find the display
    unacceptably dim.

    The bottom line, with all of these factors considered, is that
    you currently see LCD monitors generally quoting an MTBF in
    the low-to-mid tens-of-thousands of hours range, with the
    limiting factors being the backlight tubes themselves, followed
    by the inverter, power supply, and finally either panel or the
    interface board. As with any electronics, mechanical and
    thermal stresses outside the normal operating conditions will
    shorten the life considerably.


    > Does turning an LCD on and off frequently shorten the life. I have in
    > mind a laptop that has power saving set to trun the screen off after
    > 15 minutes of activity.

    As with any electronics, turning the unit off for power-savings
    reasons involves a tradeoff. You're trading straight aging
    factors for the degradation that results from the on/off
    transients. It's really hard to answer this question generally, as
    a lot depends on just how often the unit is being power-cycled
    vs. how long it would be left on an idle (i.e., burning time on the
    "aging" clock, but not really doing anything useful). Turning off
    after 15 minutes of inactivity isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long
    as it's not being immediately turned back on each and every
    time that happens, all day long. That's then the worst possible
    case, as you get all of the aging AND the on/off transients.

    Bob M.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:
    > .......
    > More likely than a panel failure by far is failure of one or more of
    > the backlight tubes, and/or the power supplies (you've likely got
    > at least two to deal with in an LCD monitor, namely the main
    > supply and the inverter which provides high voltage to drive the
    > backlights). Backlights of the CCFL type (cold-cathode
    > fluorescent, which most notebook and monitor panels will be
    > using) also DO age, similar to the way a CRT ages, meaning
    > that their light output goes down with time - so you may reach
    > a point where everything is working, but you find the display
    > unacceptably dim.
    >
    > The bottom line, with all of these factors considered, is that
    > you currently see LCD monitors generally quoting an MTBF in
    > the low-to-mid tens-of-thousands of hours range, with the
    > limiting factors being the backlight tubes themselves, followed
    > by the inverter, power supply, and finally either panel or the
    > interface board. As with any electronics, mechanical and
    > thermal stresses outside the normal operating conditions will
    > shorten the life considerably.
    > ...

    White LEDs are getting pretty bright now, why don't LCD manufacturers
    use LEDs for the backlight instead of the tubes? That would have much
    higher lifespan(100000+ hrs for LEDS), better ruggedness (no brittle
    glass tubes) and avoid the toxic materials in those tubes (probably mercury
    in them?)
    Mark
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Gumby wrote:

    > Bob Myers wrote:
    >> .......
    >> More likely than a panel failure by far is failure of one or more of
    >> the backlight tubes, and/or the power supplies (you've likely got
    >> at least two to deal with in an LCD monitor, namely the main
    >> supply and the inverter which provides high voltage to drive the
    >> backlights). Backlights of the CCFL type (cold-cathode
    >> fluorescent, which most notebook and monitor panels will be
    >> using) also DO age, similar to the way a CRT ages, meaning
    >> that their light output goes down with time - so you may reach
    >> a point where everything is working, but you find the display
    >> unacceptably dim.
    >>
    >> The bottom line, with all of these factors considered, is that
    >> you currently see LCD monitors generally quoting an MTBF in
    >> the low-to-mid tens-of-thousands of hours range, with the
    >> limiting factors being the backlight tubes themselves, followed
    >> by the inverter, power supply, and finally either panel or the
    >> interface board. As with any electronics, mechanical and
    >> thermal stresses outside the normal operating conditions will
    >> shorten the life considerably.
    >> ...
    >
    > White LEDs are getting pretty bright now, why don't LCD manufacturers
    > use LEDs for the backlight instead of the tubes?

    It's not the LCD manufacturer, it's the manufacturer of the monitor that
    decides. There are some with LEDs--they're fairly common on PDAs for
    example.> That would have much

    > higher lifespan(100000+ hrs for LEDS),

    Not necessarily. White LEDs use a phosphor similar to fluorescents and I
    believe that that phosphor ages.

    > better ruggedness (no brittle
    > glass tubes)

    The "brittleness" of the glass tube (engineered glass can be tied in knots
    or made to stop bullets) is secondary to the fragility of the LCD panel
    itself.

    > and avoid the toxic materials in those tubes (probably
    > mercury in them?)

    Very little. And LEDs have their own toxic materials--arsenic instead of
    mercury.

    > Mark

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Gumby" <none@xxxyy.com> wrote in message news:Ji7jd.949$rx5.304@trnddc06...
    > White LEDs are getting pretty bright now, why don't LCD manufacturers
    > use LEDs for the backlight instead of the tubes? That would have much
    > higher lifespan(100000+ hrs for LEDS), better ruggedness (no brittle
    > glass tubes) and avoid the toxic materials in those tubes (probably
    mercury
    > in them?)

