Talk:Liquid-crystal display

message: The applicable formulas would be nice to have here...I'm looking them up in papers now but cant find ones that relate the gap distance between the electrodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syanchuk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculating threshold voltage 

message: Vertical ridges etched on the surface are smoot.
A unit of length equal five feet seven inches? I don't think this is what the original author meant.
"smooth"?
87.112.222.13 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Whats a smoot?" 

message: This paragraph begins with the following two sentences:
Before applying an electrical charge, the liquid crystal molecules are in a relaxed state. Charges on the molecules cause these molecules to align themselves with microscopic grooves on the electrodes.
On my first read through, I was under the impression, for the remainder of the paragraph, that the "Charges on the molecules" were ones applied by an electric current.  It's been a while since I studied physics, but would it still be scientifically accurate if we changed the wording to say "Naturally occurring charges on the molecues"?  I think that would be easier to understand. Balfa 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Before applying an electric charge..." 

message: Thanks to muggins not noticing the info on quality control here, there's now a page called dead pixel. There's some vaguely useful info and a neat-o outside link there, so will we merge the Quality Control section here into that article, or vice versa? Sockatume, Talk 19:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision hinges on whether it is a dicdef, or if it has enough content to sustain itself as an article on its own. As dead pixels are only related to LCD's, but aren't LCD's themselves, I suppose we should keep them separate. Kareeser|Talk! 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to/merge from [[dead pixel]]

message: can we please fix this section by editting it into a real encyclopedia style please. a listing of the problem and how you might fix it should be sufficient and it isn't that hard to change.  We do not need text from a forum in a wiki article, this is not a self-help page, but an encyclopedia entry and it should be written that way. -Thebdj 06:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right.  Corrected. --Fractal3 06:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem fixes 

message: "Workarounds and/or possible fixes for LCD problems"  - This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- 63.114.24.9, 25 March 2006
: obviously the best result would be a poll to ultimately decide. I'll deal with this later.  /Fractal3 00:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an instruction guide 

message: Should Windows XP ClearType really be mentioned in the drawbacks section? Only mentioning it gives an impression of it being the only subpixel text rendering technology out there. I think a more generic term would be more appropriate. Lumpio- 16:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WinXP ClearType? 

message: * PC World May 23, 2006 p. 43
:Wikipedia's liquid crystal display article is the content which is  displayed on an LCD monitor under product review.
I took a picture of the illustration, but what's the point. It's the same picture as on the article page, but framed in an LCD monitor. --Ancheta Wis 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is displayed in a product review of an LCD monitor 

message: It's completely separate from the general LCD article and is useful for a casual browser like me. please don't merge it 203.129.39.114 13:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge this article 

message: I propose that we merge Color LCD to this article, simply because the information contained in the Color LCD article is too short to have a "Main aticle" link from this page. Moreover, the content on this page (in the "Color LCD" section) and the content on the Color LCD page, differ. Therefore, having the same information on this page, while making Color LCD a redirect, is my solution. Kareeser|Talk! 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree LCD isnt that long, it can definitly support everything in Color LCD. -Ravedave 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Redirected. If there is anything in Color LCD that isn't here - it can be merged from the history. ed g2s • talk 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Color LCD to LCD 

message: I think it would be useful to talk about glossy LCDs (XBrite,TruBright and so on), since they're very frequently used today.
I found this page which explains something about it:
http://www.screentekinc.com/sony-xbrite-lcd-screens.shtml
Blaisorblade 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossy LCD mention 

message: The following image shows that not only straight pixels (columns of liquid crystal molecules) are used.
Normally pixels should be shaped vertically, but these are shaped like a ">".
:This kind of pixel-layout is found in S-IPS LCDs (super in-plane switching). The chevron-shape is used to widen the viewing-cone (range of viewing directions with good contrast and low color-shift).
panjasan 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of TFT LCD pixels 

