Talk:Electronic visual display

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic visual display. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801350401 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060523001732/http://www.sipix.com/technology/epaper.html to http://www.sipix.com/technology/epaper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315092211/http://www.ntera.com/ to http://www.ntera.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

30px

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Visual display unit and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Visual display unit until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

See flat-panel display, which I just cross-linked in the lead of both articles.

I'm going to propose this myself, since I'm a tumbleweed. It's far from clear how these two article intend to be dissected, if they remain distinct. Either clarity on this issue, or elimination of the duplication is a desired outcome. — MaxEnt 01:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

:@MaxEnt I'm new to editing yet I think it would be best to rewrite this article, there is more to electric displays than flat panels that this page glosses over, additionally some of the information is outdated Chr0mch (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::I question this article’s need to exist. Other articles about display technologies provide adequate “homes” for the information in this article (much of which appears to be original research anyway, and is largely devoid of citations, and some of which seems outright wrong). — tooki (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The display space has gotten crazy over the past 10 years (it took me couple of hours just to get all of the different variations and I am not even sure if I got them all), so I wanna propose a table that summarizes and compares. It's become a huge industry and huge topic, so I think it would be good to have sth like that. Idk if all columns in the table are relevant or if any important are missing. Not sure if it's even possible to get to that data. But sth should be done. Total noob in the space. So it'd be good if sbd in-the-know decided on the relevant columns (those that show major differences, and appear in reviews) and corrected classification of the technologies on the left. (Maybe two tables are needed - one with rough categorization and other with detailed.) I am quite sure it's not completely correct. First major issue:

Most of the diagrams I've seen of "LED displays" when searching for info about LCD and LED displays show LCD panel. Acc to [https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/hardware/articles/lcd-vs-led/] ( "LED screens are composed of a thin layer of semiconductor material that has been highly distorted (i.e., with impurities inserted to regulate processes). Gallium arsenide, gallium phosphide, gallium arsenide phosphide, and gallium indium nitride may be used as an LED’s semiconductor." - does it fall under liquid crystal definition??; there is also explanation of LCD on that page) that's LED LCD display (other types being CCFL LCD and ELP LCD) and not LED display. But in 90+% sources (written or video) those are called LED screens which seems inaccurate, or maybe LED LCD = LED if those semiconductors in LED displays are liquid crystals. Idk, totally ignorant about the subject.

"Year of first commercial model" in the table below relates to any commercial display, be it TV or PC monitor. Technology qualifies for a place in the table if at least one commercial model was released (doesn't need to have worldwide release).

more to consider:

• quantum dot technologies used: quantum dot enhancement film (QDEF and QD on Glass LGP), quantum dot photo emissive / quantum dot color conversion (QDCC), quantum dot electro lumiscent (QDEL) - not sure which technology is meant with Q/QD abbreviations in the terms above
• Subpixel layout: RGB, BGR, PenTile, RGBG, and WRGB

;REFS

{{reflist}} Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

A light-modulating display is still performing a very active function, but moreover, this simply is not how the words "active" and "passive" are normally used in displays. I have done a TON of reading on the history of electronic displays, and I have never seen these words used with this meaning. The distinction here is "self-emitting vs. light-modulating”, and that’s what the classes should be called. — tooki (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Much of this article appears to be potential original research. The original author claims to be an experienced expert in the field, but was caught creating related articles based essentially entirely on plagiarized content. Within this article, there are several highly questionable statements, which I have flagged. With its complete lack of citations, I question whether there is any value in keeping this article around. Whatever valuable material might be found in it is probably better located in other existing articles. — tooki (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)