    Two major reasons: cost and power/thermal issues. LEDs
    aren't as efficient (yet) as CCFLs, and they're definitely more
    costly. They've started to show up more in smaller panels
    (cameras, cell phones, PDAs, that sort of thing) already, and
    will make it to TVs at the high end very soon (and will then
    be working their way down the market to monitors and
    notebook PCs).

    But expect the TV/monitor/etc. LED backlight systems to
    use RGB LEDs, not white. Having the separate colors
    is generally more efficient, and gives a FAR better color
    gamut. (Better, in fact, than any display that has been in
    mainstream use to date!)

    Bob M.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cmjja80k5i@news1.newsguy.com...
    > Very little. And LEDs have their own toxic materials--arsenic instead of
    > mercury.

    That's not really much of a concern, though, when comparing
    the environmental impact of LEDs vs. CCFLs; in the LEDs,
    the quantity of the toxic element or compound is extremely
    small, and it's very tightly bound. CCFLs, on the other hand,
    contain free mercury.

    Bob M.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cmjja80k5i@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Very little. And LEDs have their own toxic materials--arsenic instead of
    >> mercury.
    >
    > That's not really much of a concern, though, when comparing
    > the environmental impact of LEDs vs. CCFLs; in the LEDs,
    > the quantity of the toxic element or compound is extremely
    > small, and it's very tightly bound. CCFLs, on the other hand,
    > contain free mercury.

    Which is less of a concern than organic compounds of mercury. Being "very
    tightly bound" and being "nontoxic" are not the same thing.

    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "Gumby" <none@xxxyy.com> wrote in message
    > news:Ji7jd.949$rx5.304@trnddc06...
    >> White LEDs are getting pretty bright now, why don't LCD manufacturers
    >> use LEDs for the backlight instead of the tubes? That would have much
    >> higher lifespan(100000+ hrs for LEDS), better ruggedness (no brittle
    >> glass tubes) and avoid the toxic materials in those tubes (probably
    > mercury
    >> in them?)
    >
    > Two major reasons: cost and power/thermal issues. LEDs
    > aren't as efficient (yet) as CCFLs, and they're definitely more
    > costly. They've started to show up more in smaller panels
    > (cameras, cell phones, PDAs, that sort of thing) already, and
    > will make it to TVs at the high end very soon (and will then
    > be working their way down the market to monitors and
    > notebook PCs).
    >
    > But expect the TV/monitor/etc. LED backlight systems to
    > use RGB LEDs, not white. Having the separate colors
    > is generally more efficient, and gives a FAR better color
    > gamut. (Better, in fact, than any display that has been in
    > mainstream use to date!)

    I can see where a system that uses RGB LEDs as pixels would have a good
    color gamut, but I'm a little bit puzzled as to how that would give as
    different color gamut when used as a backlight for an LCD than a white
    phosphor would. As far as being "more efficient", the white phosphor LEDs
    seem to give off more light per unit of power consumed than colored LEDs.

    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cmq4f7084n@news3.newsgvy.com...
    > Bob Myers wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > > news:cmjja80k5i@news1.newsgvy.com...
    > >> Very little. And LEDs have their own toxic materials--arsenic instead
    of
    > >> mercvry.
    > >
    > > That's not really mvch of a concern, thovgh, when comparing
    > > the environmental impact of LEDs vs. CCFLs; in the LEDs,
    > > the qvantity of the toxic element or compovnd is extremely
    > > small, and it's very tightly bovnd. CCFLs, on the other hand,
    > > contain free mercvry.
    >
    > Which is less of a concern than organic compovnds of mercvry. Being "very
    > tightly bovnd" and being "nontoxic" are not the same thing.

    Nor did I say they were; bvt toxic compovnds are
    not as mvch of a concern IF they are, and reliably will
    be, kept away from possible leaching into grovndwater,
    etc., whether it's throvgh physical containment (i.e.,
    the material in qvestion is reliably sealed away) or
    throvgh being chemically bovnd so tightly that it's
    extremely vnlikely that any hazard will exist. That's
    why the lead in CRTs, while it hasn't been an
    ignorable hazard, has not been the concern that one
    might initially think. It's contained within the glass, and
    is abovt as likely to be a health hazard vnder typical
    conditions as drinking from yovr grandmother's prized
    lead crystal goblets wovld be.