message: *I think the following can be deleted:
*: This text from the Drawbacks section first mentions response times then goes on to say that it is imperceptible. If it is imperceptible then it is no longer a problem. Am I missing something?
LCDs have longer response time than their plasma and CRT counterparts, creating ghosting and mixing when images rapidly change; this drawback, however, is continually improving as the technology progresses and is imperceptible in current LCD Computer Displays and TV's. Also, for computer-use, it eliminates the problem of flicker.
:Ashmoo 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed "imperceptible" to "almost imperceptible".  You may also want to mention that whether you notice it depends on what you are doing (viewing fast moving images, etc).  mmj 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that I'd call it "almost imperceptible".  I recently got an LCD TV (with a claimed response time of 8ms).  When viewing rapidly panning images (the best example is to fire up a first-person shooter on a game console and manually pan left and right), the ghosting was not only perceptible, but thoroughly irritating and almost nausea inducing.  I would definitely recommend adding to the article that the effect of long response times depends on what you're viewing. Balfa 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is likely that what you observed was due not to response time but to the fact that an LCD pixel is constantly lit for the duration of the frame (16.7ms), whereas a CRT pixel is lit for only a fraction of a microsecond once during a frame.  This means that even with an absolute zero response time, a panning image on an LCD panel will appear blurred while it may appear smooth on a CRT (if the image itself has no motion blur).  The additional blurring in the case of LCD comes from the movement of our eyes; it doesn't happen on CRT because our eyes do not move enough during the nanoseconds that a pixel remains lit.   Ghosting caused by a slow response rate would be not only blurring, but also a constant 'double image' - seeing two or more recent frames, or ghosts from them, simultaneously.  This would be in addition to the motion blur.  mmj (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's been deleted.  If it's verifiable, bring it back with a source; be sure to say who recommends against LCD here. Dicklyon 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SOFIXIT.  I fixed it for you, by taking it out.  Anything that's questionable and unsourced can be simply removed; if someone thinks it's real, they'll bring it back with a source.  As to why other articles don't have such a section, maybe you should there, or just start some; but be sure to use only sourced drawbacks. Dicklyon (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: what about advantages? there's no advantages section--Esteban.barahona (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Drawbacks and advantages

message: someone fix the vandalism 85.228.212.107 02:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal Liquids 'R' Us 

message: Isn't it redundant to say LCD Display. It's stated at such several times in the article but I don't feel wiki-wise enough to decide a correction yet.
:Yes it is.  But it's pretty conventional, as you can see here. Dicklyon 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not only redundant, it is stupid and wrong! The more such wrong expressions are repeated by WikiPedia the more they seem to become "conventional" ... In the LCD community we usually use "LC-display" or just LCD.
Any correction is supported by me.
panjasan 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCD Display 

message: What is going on with this page? Both 203.131.165.194 and 66.242.230.91 have apparently vandalized this page just recently. --Whiteknox 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Makers of non computer LCD displays often quote the raw pixel count (color sub pixels) of a color display, or will quote the raw pixels (color sub pixels) per line in a display.
example:
A 640 x 480 display that upscales to 1024 x 768 would instead be advertised as a 921600 pixel display, instead of listing the native resolution, or a display may be advertised as being 1920(H)pixels x 480(V)pixels.
The math for this obfuscation is simple, they simply add all three of the color sub pixels into the pixel count, so 640 x 480 becomes 640 x 3 x 480 = 921600.
Here's a quick table of common resolutions, and their raw or sub pixel counts.
Name 	Resolution	"Raw" Pixels
QVGA 	320×240   	230400 pixels
HVGA 	480×320   	460800 pixels
VGA  	640×480   	921600 pixels
SVGA 	800×600   	1440000 pixels
XGA  	1024×768  	2359296 pixels
XGA+ 	1152×864  	2985984 pixels
SXGA 	1280×1024 	3932160 pixels
SXGA+	1400×1050 	4410000 pixels
UXGA 	1600×1200 	5760000 pixels
Oujdeivß 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it "non-computer" that defines the market where they count this way?  Seems like a bad idea, based on how much confusion is caused in cameras by counting each single-color detector as a pixel, but there we're stuck with it.  Do you have references to sources that do it this way? Dicklyon 19:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A pixel (= picture element) in the displays field is the smallest group of elements that can reproduce the full range of colors. In RGB displays a pixel comprises three sub-pixels of the primary colors red, gree and blue. See: ISO-13406 (Ergonomic requirements for work with visual displays based on flat panels — Part 2: Ergonomic requirements for flat panel displays), Definition 3.4.7: pixel: smallest element that is capable of generating the full functionality of the display. panjasan 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a mention of raw pixel counts 

message: IT IS ENTIRELY RACIST TO SUGGEST THAT LCDS CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR "SKIN TONES".  IN REALITY THEY ONLY CAUSE AN ISSUE FOR THE LIGHT SKIN CHARACTERISTIC OF MANY EUROPEAN ETHNICITIES.  PLEASE REMOVE THIS. 81.192.141.90 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin tones??? 

