Talk:TFT LCD

message: This entire article is a painful to read wiki disaster.  Could someone who knows what they are talking about please fix it and make it not suck so terribly?  I suggest that it be eliminated entirely and whatever valuable information it contains could be incorporated into the main Liquid Crystal Display article.  Since that one is more active, more knowledgeable people will come across it and fix it up.  There is no need for this to be a separate article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.49.53 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Suggestion

message: TN panels in 2006-2007 usually include Overdrive functionality to increase response time (2-4ms vs. 8-16ms). This is not even mentioned in this article, not even here: []
The lowest response time to date is 15 ms overall for the ViewSonic 191b. Numbers in this article are just marketing repeats .
Is it really true, that TFT's use CRT technology (first phrase of the article)? Sounds a bit odd. Isn't CRT a competing technology?!
:That's a bit like saying that to the apple, the orange represents a competing fruit technology -66.251.26.93 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing overdrive referring 

message: This article needs much more technical depth.  It currently looks like a consumer magzine article, and, as such, it contains mostly very time sensitive information.  It talks, in qualitative terms about current limitations, but doesn't explain the engineering reasons behind them.
An article that concentrated on the engineering wouldn't date anything like as quickly.  --David Woolley 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope someone knowledgeable on the subject could add a lot of missing information; comparison to CRTs, discussion of limitations, refresh rates, types of interpolations used for non-native resolutions, temporary over- and under-voltaging to achieve faster pixel transitions, standards used in measuring viewing angle and reponse time, future directions... ++Ehudshapira 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be good to see how LCD screens compare in terms of power consumption with their CRT equivalents. User:DafDaf 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more technical depth 

message: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l52/TheKittenKiller/TFTLCDdisplay.jpg
i photoshop'd it cuz i was bored. feel free to use it and replace it with the image already in use in the main page. Its the same one but with the desk and everything scrapped becuase i think it lets everyone focus on the main subject better and does away with any distractions.  KittenKiller
:Hi,
:I’m the author of the original photo. I’ve just seen the new cropped-version, and I think the only objection of mine to it is the “feathering” of the borders, which could be a little less than the current version.--MaGioZal 01:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redone Pic

message: "There is no or minor effect on the eyes, if we use TFT-LCD monitors."
Does this really belong in the introduction paragraph? It seems kind of out of place to me, especially as a single sentence paragraph. Also, the use of "we" is improper for an encyclopedic article. -70.74.135.191 17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong with these sentences

message: I remember seeing a section about FFS(Fringe Field Switching) along with other technologies like TN, IPS and MVA/PVA. But it's gone and I can't find it in the history. What happened? 1wonjae 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFS? 

message: Saying LC's are poisonous may be a gross oversimplification.  While it's probably a good general policy to clean up any LC material from your skin; it might be alarmist to say that LC's are entirely poisonous.   Here's one article from Merck that shows that most of the LC's that they have tested are non-toxic: http://www.merck.de/servlet/PB/menu/1119540/index.html
64.25.15.162 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: I wish to know about those screw holes in the back of a tft screen you can use to attach the screen to a wall mount.
Is this a industry standard? Does it have a name?
It's just that I would like to search for this industry standard for devices I can attach to the back of the tft screen (routers,hubs, micropc's, etc)
Can this info be added here? Or perhaps a link to a page about this standard? --82.93.172.114 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Mount Holes 

message: the link: 092002.pdf is not found. author to this reference please help to check.
Xmlv (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed: ...? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  toxicity report link not available... 

message: Every laptop I've seen to date and by far most computer displays suffer from major contrast change depending on the vertical angle of view. As the article notes, Apple's 24" aluminum iMac does not suffer from this problem. Apple's 25" glass-fronted LED Cinema Display and its other matte-finish aluminum displays are also excellent in the vertical angle department. What exactly is this great LCD technology that has no problem with vertical angle? Why is it not used in laptops?
Dave Yost (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical viewing angle 

message: Matsushita officially changed the company name last year to Panasonic and all products produced are made under the Panasonic name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.83.214 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matsushita is no longer known as Matsushita..... 

