That's crap. Currrent iterations of flat panel displays are nothing but a series of comprises that the consuming public accept because it's "new" tech. CRT displays at least could render a greyscale gradient without stepping. OLED offers a real path to display advancements that overcome all the limits of backlit display tech. Give me accurate color at any angle and improvements in DR, not 4K - most consumer viewing spaces aren't suited to 4K due to distance from display anyway. But of course I still see 50" tv's on the wall of 15 x 15 apartment living rooms...

In terms of DR, I'm talking about per-pixel level control of brightness/contrast to be able to better mimic real-world visuals. The tech the Sony Dolby Professional Reference Monitor achieves this through the LED backlight matrix which has a fine level of control (I remember reading about this monitor tech years ago before Dolby bought out the company which was then bought by Sony). an OLED matrix could conceivably offer this level of DR at the pixel level. Not possible with the standard "blast from the back" of light that all LCD-tech based panels use as of now at the consumer level. It's just really freakin' hard to control the off-state of an LCD matrix so that you have true black (off). As well wide gamut is great and part of moving into another realm of display tech coupled with that DR that we are capable of capturing now - that could take us beyond what we've always expected from image display.

Vitaliy- that's the point. Plasma displays were the next evolution from the CRT. Yes, it's riddled with it's own problems in terms of reliability, etc. Then along came the LCD technology that used the back light through a grid concept. I think my biggest issue are desktop displays, not so much a TV. Due to the nature of the use of a desktop display for a computer, there is more awareness of the technology limitations. When I'm watching programming on my fair-to-middling-quality LG IPS panel 37" TV, I do wish I had better blacks, but I'm watching TV so I'm not as critical.

When I'm working at my computer, I really notice things like stepping in gradients, etc. And I do have an IPS panel monitor, a decent HP business series (ZR22W). That's what bugs me most: I had a 27" trinitron CRT for a long time. It was fantastic and then it died. I was then thrown into a world where the idea of an accurate IPS LCD panel display that you could trust for color and viewing angles (I don't want to get started on TN panels!) was difficult to purchase for less than $400.00 (at the time, about 3 years ago).

Even now, the affordable IPS panel displays (like my current display) are not true 8-bit panels, but 6-bit dithered (the whole gamut of eIPS panels).

I just feel like the lesser road was taken at some point in the evolution of display technologies. What was developed was 'good enough' for most folk- they wouldn't notice it. But when you need something better- now, get ready, well that's going to be expensive because it uses technology that's 'advanced', 'for pros', etc... yet a Trinitron 27" CRT 15 years ago performed at a level exceeding the newer technology in certain aspects (granted, not all) yet was considered to be meeting the standards as required. I just don't get it.

Vitaly-

Most of the newer eIPS panels are 6 bit, dithered. That's the affordable class of monitors (mostly selling in the 200-300 range right now). I've read a ton on this- I am even seeing it right now and I've calibrated my monitor.

I have a gradient image displaying as a background on a web page- it's a gradient that moves from rgb 36,36,36 to rgb 27,27,27 vertically, a distance of about 800 pixels. I see three tones of grey in that range with clearly defined blocks, not a continual gradient between these two shades. An 8 bit dithered or true 10 bit display wouldn't have this issue.

Look, I'm not complaining in the sense that for almost all applications, I wouldn't notice this. But it's my bread and butter as well- and it bugs me. Because I have had to accept a compromise on what I could afford vs. what was available before with a CRT monitor. Yes, I agree- blacks were horrible on CRT displays. I remember all those ads for "true black", etc.

I wish there would have been an effort made for plasma based computer displays. Maybe there was- I don't remember.

I can imagine it's more costly to manufacture a plasma display vs. an LCD display- really an LCD isn't that complicated a beast. So, tell me- why on earth is it so costly to manufacture an S-IPS panel with a 10-bit LUT (8 bit display)? Why do these displays sold at prices over 350.00 in the 24-27" range? The tech should be less costly in terms of manufacturing.

Unfortunately I live in Canada. Can't get em cheap here market isn't as open and shipping/customs makes it tough

Once again, the IPS screen looked sharp, but its black contrast and color fidelity was second-rate compared to the LCD screen. I suspect IPS does a better job with graphics than with photo-realistic images.

It is very unclear that this all means. As IPS is also LCD. And most TVs use either S-IPS, MVA or PLS.

In TVs talking about color fidelity is possible only after pro calibration. If you compare them in shop - do not waste you time.

Same for edge led lighting, as it can be good, can be so so. It all depends on leds used, their number and light guide used.