message: I think it would be very interestiingh to know what the power consumption of LCD displays are in comparison to other types of displays, and also now that I think of it there really should be a single page that makes a comparison of the wattage used by regular household appliances.``193.203.136.214 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Consumption 

message: How can the "unsourced statements" in this article be found ?
panjasan 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article with '''unsourced statements''' since February 2007

message: Active matrix technologies
Main article: TFT LCD, Active-matrix liquid crystal display
Twisted nematic (TN)
Twisted nematic displays contain liquid crystal elements which twist and untwist at varying degrees to allow light to pass through. When no voltage is applied to a TN liquid crystal cell, the light is polarized to pass through the cell. In proportion to the voltage applied, the LC cells twist up to 90 degrees changing the polarization and blocking the light's path. By properly adjusting the level of the voltage almost any grey level or transmission can be achieved..
In-plane switching (IPS)
In-plane switching is an LCD technology which aligns the liquid crystal cells in a horizontal direction.
panjasan: The same is the case for the TN-effect, so what's the actual difference ?
In this method, the electrical field is applied through each end of the crystal,
hmmm, interesting ...
but this requires two transistors for each pixel instead of the one needed for a standard thin-film transistor (TFT) display.
panjasan: wow, this might also be new to the manufacturers of LCDs !
This results in blocking more transmission area requiring brighter backlights, which consume more power making this type of display less desirable for notebook computers.
panjasan: OK, transmission is reduced, but not by the presence of the assumed two transistors per (sub)-pixel.
Please study verified sources before spreading rumors and nonsense here !
panjasan
:I found the section to be pretty much incomprehensible.  It should build on the foundation of the earlier sections of the article, but seems to assume some other background in how LCDs work.
:One part that's hard to take: "In this method, the electrical field is applied through each end of the crystal."  How is it applied in other methods?  There's only one way to apply an electrical field: with electrodes on either end of the field.
:But it's not just this section.  The one before doesn't tell what the transistor is for, and seems to say that row/column addressing is unique to active matrix.  And it alludes to some kind of refresh not otherwise described.  (The hyperlink for "refresh" leads to an article whose only mention of LCDs is to say it is inapplicable to LCDs).  It fails to state the difference between passive matrix and active matrix, referring to presence or absence of a "steady charge" which is never described.
:Bryan Henderson 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section is (pardon me) crap  

message: I noticed that the LCD technology used for television displays had improved greatly of late and problems with viewing angle have been practically eliminated in affordable displays.  I was hoping to find in this article an explanation of the technology used to achive this.  If anyone knows, could you please add it in, for example to the history section.  Thanks.
69.232.68.142 10:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  viewing angle 

message: When did LCD displays become commercially successful? -- Beland 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial success 

message: I have sufficiently good eyesight that I would expect to be able to discern the subpixels; however I see each pixel as a uniform colour (mainly white, in the case of this page). If I look at the pixels with a macro lens (600mm) which has a very narrow depth of field, then it has the same effect as a microscope, permitting me to focus at different depths within the display. At one depth, the coloured subpixels are clearly apparent; however when looking near the surface, the subpixels cannot be seen (although the screen-door effect is still sharply in focus).
I conclude that:
* There is some surface coating on each pixel, which blurs the 3 subpixels into a uniformly illuminated pixel. [This is beneficial behaviour, in the same way that a projection screen should be operated very fractionally out-of-focus, to avoid the screen-door effect]
* Sub-pixel antialising is fairly pointless, and causes substantial colour-fringing, without really improving smoothness.
Can someone knowledgeable confirm this? RichardNeill 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front blurring filter? 