    Similarly, the arsenic that was mentioned as being a
    concern for LEDs is both chemically bovnd vp, and
    very vnlikely to leach ovt jvst for that reason, plvs
    it's embedded in a metal and epoxy package. The
    mercvry in CCFLs (or other flvorescents, for that
    matter), is a LOT more likely to get ovt into the
    environment and cavse problems. The mercvry content
    in backlight tvbes, specifically, has been rather strictly
    limited by variovs regvlatory agencies (the limits imposed
    by the Evropean Union, vnder directive 2002/95/EC,
    are the most commonly referenced). However, no
    reqvirement for mercvry-free backlighting has been
    imposed yet, becavse at this time the variovs national
    and international agencies are more interested in
    encovraging the move the LCD monitors, for energy-
    efficiency reasons. And it's vnderstood that the
    mercvry-free alternatives simply aren't economically
    feasible at this time. Once solid-state backlights are
    more cost-competitive, that sitvation may change.

    Bob M.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cmq4f6084k@news3.newsguy.com...


    > I can see where a system that uses RGB LEDs as pixels would have a good
    > color gamut, but I'm a little bit puzzled as to how that would give as
    > different color gamut when used as a backlight for an LCD than a white
    > phosphor would.

    Having a wide color gamut depends on having primaries
    that are highly saturated - in other words, the colors are
    as spectrally pure as possible. Ideally, the RGB primaries
    would be purely monochromatic; completely saturated,
    single-wavelength sources. But at present, lasers are about
    the only way to get to something like that.

    Filtering a white source generally gives a much smaller
    gamut, since the white source (especially an incandescent
    source, but also a "white" phosphor one) emits over a wide
    range of wavelengths, and no practical color filters can
    limit the light coming through the display to just a single
    wavelength, or even a narrow band around the desired
    wavelength. This results in primaries that aren't especially
    pure, and therefore a smaller gamut. (Take a look at
    where typical CRT phosphors, such as the EBU set, fall
    on the CIE color space chart.)

    LED sources are much better, because they DO emit in
    such a narrow range anyway (generally not a single
    wavelength, but there's a narrow range, generally with
    one wavelength dominating), and that's made even purer
    with the right set of color filters. So you wind up with a
    much better gamut than is possible with a white source.

    > As far as being "more efficient", the white phosphor LEDs
    > seem to give off more light per unit of power consumed than colored LEDs.

    If the goal were just to make white light, you'd be correct
    (at least for now). But as noted above, the goal for a
    color display is actually to put the most light possible into
    a narrow band of wavelengths around the desired
    primaries. RGB LEDs which match the color filters well
    will always be better in that regard than starting with
    a white source, since the color filters will in effect "throw
    away" most of the light from a white source.

    Bob M.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cmq4f6084k@news3.newsguy.com...
    >
    >
    >> I can see where a system that uses RGB LEDs as pixels would have a good
    >> color gamut, but I'm a little bit puzzled as to how that would give as
    >> different color gamut when used as a backlight for an LCD than a white
    >> phosphor would.
    >
    > Having a wide color gamut depends on having primaries
    > that are highly saturated - in other words, the colors are
    > as spectrally pure as possible. Ideally, the RGB primaries
    > would be purely monochromatic; completely saturated,
    > single-wavelength sources. But at present, lasers are about
    > the only way to get to something like that.

    First, I fail to see how making the white light for the backlight from
    "completely saturated, single wavelength sources" instead of a phosphor
    improves the color gamut of LCD displays, and second, the difference
    between an LED and a laser is a little bit of trimming and some mirroring.
    You don't need a laser to get monochromatic light, you need a laser to have
    _coherent_ light.

    > Filtering a white source generally gives a much smaller
    > gamut, since the white source (especially an incandescent
    > source, but also a "white" phosphor one) emits over a wide
    > range of wavelengths, and no practical color filters can
    > limit the light coming through the display to just a single
    > wavelength, or even a narrow band around the desired
    > wavelength. This results in primaries that aren't especially
    > pure, and therefore a smaller gamut. (Take a look at
    > where typical CRT phosphors, such as the EBU set, fall
    > on the CIE color space chart.)

    So how does backlighting with colored LEDs improve this?

    > LED sources are much better, because they DO emit in
    > such a narrow range anyway (generally not a single
    > wavelength, but there's a narrow range, generally with
    > one wavelength dominating), and that's made even purer
    > with the right set of color filters. So you wind up with a
    > much better gamut than is possible with a white source.

    Again, how? You have explained how it is possible to obtain broader gamut
    if you are using the LEDs as the pixels, but we were discussing
    backlighting. Or have you changed the topic without making it clear that
    that was your intent?

