Ah, the intelligence of the masses (= one guy that couldnt stand the stupidity of it and actually asked the cost question on 4 LEDs vs adding an entire spectrum channel to every individual pixel) came through again! Its always great to see that concept at work.
For those that would want the question ton be answered in a definite way -
This is an OLED TV spectral distribution:
This is a QLED TV spectral distribution:
Infrared conventionally starts at 750+nm so is outside the spectrum, that conventional TVs are reproducing. Also - the clear financial incentive for manufacturers is to get the cones you see above as narrow and high as possible, because this means that their TV is more energy efficient. Which they then in return use to sell you "higher HDR capability". More energy efficient means, that they can pump out more brightness for the available temperature budget.
Which is another way of saying that OLED TVs suck at HDR - comparatively (look at the spectral graphs, or at spec sheets, I dont care..
).
Which is another way of saying, that the person that says that LCDs are "crappy" because they are not direct emissive (filter white light through LCD filters), doesnt know what he/she is talking about.
But they already have an internet fan. So thats nice.
Which is another way of saying, that people buy TVs based on the utter most bullshit explainations you can imagine.
Which is another way of saying - the only benefit OLEDs have over LCDs are "absolute blacks" (viewing angle is currently being addressed in LCD development) -- which coincidentally NEVER existed in the history of cinema/filmmaking as a desireable default - and also doesnt get "compensated" by industry standard gamma formulas, which are mostly calculated relative to the black level.
Which is another way of saying, that this very arguably isnt a benefit at all, but rather a detriment. But then I also own an OLED - so I can say that.
Which is another way of saying, that when Samsung decided against going into OLED production and going with LCD in their flagship products, they couldnt for the life of them imagine a market where OLED would be costeffective/desireable even in the premium segment. (But then art imitates life, and voila.
)
Which is when LG proved them wrong by adding a fourth subpixel (white) to an industry that uses colormetry based on three color channels - and thereby creating a "white mix" whichs spectral curves change the peak positionings based on light intensity - which is another way of saying - that those OLEDs drift non linearly like a MoFo (which is measurable (measure a 20.000 point Lut and you'll see it
) - which might or might not be important, because most/all of it happens well below dE 3, on a calibrated screen (But then dE 2000 as a formula for color accuracy is debatable as well. (Especially on wide color spaces.)), and that they fake most of their measurable HDR capability - because colors reproducible can not be very saturated AND bright, because they use much of the white subpixels output at that point, instead of that primary color alone.
This by the way is your logic steping to the conclusion that everyon championing (W)OLEDs, because of "superior" is an utter idiot. You can do it if you like absolute blacks. (Why? Because you like more black crush if there is light in the room? (Absolute black with relative gamma curves means, that near black stepping (colors) are darker as well, which means, that if there is light in the room (eyes adjust irises ("shutter")) you dont see them.)) You can do it if you are heavily into arguing for metamerism prevention through "a bit borader spectrum cones" (which about three or four people on the planet are doing). But apart from that - please know, that you are promoting Feng Shui - and nothing else. Its a trend. You are buying into a trend.
Which is another way of saying, that if your TV manufacturer gives you good local dimming (starting at 700USD for 55") on (VA panel) LCDs, which only some of them do, thats more than enough for all your black level concerns. Unless you look at recordings of starfields all day. Edge lit LCDs mostly suck and sucked - because of uniformity issues. But then - most manufacturers started to venture into local dimming LCDs again, as soon as OLED became "premium". So just buy those. Or double your cost and buy an OLED - if you must (or that one Sony LCD with much better motion handling).
Ah, but now we see the real issue. It becomes more difficult to find out what to buy then. So most people just utter "OLED" and "experts" found it hard to prove them wrong (in a definite sense) - so OLED it is... Its the, and now please everyone speak along with me, "intelligence of the masses".
Also - TV screens emitting Infrared light would have the the possible detriment of rendering other IR controlled devices in your livingroom useless. Potentially. Also it would increase cost and decrease temperature budgets for no identifiable reason. (You could use four 1 cent LEDs in the bezel instead. You know, like the Wii IR bar.)