message: Why, in this section, am I barraged with information about Integrated circuits?  I understand drawing a small analogy at the start to show how QA/QC in LCDs relates to other industry.  This, however, seems to me like the entire section is meant to be a comparison between the two.  As a casual reader, I wanted to scream out, "I don't care!"  I just wanted to learn about LCDs.  Never mind that, this is the first time that IC is mentioned in the entire article.  So the non-technical reader is left wondering "what the heck is an IC, why do I care, and what does any of that have to do with LCDs?"
My suggestion:  present relevant information about LCDs.  Ditch the rest. Endasil 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thanks for that Dick.  But I actually know nothing about the technology.  I was seriously asking, why is this section the way it is.  I was looking for an opinion from other users.  If there is a reason to compare the two, then fine, lets change it to clarify that reason.  But I'm not going to tear apart a section on my own opinion with no feedback, thanks.  Endasil 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality control 

message: From article : "A refresh rate that is too low can cause flickering ..."
This should be clarified that LCD do not flicker. By design. Plasma, CRT and some other flicker.
--Xerces8 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flickering 

message: The article says (under Drawbacks) : "typically the color only gets a little brighter when viewing at extreme angles."
Modern (as of 2008) (S-)PVA monitors have the "color only gets a little brighter" effect even at small viewing angles, like 20 degrees. I witnessed this on my (Hyundai W241D) monitor and some others (Samsung 204Ts and HP LP2465). This forum post also mentions that this is so on all PVA and MVA panels.
--Xerces8 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewing angle information misleading 

message: The lead says that an LCD is an electro-optical amplitude modulator. Is it not an electrically modulated optical amplification device (subtly different), being controlled by an electro-optical amplitude modulator ? Electro-optic modulator (which is linked to electro-optical amplitude modulator on the article) says that the modulator may be applied in four areas including phase, frequency and amplitude which may affect the display prior to visibility but could an LCD display, without processing any picture just monochrome light, be switched and display light without an electro-optical amplitude modulator (hence not actually being one just completely dependant on it)? ~ R.T.G 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An LCD modulates amplitude only of a separate light source. It amplifies nothing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electro-optical amplitude modulator  

message: This section is a press release, from the sound of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.187.165 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advanced Fringe Field Switching (AFFS) 

message: T. Peter Brody did not create the first fully functional LCD, it was Scott H. Holmberg.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.71.85 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Does anyone have a source to it to include it in the article? --AaThinker (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does their Refresh happen from top to bottom like CRTs or all at the same time? 

message: Nothing on Mother glass in this entire article? --68.45.218.70 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother glass 

message: ----
Does this new technology belong in this article?  It seems like a relevant new technology in the multi-touch applications arena.  Perhaps even security in the future.  Or perhaps it should have it's own article?  I'm not incredibly familiar with the technology and it's penetration but Sharp recently introduced a laptop with it as a track pad.
Rasmasyean (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical-sensor LCD 

message: Hi, these remarks have not been answered for a while, so, when putting a remark about the technology or the inventors etc. go to the Science Reference Desk where you will surely get lots of responses from people who know lots of stuff like this. ~ R.T.G 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science]] 

message: Can someone write something about LCD TV's having pixelated image problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixelation 