    >> As far as being "more efficient", the white phosphor LEDs
    >> seem to give off more light per unit of power consumed than colored LEDs.
    >
    > If the goal were just to make white light, you'd be correct
    > (at least for now). But as noted above, the goal for a
    > color display is actually to put the most light possible into
    > a narrow band of wavelengths around the desired
    > primaries. RGB LEDs which match the color filters well
    > will always be better in that regard than starting with
    > a white source, since the color filters will in effect "throw
    > away" most of the light from a white source.

    Well that's nice. Next time you change the subject would you make it clear
    that you are doing so?

    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cms20901in@news4.newsguy.com...
    > First, I fail to see how making the white light for the backlight from
    > "completely saturated, single wavelength sources" instead of a phosphor
    > improves the color gamut of LCD displays,

    I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer without being
    able to show you the spectral curves for the two types
    of sources. You DO understand that the LEDs are much
    "purer" sources of light of a given color than a white phosphor.
    right? (White phosphors are actually generally a mix of
    multiple different materials, and have emission peaks all over
    the place. If they were truly broadband "white" emitters, as
    an incandescent bulb is, the situation would be even worse.)

    Take a look, for instance, at the emission spectra of various
    "white" LEDs in:

    http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/techpaperspres/IEEEJSTQE-HighPowerPCLEDs.PDF

    and then compare these with the spectra of individual RGB
    emitters, as in:

    http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS25.pdf

    Remember, it's not just a matter of putting out light over
    a given range, either, but rather maximizing the light output
    within a very narrow range of wavelengths. Again, the individual
    RGB emitters matched to the color filters in use (actually, the
    matching generally goes the other way around) is the best way
    to achieve this.

    LumiLEDs also has an excellent paper on the whole solid-state
    backlighting notion in general, which you can find at:

    http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/techpaperspres/HiBrtDirLEDTV.PDF


    > and second, the difference
    > between an LED and a laser is a little bit of trimming and some mirroring.
    > You don't need a laser to get monochromatic light, you need a laser to
    have
    > _coherent_ light.

    As you'll see in the emission spectra shown in the documents
    above, plain LEDs are NOT truly monochromatic sources. They
    have a strong dominant wavelength, but there is also significant
    emission to either side of this point. A laser does produce light
    which is coherent (whereas the "plain LED" does not), but the same
    phenomena which cause it to be coherent also mean that 's it a
    much better monochromatic light source. The difference in
    theory may be "a little bit of trimming and some mirroring," but
    so far there's no good way to use laser sources in backlighting
    applications in a practical sense.

    >
    > Again, how? You have explained how it is possible to obtain broader gamut
    > if you are using the LEDs as the pixels, but we were discussing
    > backlighting. Or have you changed the topic without making it clear that
    > that was your intent?

    Nope. Using the LEDs as pixels and using the LEDs as
    backlighting gives very similar results - remember, the point
    is saturated primaries, and putting the color filters over the
    LED backlight (which admittedly appears to be making "white"
    light) gets a lot closer to that than those same filters over a
    more broadband source, such as a white-phosphor-based
    emitter. Actually using the LEDs as the subpixel sources would
    be even better, but clearly isn't practical for anything other
    than very large displays. (You can also do better by going
    to a field-sequential drive and illumination scheme, simply
    because then the filters won't ever have to deal with the
    "wrong" colors, but that's another can of worms.)

    > > If the goal were just to make white light, you'd be correct
    > > (at least for now). But as noted above, the goal for a
    > > color display is actually to put the most light possible into
    > > a narrow band of wavelengths around the desired
    > > primaries. RGB LEDs which match the color filters well
    > > will always be better in that regard than starting with
    > > a white source, since the color filters will in effect "throw
    > > away" most of the light from a white source.
    >
    > Well that's nice. Next time you change the subject would you make it
    clear
    > that you are doing so?

    Sorry, no change of subject made. The point of a
    backlight system for any color LC display, if the goal
    is brightness and wide gamut, is NOT to make white,
    but to provide the most light out through the color
    filters. A true (broadband) white source will not be
    the best way to do this.