message: I've significantly changed the 'safety' section. This is because it was nonsense before; it claimed LCDs were poisonous, and that medical attention ought to be sought after contact. The reference cited did not say any such thing. Further, a report from a major manufacturer of LC that was cited stated that all marketed LCs are almost completely non-toxic. If the manufacturer's article is to be used as a reference, then we ought to do justice to what it says: that is, that LCs are not toxic.163.1.18.244 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: All macs have IPS screens from LG, which must be notable. http://lowendmac.com/newsrev/09mnr/1030.html under the 27" mac has no pc equal, also other places I've forgotton. 86.139.101.41 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't. The last generation 20" iMac uses a TN screen whereas the 24" uses IPS (and the Mac Mini and Mac Pro doesn't have a screen at all!). --antilivedT | C | G 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIg user of IPS 

message: Can we move in-plane switching to its own article? Mathiastck (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  in-plane switching redirects to here 

message: I'm not sure what the first appearance of IPS technology was. But it wasn't the iPad.
According to Apple, the latest iMacs use IPS months earlier than the iPad.
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psimin (talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable - the newer generation of Macbooks that came out a few months ago had vastly improved screen quality (though it only really came up to that of higher-end PC ones from a couple years previous), and as noted above, the units were made by LG... who surely would have used the tech first in their own products before selling it at component level to other manufacturers. Plus I've seen people recommending purchase of IPS-based televisions on messageboards for some time now. It's just yet more idiot hype about the iPad, aka Macbook Air Slate Supercutdown. As it's at XGA rez, and doesn't retail for THAT much money, why suspect it uses anything other than a typical-spec low-area laptop panel? (There's an old Slate PC around here somewhere that probably comes close to the colour quality but at SVGA rez, and not that much thicker either). It seems to be quite a good device that will find, at least, a lot of use in some important, professional niche areas (and a lot of idle noodling by magpie consumers), but don't take the mickey. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG: The First appearance of IPS Technology to consumers was released in iPad by Apple April 2010. 

message: 195.241.233.20 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is TN+? 

message: It might be helpful to include the years (or month/year) that each of the types were released to the market, as well as when they were (and/or began) develop(ed/ment). From the descriptions alone of each type, I wouldn't be able to tell if each came out last month or last century. — al-Shimoni (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types 

message: "Super LCD" links here, but isn't named on this page. Is it the same as super TFT? PizzaMan (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super LCD 

message: The "history" section links back to what is essentially a long string of pictures with links to the pages corresponding to the display types that the pictures illustrate. It contains no actual information for this type of monitor, only a link back here. Click you're there, click you're here. 2-link empty loop. I do not know the history, that's why I came here looking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourisvoleur (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? What history? 

message: BenQ has announced the monitor BL2710PT with AHVA display
85.235.164.186 (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AHVA 

message: During 2017, the section on the history of TFT LCDs has been added based on Japanese contributions only. Although the Japanese industry played an important role at the time (in particular Seiko Epson, Sharp, Hitachi, Casio), claims about inventions are questionable. In the Western world, credit for the TFT invention and early prototyping is given to a team at Westinhouse Research Laboratories headed by T. P. Brody in the USA. IEEE as the most reputable international technical organization in the field, has awarded the 2011 IEEE Nishizawa Medal to three inventors working in the US at that time.
In addition, users 86.173.191.95 and 109.155.237.165, who did recent revisions to this section, have been declared sock puppets of a banned user on 8 May 2017. Therefore, user:Indrian has eraesed the corresponding parts in lemma "Liquid Crystal Display".
I plan to correct this section on the history of TFT LCDs. BBCLCD (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Somthing more details 103.218.237.36 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFT Panel