message: This article is probably  very  important. I happened on  it by  chance while editing  a page on  an entirely  different  subject  that  links to  it. I read the page with  interest  but  felt I had to  point  out some critical  MoS flaws in  its presentation.  I have carried out some minor copy editing, but  as electronics is not my  field, I  am  unable to address the other points I  have flagged.
The article has been written in good faith by  knowledgeable contributors, and contains a wealth  of information. However, its overall  tone may  need to be improved for presentation  in  encyclopedic style. Some sections and parts of the text have been tagged for a long  time as being  in  need of attention, and I  have added some others. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded as flagging of areas that may need attention. However, critical unreferenced statements or sections can be deleted by anyone at  any time. Its rating  at  'B' class may require reconsideration as a 'C' class exists which  would probably relate more accurately the the articl's current  standard. See some possible suggestions below for improvement  of the sections:
The article appears to  be biased towards the use of LCDs as computer monitors. This may  well  be the most  widespread use, but  more balance is possibly required.
*Overview: unnecessarily  technical and focussed on manufacture. Consider  renaming  the section and/or shortening  and incorporating  elements into  other relevant sections
*Brief History: This not really  brief. Renaming  as 'History'  would be sufficient,  otherwise this could imply that  the article is incomplete due to  lack of time on the part  of the author. Should be the next  section. Consider using  prose, rather than  a bulleted list. If the article can be expanded, consider splitting  in to  a new article: History  of LCD displays
*Specification: Wiki  is not  an instruction  manual. This section should ideally  come towards the end of the article.
*Manufacturers: It may  be preferable to  either display  this in  'flatlist' format', or to create a new list-article.
*Quality  control: This section  may  be too long  and/or too  detailed for an encyclopedic article, and may  read like an article from  a technical article.
*Drawbacks: Consider using  prose, rather than  a bulleted list. Note:this detailed section  on  drawbacks puts a negative slant  on  LCDs that  is not adquately  compensated for neytrality  in  the other parts of the article.
*External links: There may be too  many which confuses the reader with a vast variety  of optional sources. Wiki  is not a link farm.
*General  information: There may be too  many which confuses the reader with a vast variety  of optional sources. Wiki  is not a link  farm.
*Many links (inline, references, external, general  information) need to  be tweaked to  display  accordsing  to  MoS.</ref>--Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: : Not Moved. (See Talk:High-definition television#Requested move for similar discussion.) Station1 (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Liquid crystal display → LCD — Per WP:ABBR: Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar). User:GraYoshi2x 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brush up on your definitions and keep in mind Wikipedia is not a vote. Acronyms don't have to be pronounceable and I have rarely heard LCD refer to anything other than this article. And if you oppose it, just say it directly, please. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited my 'No, thank you' above to 'Oppose'.  An acronym is a word made from initial letters and NASA, NATO, radar and laser are examples.  LCD and others are abbreviations not acronyms (I accept that the two are sometimes used interchangeably).  The policy is WP:ABBR not WP:ACRO and the writer clearly understood the difference.  The examples quoted (NASA, radar) have the specific features that (i) they are pronounceable and (ii) they are hardly ever spoken as complete phrases.  'Patriot Act' is another example where Wikipedia's article is named for the abbreviation.  'FBI' and 'CIA' are not: they are phrases spoken as abbreviations/initialisms and their full forms are well known.  Sussexonian (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've completely ignored me when I said to look up the definitions. Acronyms do not have to be pronounceable, simple as that. Stop insisting they must be. Even all the major dictionaries agree that FBI can be considered as an acronym. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I may go and look at some dictionaries, but there is a distinction made in the policy, between acronym and abbreviation, the examples in the policy comply with the restricted definition of acronym, and FBI is not a Wikipedia article name.  On the other page you have said CIA/FBI are more well known by their abbreviations: that is exactly my point, as with LCD the more common identifier is the short form but Wikipedia has not chosen to rename Federal Bureau of Investigation.  So the actual practice on Wikipedia seems to me to coincide with my interpretation.  Sussexonian (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS GraYoshi2x►talk 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Look at NASA then. There are quite a few people who say the entire phrase, but simply not enough to justify making it the main titling. Same goes with HDMI. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The shocking lack of mention of handheld videogames and their importance in driving improvement of LCD technology is appalling.66.159.224.65 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, the entire reason I came to this page at all was to learn more about the Game & Watch type systems. And I find it particularly insulting that the Brief history section goes directly from 1972 to 1998, one could claim the peak years of LCD advancement, all taking place in handheld game consoles. Zak Frost (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videogames? 

message: "Many LCDs are incapable of displaying very low resolution screen modes (such as 320x200) due to these scaling limitations."
Can anyone cite anything to back this up? I don't see any reason why scaling from 320x200 to whatever the panels native resoloution is would be any harder than scaling from (say) 640x480 to the panels native resoloution. 86.1.116.158 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious assertion 

message: I feel there needs to be a distiction made in this section as to which companies actually construct LCD Panels and which companies order LCD Panels from other manufacturers and simply assembly the components into a TV.
The only LCD Panels Manufacturers I know of are Philips and LG. Currently all the companies listed are strictly LCD TV or LCD Display manufacturers, they purchase LCD Panels from either Philips or LG and then assemble the displays.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.216.197 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers 

message: Hope I'm doing this right - I'm not that experienced in asking questions on articles on Wikipedia.
Under the headline “Zero-power (bistable) displays” someone has written:
Zero-power LCDs are a category of electronic paper.
But I don’t think this is correct, if I look at the definition of e-paper
Electronic paper, e-paper or electronic ink display is a display technology designed to mimic the appearance of ordinary ink on paper
 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper)
I’ve seen zero-powered, bistable LCD with my own eyes, and the one I saw looked just like ordinary LCD which, as you know, don’t have the appearance of ink on paper: The characters sort of ‘hovers’ in the display, unlike the characters on, say, the Kindle’s display.
So, is this something I can/should correct in this article or is it the definition of e-paper that needs adjusting? RipRapRob (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the Zero-power LCDs are a category of electronic paper. sentence. RipRapRob (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are 'Zero-power LCD' a category of electronic paper? 