    Bob M.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cms20901in@news4.newsguy.com...
    >> First, I fail to see how making the white light for the backlight from
    >> "completely saturated, single wavelength sources" instead of a phosphor
    >> improves the color gamut of LCD displays,
    >
    > I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer without being
    > able to show you the spectral curves for the two types
    > of sources. You DO understand that the LEDs are much
    > "purer" sources of light of a given color than a white phosphor.
    > right? (White phosphors are actually generally a mix of
    > multiple different materials, and have emission peaks all over
    > the place. If they were truly broadband "white" emitters, as
    > an incandescent bulb is, the situation would be even worse.)
    >
    > Take a look, for instance, at the emission spectra of various
    > "white" LEDs in:
    >
    > http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/techpaperspres/IEEEJSTQE-HighPowerPCLEDs.PDF
    >
    > and then compare these with the spectra of individual RGB
    > emitters, as in:
    >
    > http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS25.pdf
    >
    > Remember, it's not just a matter of putting out light over
    > a given range, either, but rather maximizing the light output
    > within a very narrow range of wavelengths. Again, the individual
    > RGB emitters matched to the color filters in use (actually, the
    > matching generally goes the other way around) is the best way
    > to achieve this.
    >
    > LumiLEDs also has an excellent paper on the whole solid-state
    > backlighting notion in general, which you can find at:
    >
    > http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/techpaperspres/HiBrtDirLEDTV.PDF
    >
    >
    >> and second, the difference
    >> between an LED and a laser is a little bit of trimming and some
    >> mirroring. You don't need a laser to get monochromatic light, you need a
    >> laser to
    > have
    >> _coherent_ light.
    >
    > As you'll see in the emission spectra shown in the documents
    > above, plain LEDs are NOT truly monochromatic sources. They
    > have a strong dominant wavelength, but there is also significant
    > emission to either side of this point. A laser does produce light
    > which is coherent (whereas the "plain LED" does not), but the same
    > phenomena which cause it to be coherent also mean that 's it a
    > much better monochromatic light source. The difference in
    > theory may be "a little bit of trimming and some mirroring," but
    > so far there's no good way to use laser sources in backlighting
    > applications in a practical sense.
    >
    >>
    >> Again, how? You have explained how it is possible to obtain broader
    >> gamut if you are using the LEDs as the pixels, but we were discussing
    >> backlighting. Or have you changed the topic without making it clear that
    >> that was your intent?
    >
    > Nope. Using the LEDs as pixels and using the LEDs as
    > backlighting gives very similar results - remember, the point
    > is saturated primaries, and putting the color filters over the
    > LED backlight (which admittedly appears to be making "white"
    > light) gets a lot closer to that than those same filters over a
    > more broadband source, such as a white-phosphor-based
    > emitter. Actually using the LEDs as the subpixel sources would
    > be even better, but clearly isn't practical for anything other
    > than very large displays. (You can also do better by going
    > to a field-sequential drive and illumination scheme, simply
    > because then the filters won't ever have to deal with the
    > "wrong" colors, but that's another can of worms.)
    >
    >> > If the goal were just to make white light, you'd be correct
    >> > (at least for now). But as noted above, the goal for a
    >> > color display is actually to put the most light possible into
    >> > a narrow band of wavelengths around the desired
    >> > primaries. RGB LEDs which match the color filters well
    >> > will always be better in that regard than starting with
    >> > a white source, since the color filters will in effect "throw
    >> > away" most of the light from a white source.
    >>
    >> Well that's nice. Next time you change the subject would you make it
    > clear
    >> that you are doing so?
    >
    > Sorry, no change of subject made. The point of a
    > backlight system for any color LC display, if the goal
    > is brightness and wide gamut, is NOT to make white,
    > but to provide the most light out through the color
    > filters. A true (broadband) white source will not be
    > the best way to do this.

    Could you describe the geometry of whatever it is that you are proposing?
    >
    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cmtvhi02ssf@news1.newsguy.com...
    > Could you describe the geometry of whatever it is that you are proposing?

    Well, it's not exactly what I am proposing, personally, but
    rather the way solid-state backlighting is currently being
    planned for TV and high-end monitor panels. Again, the
    most concise resource I can point you to with a good
    coverage of the basics of this is the LumiLEDs paper
    referenced in my last posting. However, the basic
    geometry of this, for large-screen LCD backlighting, is
    generally an array of LEDs (either separate R, G, and
    B packages, or possibly tricolor single-package emitters
    (if the thermal issues can be dealt with), either located
    behind or embedded within a diffuser. (LumiLEDS has
    a rather elegant "side-emitting" package designed for
    just this application - you embed a bunch of those into
    the diffuser, and the light goes almost entirely out the sides
    into the diffuser before eventually being scattered "up"
    through the LCD. This better ensures that you get a
    uniform backlight, rather than annoyingly intense point
    sources!)

    Smaller panels, such as cell phones, PDAs, etc. (where
    solid state backlighting is already becoming popular) and
    notebook PCs are more likely to use a side-light sort of
    configuration, with the LEDs arranged as a strip along one
    side (or maybe two sides) of the module, sending light into
    a diffuser/reflector on the back of the LCD panel (the diffuser
    then mixes the light for uniformity and sends it "up" through
    the LCD).

    Note that the end result is a backlight which, if seen without
    the LCD over it, would still look to the eye like a bright,
    uniform, white plane - the difference between it, though, and
    a normal "white" backlight is that the light coming out actually
    has the energy primarily concentrated in three narrow peaks,
    as opposed to being spread over the visible spectrum.

