What are the differences between OLED and miniLED? Asking as a profane.
I think OLED last longer now.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Mini-LED Display Supplier Says Demand Shrinking As Rumors Suggest Transition to OLED in Coming Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree , but what about brightness? Normal consumer level OLED TVs and displays usually only go up to 250 ~ 600 nits.
What about in the sun under a tree drawing? Can you even see that 250 nits OLED display?
Micro LED - each sub pixel (R,G or B) is it's own micro LED.
Mini LED - an RGB LCD lattice covers an array of mini white LEDs, each one lights a single set of subpixels (one white LED lights one set of RGB LCD pixels).
Sony and Sharp have only JUST released Mini LED TV sets a fee months ago. The tech is NEW. Or so I thought...
So I found this article very confusing as per - Quote:
"demand for mini-LED displays for use in consumer electronic devices is decreasing"
How is could that be possible I thought.
And "Apple doesn't sell a single product with mini LED." I thought.
So I go reading and realise that they brand the macbook pro as having a mini led display, in the states. I had not noticed this.
I've now realised that the marketing types (maybe😂, could be wrong) could not wait to use the next new high tech term to sell products and jumped the gun.
A panel with zones that covers more than one subset of pixels is not the original definition of a mini led display, but I guess that's what it has come to mean. Here in Japan, we don't use the term that way (I don't think).
Can anyone else comment on this? I have a TV with a lot of zones, but would no term it a mini led tv.
Mini LED - an RGB LCD lattice covers an array of mini white LEDs, each one lights a single set of subpixels (one white LED lights one set of RGB LCD pixels).
Sony and Sharp have only JUST released Mini LED TV sets a fee months ago. The tech is NEW. Or so I thought...
So I found this article very confusing as per - Quote:
"demand for mini-LED displays for use in consumer electronic devices is decreasing"
How is could that be possible I thought.
And "Apple doesn't sell a single product with mini LED." I thought.
So I go reading and realise that they brand the macbook pro as having a mini led display, in the states. I had not noticed this.
I've now realised that the marketing types (maybe😂, could be wrong) could not wait to use the next new high tech term to sell products and jumped the gun.
A panel with zones that covers more than one subset of pixels is not the original definition of a mini led display, but I guess that's what it has come to mean. Here in Japan, we don't use the term that way (I don't think).
Can anyone else comment on this? I have a TV with a lot of zones, but would no term it a mini led tv.
My LG C2 goes up to 800 nits so it's not dark by any means, and QD-OLEDs are hitting 1500 nits. Plus the iPhone 14 Pro's OLED screen can hit 2000 nits.
I don't think Apple would switch if they didn't think that OLED's two big problems: burn in, and low brightness, were mostly solved.
In theory, yes. But actually producing a large display that has the qualities (and the volume!) Apple needs is going to be very challenging. Until a suitable technology (micro-LED) is sufficiently matured and production-ready mini-LED local dimming workaround is here to stay.
It’s not correct. A display with thousands of miniLEDs is already good nowadays.
Apple has been using miniLED backlights for a couple of years now. A miniLED display uses small LEDs as a source of white light, with a traditional LCD panel in front of it.
The technology is indeed new in the sense that it only recently matured enough to be used in actual production. And it’s very expensive, which is why not many bother. Most users don’t care about color accuracy or brightness and will find a cheaper OLED panel just as impressive for their media consumption. So only companies who build displays targeted at artists bother with this technology.
For the OLED side:
OLED - each sub pixel (R, G, or B) is its own oled, the different colors are chemically different and can wear out at different rates.
WOLED - same as OLED but has an additional white oled to make the image brighter, but this also means that bright colors lose saturation.
QD-OLED - replace the W, R, G, and B oleds with just 4 identical "white" OLEDS (I think it's actually blue with a filter), and then use quantum dots to filter out light and set the color of the pixels.
QD-OLED is cool because if you wanted to show a 400 nit blue on a normal OLED you'd need to run the blue pixel at 400 nits, which burns it out quickly. While on a QD-OLED you set the 4 "white" OLEDs to 100 nits each and then use quantum dots to make it blue. This means you can get much brighter and are only putting 1/4th of the load on your OLEDs. Also you don't have the issue of stuff like the blue OLEDs burning out faster than the red and green and destroying your color accuracy.
A little digging shows what Samsung is up to. If they can improve their process, dropping from 4 to 2 layers of QD-OLED tech and fixing the blue problem, it will be cheaper to make, faster to make, and more energy efficient.
www.techradar.com
Samsung's new OLED tech could mean cheaper QD-OLED TVs
Samsung believes in the blue light
Brightness is difficult. It all depends on how large of an area on your TV we are talking about. The LG C2 will only give you 800 nits peak brightness when it's 2% or less of your screen pushing for this kind of peak brightness. Once you move to 25%, it drops to 400 nits. 50%, it drops to 266 nits etc. For SDR, the overall brightness is limited to 422 nits.