message: suggested text
# [Chromatic resolution]: How many colors are supported. This may be expressed in several ways such as total number of colors (e.g. "8 million"), as color resolution per color channel (e.g. "8 bit color" which is the color resolution for each of the color channels; usually red green and blue) or as total color resolution (e.g. "24 bit color"; which is the same as 8 bit color, just multiplied by the three channels).
# [Color gamut]: The range of colors that can be displayed; usually expressed as conforming to some standard such as the 1957 NTSC standard. Color gamut differs from color resolution in that color gamut expresses the total range of colors while color resolution indicates how many individual colors that range is divided into. An LCD can have a wide color gamut but still have weak color performance if the resolution is inadequate. Inadequate resolution will result in distinct color bands in an image where the colors are supposed to change continuously. This is termed "Posterization". Posterization used to be common but most LCD makers have moved to 36 bit color and beyond which is well beyond the chromatic resolution capability of humans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman Hairston (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color gamut is not color support 

message: I changed the portion on the invention of the active matrix LCD.  While Peter Brody will tell you that he invented it(and he certainly did a lot to promote it), the active matrix LCD was invented in a lab that reported to Peter, not by Peter himself.  His name is not on the patent.
Also, though I did not include it, two major events in the development of the LCD were the exit of Westinghouse from the TV business and the purchase of RCA by GE.  Both events had a stiffing effect on display technology innovation that persists to this day.  Peter Brody's claim of ownership for the active matrix LCD further submerges the impact of innovative organizations on development of display technology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.41.194 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The active matrix LCD 

message: I tagged this article with the multiple issues I saw, and I am in NO WAY someone who can usually tag soemthing, I don't have alot of experience, but this article is HIDEOUS! anyways, thought I'd mention something =) --Cayden Ryan (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tagged this article 

message: Most Liquid Crystals have Double Refraction. There was no mentioning in this article. Can someone find a source for that?
Suki300me (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double refractive index 

message: There was a section in here discussing upscaling lag. This is a problem of high-definition TVs and not of LCD panels (as the section seemed to imply). I thusly removed it. 208.101.135.65 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken information 

message: I suggest include more info about memory LCD.--Hamiltha (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory LCD 

message: I have seen advertisements for LCD televisions with yellow but I have yet to hear about violet. Is it possible to manufacture violet LCD technology? LCD televisions with Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Violet would be very useful. -- Azemocram (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violet LCD 

message: See also:
Bazinga
Why do we need to see this also? This disambiguated to only Sheldon Cooper, which is irrelevant to this page, no? TomChunata (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bazinga 

message: Might I suggest protecting this article, as half of it seems to be gamer/hd-enthusiast marketing myths?
87.112.222.13 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect the article? 

message: After reading the article on Plasma Displays, which has an advantages/disadvantages section that lists pros and cons of plasma displays, I'm wondering why the LCD article doesn't have the same kind of thing? If people are researching about LCD TV's, there's a good chance they'd want to know the pros and cons.
One more thing: Why does the introductory section of this article only compare LCDs to the outdated CRTs? It's nice to know that LCDs CDs "...are more energy efficient and offer safer disposal than CRTs," but how do LCDs compare to plasma screens in these two aspects? CRTs are outdated, and while they were the precursor to LCD and Plasma screens, and it is good to know how LCDs compare with the CRTs they replaced, anyone shopping for a new TV will only care how LCDs compare to plasma screens.
--BigOilersFan (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no pros/cons section? And why all the comparisons with CRT and not plasma? 

