I was speaking to some friends of mine about all the OLEDs showing up at CES, and the three of them just smirked at me like I was an idiot. When I asked them what they were on about, they said that I had bought into all the marketing bullsh*t that the companies are pushing to sell people 10,000$ TVs. I showed them a picture of the super thin TVs that are coming up, but they told me that's nothing special, and that regular LEDs could have done that too. I've always understood OLED to be a different technology to regular LEDs... that they merge the backlight with the color creating pixel, which is what enables them to be so super thin. Whereas regular LEDs create the backlight in regular TVs, but need a distinct and separate color pixel in front of them to produce a color. Am I completely wrong in this assessment?
One of my friends told me (quite condescendingly) that regular LED TVs have no backlight either. He tells me he works with TVs in his profession and he knows all about this... He also tells me that there's nothing special about the Hobbit film, because TVs have been receiving 48 frames per second for years now, and all the hype over the weird image quality of the film is artificial hype. While I've seen plenty of sources on the web tell me that the standard for TVs has always been (and apparently still is) 24 frames per second. Is my friend bullshitt*ng me? Is he blatantly lying or is it me that's completely in error here?
Also, any hard factual evidence (like detailed schematics showing the differences between the two technologies) would be appreciated. I'd like to throw them in their faces and show them they don't know TVs as well as they did.