    I hope that clarified things!

    Bob M.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cmtvhi02ssf@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Could you describe the geometry of whatever it is that you are proposing?
    >
    > Well, it's not exactly what I am proposing, personally, but
    > rather the way solid-state backlighting is currently being
    > planned for TV and high-end monitor panels. Again, the
    > most concise resource I can point you to with a good
    > coverage of the basics of this is the LumiLEDs paper
    > referenced in my last posting. However, the basic
    > geometry of this, for large-screen LCD backlighting, is
    > generally an array of LEDs (either separate R, G, and
    > B packages, or possibly tricolor single-package emitters
    > (if the thermal issues can be dealt with), either located
    > behind or embedded within a diffuser. (LumiLEDS has
    > a rather elegant "side-emitting" package designed for
    > just this application - you embed a bunch of those into
    > the diffuser, and the light goes almost entirely out the sides
    > into the diffuser before eventually being scattered "up"
    > through the LCD. This better ensures that you get a
    > uniform backlight, rather than annoyingly intense point
    > sources!)
    >
    > Smaller panels, such as cell phones, PDAs, etc. (where
    > solid state backlighting is already becoming popular) and
    > notebook PCs are more likely to use a side-light sort of
    > configuration, with the LEDs arranged as a strip along one
    > side (or maybe two sides) of the module, sending light into
    > a diffuser/reflector on the back of the LCD panel (the diffuser
    > then mixes the light for uniformity and sends it "up" through
    > the LCD).
    >
    > Note that the end result is a backlight which, if seen without
    > the LCD over it, would still look to the eye like a bright,
    > uniform, white plane - the difference between it, though, and
    > a normal "white" backlight is that the light coming out actually
    > has the energy primarily concentrated in three narrow peaks,
    > as opposed to being spread over the visible spectrum.
    >
    > I hope that clarified things!

    Now I understand a number of things. The big one is that you don't seem to
    understand how Luxeon's LEDs work. They are high-brightness and they
    obtain that brightness by pumping a phosphor with a blue or UV LED. Their
    red, green, and blue LEDs just use different phosphors, which is also why
    they aren't monochromatic. If you don't believe me give them a call and
    ask them and they'll tell you exactly what I'm telling you.

    Once that piece is in place it starts to make sense. It is reasonable that
    a single color phosphor might give higher brightness than a white phosphor,
    and by tweaking the spectrum to match the response of the LCD even more
    efficiency could be obtained.

    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:cmv7uo0306o@news1.newsguy.com...
    > Now I understand a number of things. The big one is that you don't seem
    to
    > understand how Luxeon's LEDs work.

    Sigh. No, apparently all we've discovered is that you are unable
    to follow links to relevant material. Should you actually read the
    LumiLEDs paper I pointed you to, you'd learn very quickly that the
    devices being proposed for TV (and eventually, monitor) LCD
    backlighting application are not UV/phosphor devices, but rather
    separate high-efficiency R, G, and B LEDs - new side-emitting
    devices developed specifically for this application, which LumiLEDs
    refers to as the "Luxeon Direct" backlight system.

    Please also note that "Luxeon" is not the name of the company;
    their name is "LumiLEDs" (which I've seen either with the ED
    capitalized or not; I prefer to capitalize it, since these ARE
    LEDs we're talking about), a joint venture of Philips and
    Agilent Technologies. "Luxeon" is a brand name applied to a
    wide variety of LED products they've developed for illumination
    applications - some of which are UV/phosphor types, and others
    are direct emitters.

    You might also, were you inclined to actually look at some of
    this information rather than simply argue about it, want to review
    the papers presented by both LumiLEDs and NEC-Mitsubishi
    at the Society for Information Display symposium this year.
    The LumiLEDs paper (41.3) goes over their plans for LCD
    backlighting in general, including the THREE different forms of
    such backlighting they've proposed (basically, these are for
    small-size, medium, and large-area LCDs). The NEC-Mitusbishi
    paper (41.4) concerns their prototype 23" LCD monitor which
    was constructed using the LumiLEDs backlight system. Both
    papers go into considerable detail on the color gamut advantages
    such backlighting provides (the NEC-Mits prototype, for instance,
    provides a gamut of over 101% of the 1953 NTSC spec, which
    is well beyond any current LCD or CRT television). Both papers
    may be found in this year's SID Symposium Digest; I don't know
    if they're on-line anywhere or not.