message: The introduction of the article feels like a marketing add for LCD monitors. I wish not to jump to conclusions, but telling half the truth is still lying. I advice for a section describing the problems of LCD monitors. The introduction and comparison with CRT should be more balanced as well. Some of the problems of LCD monitors when compared to CRT include:
(1)Ghosting and motion blur (2)Low color fidelity (3)Fixed resolution (low quality when using resolutions other the native resolution) (4)Less durability (e.g, defective pixel) (5)Problems viewing at an angle.
On the other hand CRT monitors have higher response time, superior color fidelity, true multi-resolution support, and phosphor burn-in is far less common than pixel burnout. Further more with a single defective pixel you need to replace the whole monitor to fix it!).
I am not to here to advertise CRT monitors, neither am I an expert on the subject, but when issues are not mentioned at all and with an introduction like this article's, alarm bells go off. If I am wrong, correct me.--99.246.101.166 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Article says:
"In any case, colour range is rarely discussed as a feature of the display as LCDs are designed to match the colour ranges of the content that they are intended to show. Having a colour range that exceeds the content is a useless feature."
This doesn't make much sense to me.  What is an example of a gamut expansion that would not have any content worth showing?  --Chinasaur (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamut vs. content 

message: I presume this article is going to have a field day at some point discussing the technology behind the 3DS screen once that technology becomes more commonplace -- or at least when the 3DS itself is released. Unless there's already a different article dedicated to glasses-free 3D LCD screens.
ProjectPlatinum 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some limited mention now at Autostereoscopy; as reliable sources become available, either or both articles could expand, or a new article created. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  3DS Display 

message: Hi. Should we mention the toxicity of broken LCD screens that are highlighted in many owner's manuals as warnings and also in research studies such as this? Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: In "Brief history" a major milestone is missing: STN-LCDs allowed for the first time passive-matrix displays with considerable information content. More than 60 companies have taken licenses from the Swiss company Brown, Boveri & Cie to manufacture and sell STN-LCDs according to the patents mentioned in the proposed new entry.
So far the application of STN in the early Nintendo Game Boy is the only reference given [16]. However, early cellular phones and laptops also used this type of display. At that time active-matrix addressed LCDs were not yet ready for mass production.
Proposed addition to "Brief history" :
1983: Researchers at Brown, Boveri & Cie (BBC), Switzerland, invented the super-twisted nematic (STN) structure for passive-matrix addressed LCDs. H. Amstutz et al were listed as inventors in the corresponding patent applications filed in Switzerland on July 7, 1983, and October 28, 1983. Patents were granted in Switzerland CH 665491, Europe EP 0131216 [1], US 4634229 and many more countries. Scientific details were published in [2].
[1] European Patent No. EP 0131216: Amstutz H., Heimgartner D., Kaufmann M., Scheffer T.J., "Fluessigkristallanzeige," Oct. 28, 1987.
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP84107507
[2] T.J. Scheffer and J. Nehring,"A new highly multiplexable LCD," Appl.Phys.Lett.,vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1021-1023, Nov. 1984.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBCLCD (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of passive-matrix adressed STN-LCDs 

message: 1)  The Overview section includes a link to multiplexed. This link is not helpful in the context of LCDs, as it explains multiplexing of telecommunicaton transmission. Display matrices are typically addressed by selecting row-by-row sequentially, with the corresponding picture information entered through the columns row-by-row. To address a full picture, a scan of all rows is accomplished in a frame.
Propose to delete the link to multiplexed and replace it with a more detailed description of matrix-addressing in LCDs.
2) Section on passive- and active-matrix addressing: The present text suggests that active-matrix addressing has replaced passive-matrix addressing entirely. However, due to higher manufacturing costs for TFTs, potential additional defects and higher power consumption due to backlighting of active-matrix displays,  passive-matrix displays are still used for less demanding applications with less pixels than TVs and laptops, where lowest power consumption and/or reading in bright sunlight are of importance.
SwissLCD (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muliplex of matrix display — apps for passive-matrix addressed LCDs 

message: Delete the second paragraph referring to the company Nemoptic. This company has been under receivership http://media-business.biz/category/feed-categories/nemopticPatent No. US 3834794: R. Soref, Liquid crystal electric field sensing measurement and display device, filed June 28, 1973.. To take full advantage of the properties of this In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology further work was needed. After thorough analysis, details of advantageous embodiments were filed in Germany by Guenter Baur et al and patented in various countries >ref> Patent No. US 5576867:  G. Baur, W. Fehrenbach, B. Staudacher, F. Windscheid, R. Kiefer, Liquid crystal switching elements having a parallel electric field and beta o which is not 0 or 90 degrees, filed Jan. 9, 1990.. The Fraunhofer Institute in Freiburg, where the inventors worked, assigned these patents to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, the world's leading supplier of LC substances.
In addition, Hitachi worked out practical details to interconnect the thin-film transistor array in matrix form and to avoid undesirable stray fields in between pixels later-on.
SwissLCD (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-power (bistable) displays 