How relevant this is will vary greatly. For SDR, the industry standard for colour calibration is to aim for 100 nits / 100 cd/m2, but this might not be sufficient if you are watching your TV in bright rooms. For HDR, it's a different story, as the HDR standard is referencing 10 000 nits for peak brightness. In theory, your HDR experience can peak up to 10 000 nits. There is obviously no TV on the market today that can achieve this, so we apply various tricks to limit peak brightness for HDR to stay within the capabilities of your TV. But the HDR spec itself will continue pushing contracts all the way up to 10 000 nits if you have a TV capable of going that far.
To me personally, I prefer OLED over mini-LED. Perfect black is more important to our perception of contrast than peak brightness. And it's not like everything is HDR even in 2022, and for SDR content, peak brightness is not relevant besides battling lousy lighting conditions in your room.
The main difference I noticed when watching HDR on a mini-LED TV compared to an OLED TV is that the eye-soaring bright highlights get even more eye-soaring. It's tough to view details in peak brightness for HDR content because pushing 1000 nits+ becomes too bright to be viewed comfortably. Whereas details in dark areas can be viewed with great comfort so having perfect black levels is much more impactful overall compared to having peak brightness extending beyond 800 nits in my experience.
mini-LED is much better at providing decent black levels when compared to LED. But it's far from perfect. You get a ton of halo/blooming due to the mini-LED sones being too large. OLED is infinitely better as it can turn off each individual pixel to achieve perfect black levels with no haloing, blooming or bleeding. micro-LED is going to be the best of both worlds, providing the peak brightness of LED, and the black levels of OLED without the drawbacks of burn-in/image retention etc.
But micro-LED is still some years into the future. As of today, we have mini-LED and OLED, and to me, OLED beats mini-LED without any questions.
Apple has been using OLED in phones since 2017; they are fine with OLED's longevity now.
Last edited:
Miro-LED is the future. Mini-LED was supped to be a stepping stone to Micro-LED. Micro-LED is more efficient than OELD, brighter than OLED, more durable (higher lifetime) than OLED with a higher colour gamut.
What's no to like and wait for.
What's no to like and wait for.
Now there are many OLED displays marketed for premium gaming experiences. It’s just up to Apple to implement.
Everyone wants to see microLED but it’s still far from the mature stage.
Some professional mastering and some professional editing displays are OLED.
I’m still waiting for SED. 😜
Phone displays use a different OLED technology than monitor and TV OLEDs.
TVs and monitors use either WOLED or newer QD-OLED technology. With WOLED all of the pixels are white but they have RGB filters overlaid on them to produce colors, and these filters ultimately diminish the maximum brightness output. Additionally since TVs and displays have a longer service life expectation than a phone there's consideration given to pixel lifespan - the more energy you push through an OLED pixel to make it brighter the more it shortens the lifespan.
Phone displays are made using true RGB OLED technology, in which each pixel glows its respective RGB color with no filters. Because of the lack of filters they can reach a higher peak brightness, but this technology is expensive and difficult to manufacture to larger display size.
QD-OLED is a hybrid approach using technical magic I won't get into here, but it balances the cost of true RGB OLED with the cost effectiveness of WOLED.
There are monitors currently on the market made with true RGB OLED technology. LG has a 32" 4K UltraFine Display that came out last year based on a true RGB OLED panel but it's not cheap - it costs $3999 USD.
Can’t wait for the iPads to start getting OLED screens. That’s when I’ll finally upgrade my 11” Pro.
I have an LG OLED TV and it just blows my laptop and monitor out of the water when it comes to display quality. With HDR content I prefer OLED since it doesn’t need to sear my retinas to achieve sufficient contrast. SDR is no contest.
I have an LG OLED TV and it just blows my laptop and monitor out of the water when it comes to display quality. With HDR content I prefer OLED since it doesn’t need to sear my retinas to achieve sufficient contrast. SDR is no contest.
There are reports of burn-in on their S95B TV with QD-OLED screen and that TV has been out for less than a year. So I would not take the Samsung words at face value.
HDR800 is nowhere close to HDR1600 of MiniLED.
Apple will not regress to make room for OLED. Until OLED can match the specs of MiniLED, Apple ain't budging.
Micro-LED is years away from coming to phones. Too expensive and not to mention they can't make it small enough. The only product that they have now are large TVs.