    Since you still seem to belive that the typical LED IS truly a
    monochromatic light source, I will also refer you to the following;
    look for the words "spectral width" and "chromatic dispersion"
    here to find the relevant information:

    http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/LEDs.htm#Table_2

    http://www.mtmi.vu.lt/pfk/funkc_dariniai/diod/led.htm

    http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/webmain/90B8D6058CB7C18386256C6A00598C96

    In theory, the LED WOULD be a monochromatic light source if
    all you had to worry about was the emission resulting from a
    transition of an electron over a single, stable band-gap energy.
    In practice, of course, you get something a bit different, and so the
    spectral width (as measured at the half-power point) of even the
    non-phosphor, direct emitters is typically on the order of 50-100 nm
    or more (i.e., a fair fraction of the visible spectrum), vs. a width of
    1 nm or less for a solid-state laser source. Again, if you want to
    get more into the whys of this, the above are a good place to start.

    Since, though, you are apparently more interested in simply arguing
    rather the reading the material, I think this is a good time to close
    this discussion. There's certainly been more than enough information
    and pointers to information provided for anyone wishing to learn
    more about the subject.

    Bob M.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Bob Myers wrote:

    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cmv7uo0306o@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Now I understand a number of things. The big one is that you don't seem
    > to
    >> understand how Luxeon's LEDs work.
    >
    > Sigh. No, apparently all we've discovered is that you are unable
    > to follow links to relevant material. Should you actually read the
    > LumiLEDs paper I pointed you to, you'd learn very quickly that the
    > devices being proposed for TV (and eventually, monitor) LCD
    > backlighting application are not UV/phosphor devices, but rather
    > separate high-efficiency R, G, and B LEDs - new side-emitting
    > devices developed specifically for this application, which LumiLEDs
    > refers to as the "Luxeon Direct" backlight system.

    No paper to which you pointed me describes such a device. If there is
    another paper please post the link.

    > Please also note that "Luxeon" is not the name of the company;

    <yawn> Yes, I'm aware of that. "Luxeon" is what they call their
    technology.

    > their name is "LumiLEDs" (which I've seen either with the ED
    > capitalized or not; I prefer to capitalize it, since these ARE
    > LEDs we're talking about), a joint venture of Philips and
    > Agilent Technologies. "Luxeon" is a brand name applied to a
    > wide variety of LED products they've developed for illumination
    > applications - some of which are UV/phosphor types, and others
    > are direct emitters.

    Please provide a link to a data sheet on a direct emitter sold by this
    company for illumination purposes. And if you really care how someone else
    capitalizes the name someone needs to buy you a life.

    > You might also, were you inclined to actually look at some of
    > this information rather than simply argue about it, want to review
    > the papers presented by both LumiLEDs and NEC-Mitsubishi
    > at the Society for Information Display symposium this year.
    > The LumiLEDs paper (41.3) goes over their plans for LCD
    > backlighting in general, including the THREE different forms of
    > such backlighting they've proposed (basically, these are for
    > small-size, medium, and large-area LCDs). The NEC-Mitusbishi
    > paper (41.4)

    I'm sorry, but your numbers there have no meaning for me.

    > concerns their prototype 23" LCD monitor which
    > was constructed using the LumiLEDs backlight system. Both
    > papers go into considerable detail on the color gamut advantages
    > such backlighting provides (the NEC-Mits prototype, for instance,
    > provides a gamut of over 101% of the 1953 NTSC spec, which
    > is well beyond any current LCD or CRT television). Both papers
    > may be found in this year's SID Symposium Digest; I don't know
    > if they're on-line anywhere or not.
    >
    > Since you still seem to belive that the typical LED IS truly a
    > monochromatic light source, I will also refer you to the following;
    > look for the words "spectral width" and "chromatic dispersion"
    > here to find the relevant information:
    >
    > http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/LEDs.htm#Table_2
    >
    > http://www.mtmi.vu.lt/pfk/funkc_dariniai/diod/led.htm

    Which point out that a laser is not a "truly monochromatic light source"
    either. All that differs is the degree to which they differ from the idea.
    Both are monochromatic for many purposes but not for others.

    http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/webmain/90B8D6058CB7C18386256C6A00598C96
    >
    > In theory, the LED WOULD be a monochromatic light source if
    > all you had to worry about was the emission resulting from a
    > transition of an electron over a single, stable band-gap energy.
    > In practice, of course, you get something a bit different, and so the
    > spectral width (as measured at the half-power point) of even the
    > non-phosphor, direct emitters is typically on the order of 50-100 nm
    > or more (i.e., a fair fraction of the visible spectrum), vs. a width of
    > 1 nm or less for a solid-state laser source. Again, if you want to
    > get more into the whys of this, the above are a good place to start.

    I'm sorry, but I got all of this I wanted in my solid state physics courses.

