Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At
sizes up to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links
to see what it was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

Yup. There are what can be accurately described as LED TVs on the horizon
- OLED. But are some way off in normal sizes at an affordable cost.

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things
are only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know
that flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right
to actually call these "LED TVs"

Who says fluorescent is inefficient? LED could be better if you could turn
off those in the dark parts of the picture - but no claims for that.

Thats the point of it AIUI. And you can modulate each LED to the
lowest output pixel that it illuminates (dont know if that tv does
that). More contrast, but it messes with the ability to calibrate
colours - which doesnt much matter for a consumer TV.

The flip side is that LED is a lot less efficient than CCFL. Which
option consumes less I dont know.


Other
problem with LEDs is producing a continuous spectrum smooth white light -
needed to give all the colours from LCD.

I doubt any TV ever made has done that, nor is there any need to.


? Seems like a bit of a deliberately misleading use of the terminology
to me - or is it maybe just me being a picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Might as well claim any TV is LED - if it has an LED warning light. ;-)

I once bought a radio that proudly proclaimed 'transistor' on the
front. It did indeed have one transistor, in an otherwise valve set.


NT