message: These is little discussion of "calculator" and segment (often used in instruments and dashboards) displays.  As an encyclopedia article this seems like a basic introduction to static vs multiplexed control, etc.  In general the article seems too closely tied to minute of current market trends rather than an good introduction to LCDs; what they are, how they work, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.224.81 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character and Segment LCDs 

message: The macbook pro does not use an IPS. Display panel a. Mentioned in the article. It uses a TN panel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.40.138 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macbook Pro 

message: an orphaned page with no references that ought to be just a sentence or two in the main article A3BDFAD9EC0B (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Optical film]] 

message: Any chance of a source for that "disadvantage" bullet point? Contributor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.61.25.252  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBoden (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet point: Hard to read when wearing polarized sunglasses. 

message: I think this article could use a brief explanation of how a colour display is set up, with sub pixels etc - in the sections concerning the principles of operation.81.191.184.223 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There might be a clearer explanation of how colour is generated 

message: In the Disadvantages section under Input lag the first sentence "Input lag, because the LCD's A/D converter waits for each frame to be completely been output before "drawing" it to the LCD panel." has a problem.  Something is missing after the word completely.
Robertdirosario (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Disadvantages section 

message: Backlit LCD(s) Are My Favorite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinan Blueje (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fav Lcd 

message: There's an article titled LCD television, which deals with no particularities of LCD displays featuring TV tuners, numerous sections even dealing explicitly with computer monitors. Perhaps some of the info there is worth merging into this article, but I'd say we have two articles dealing with the same subject of matter. --uKER (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I added  and  tags on the two occurrences of the claim that LCDs emit no light of their own. I'm not an expert, but I believe it's common conventional knowledge that this is correct, however, it's such a central aspect of the topic that it requires a robust citation. I have a less-than-ideal source for the claim, an article published on FESPA's website, the qualifier owing to FESPA's realm of expertise being printing on physical media as opposed to electronics or electromagnetic radiation.
Maybe someone could source a better reference?
MagnusOxlund (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a recent publication in a reputable journal showing that light transmission is controlled by LCDs, without light emission by the screen itself.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources supporting (or contradicting) the claim that LCDs emit no light of their own 

message: Please conisder adding updated information on ZBD LCDs under the "Zero-Power" (bistable) Display section:
The ZBD LCD technology was invented in 1995Patent US6249332  https://patents.google.com/patent/US6249332B1/ and uses a submicron grating surface to stabilise two different orientations of an adjacent nematic liquid crystal. These states lead to either high or low pretilt in the LC close to the surface and can thus allow two optically distinct states when the grating is used as one of the surfaces in an LC cell. The bend and splay distortion of the LC material close to the grating leads to regions with macroscopic flexoelectric polarisation. It is possible to use the polarity of applied electrical pulses to couple to the flexoelectricity and thus select either the high or low tilt state. The technology is manufactured by replication of an inverse structure (on a polymer foil) into a UV curing resin coated onto the LCD glassG. P Bryan-Brown, D. E. Walker, J.C. Jones “Controlled grating replication for the ZBD technology” Proc. SID 2009, Vol 40, P1334 – 1337. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1889/1.3256546. After UV cure and separation, the LCD glass is assembled as a standard LCD and filled with standard LC material. 
thumb|Two distinct configurations of a nematic liquid crystal on a grating surface
The ZBD LCD offers ‘infinite multiplexibilty’. There is a distinct threshold between the two states which allows passive matrix addressing of many thousands of lines. This contrasts with many other low power display modes which require a TFT backplane (e.g. Eink EPD, Clearink EPD, electrowetting, electrochromic, phase change). 
The technology has been widely deployed in low power electronic shelf edge label products. Since 2019, the ZBD LCD technology has been exclusively owned, manufactured and marketed by New Vision DisplayPress release   https://newvisiondisplay.com/nvd-acquires-zbd-lcd-technology/.
Aubsabs222 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZBD Liquid Crystal Displays 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus.  Favonian (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Liquid-crystal display →  – Per MOS:ACROTITLE: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". That is the case here. It is also more WP:CONSISTENT with LCD television, LCD projector, LCD classification, LCD crosstalk, Blue phase mode LCD and List of LCD matrices. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 February 2023