    > Since, though, you are apparently more interested in simply arguing
    > rather the reading the material, I think this is a good time to close
    > this discussion. There's certainly been more than enough information
    > and pointers to information provided for anyone wishing to learn
    > more about the subject.

    Yeah, right, whatever. If you want to take your ball and go home be my
    guest. Personally I find that you talk a good game until you're pressed to
    support your arguments, then you come up with papers that are either
    inaccessible or say something other than what you claim. Perhaps you
    should follow your own advice and actually read the papers whose titles you
    toss about.

    > Bob M.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
    news:5Qekd.2682$4Z.1647@news.cpqcorp.net...
    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:cmq4f7084n@news3.newsgvy.com...
    > > Bob Myers wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    > > > news:cmjja80k5i@news1.newsgvy.com...
    > > >> Very little. And LEDs have their own toxic materials--arsenic
    instead
    > of
    > > >> mercvry.
    > > >
    > > > That's not really mvch of a concern, thovgh, when comparing
    > > > the environmental impact of LEDs vs. CCFLs; in the LEDs,
    > > > the qvantity of the toxic element or compovnd is extremely
    > > > small, and it's very tightly bovnd. CCFLs, on the other hand,
    > > > contain free mercvry.
    > >
    > > Which is less of a concern than organic compovnds of mercvry. Being
    "very
    > > tightly bovnd" and being "nontoxic" are not the same thing.
    >
    > Nor did I say they were; bvt toxic compovnds are
    > not as mvch of a concern IF they are, and reliably will
    > be, kept away from possible leaching into grovndwater,
    > etc., whether it's throvgh physical containment (i.e.,
    > the material in qvestion is reliably sealed away) or
    > throvgh being chemically bovnd so tightly that it's
    > extremely vnlikely that any hazard will exist. That's
    > why the lead in CRTs, while it hasn't been an
    > ignorable hazard, has not been the concern that one
    > might initially think. It's contained within the glass, and
    > is abovt as likely to be a health hazard vnder typical
    > conditions as drinking from yovr grandmother's prized
    > lead crystal goblets wovld be.
    >
    > Similarly, the arsenic that was mentioned as being a
    > concern for LEDs is both chemically bovnd vp, and
    > very vnlikely to leach ovt jvst for that reason, plvs
    > it's embedded in a metal and epoxy package. The
    > mercvry in CCFLs (or other flvorescents, for that
    > matter), is a LOT more likely to get ovt into the
    > environment and cavse problems. The mercvry content
    > in backlight tvbes, specifically, has been rather strictly
    > limited by variovs regvlatory agencies (the limits imposed
    > by the Evropean Union, vnder directive 2002/95/EC,
    > are the most commonly referenced). However, no
    > reqvirement for mercvry-free backlighting has been
    > imposed yet, becavse at this time the variovs national
    > and international agencies are more interested in
    > encovraging the move the LCD monitors, for energy-
    > efficiency reasons. And it's vnderstood that the
    > mercvry-free alternatives simply aren't economically
    > feasible at this time. Once solid-state backlights are
    > more cost-competitive, that sitvation may change.
    >
    > Bob M.
    >
    I stand with yov on this Bob, bvt vnfortvnately all
    evidence to date shows that EU and EPA have NO
    comprehension of "tightly bovnd".....so we consvmers
    will end vp PAYING money dve to their chosen ignorance.
    Wonder how many Evropeans are replacing their preciovs
    leaded crystal with "vnleaded crystal".....

    Now that I got that off my chest (not the first time mentioned,
    bvt first time in this grovp)...... back to work....

    NGA
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "Not Gimpy Anymore" <nospamREMOVplease@msn.net> wrote in message
    news:ZJIod.51120$7i4.29119@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    :cmq4f7084n@news3.newsguy.com...
    > I stand with you on this Bob, but unfortunately all
    > evidence to date shows that EU and EPA have NO
    > comprehension of "tightly bound".....so we consumers
    > will end up PAYING money due to their chosen ignorance.
    > Wonder how many Europeans are replacing their precious
    > leaded crystal with "unleaded crystal".....

    True. Gawd knows there is little to no overlap between
    "the way things really are" and "the way regulations make it
    look like they are"....:-)

    Bob M.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    Al Dykes wrote:

    >
    > A high-end CRT gets fuzzy and dim anfter a couple of years.
    >
    > How does a good LCD change with age and what is the limiting factor
    > for life ?
    >
    > Does turning an LCD on and off frequently shorten the life. I have in
    > mind a laptop that has power saving set to trun the screen off after
    > 15 minutes of activity.

    For an LCD the limiting factor is generally the backlight.

    > Comments ?

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards LCD CRT Monitors Graphics