Hypothetical: IPS vs OLED vs RGBLED monitors

Out of curiosity, what would be the differences between the IPS, OLED and a RGBLED monitor in terms of quality (and the little details).

I have an iPad, which is IPS (I think), so that has excellent viewing angles, perfect for those that need accurate color for work. As I understand, their ms isn't that high. But that's about it. And I have almost no experience with OLED and RGBLED monitors.

Any thoughts?

 

From a computer (monitor or laptop) perspective, for high quality displays, IPS is the most widely available. Obviously none of these options are "cheap" but major manufacturers (HP, Dell) all have IPS monitors. It is an established and widely used technology, which in recent years have trickled to mobile devices (iPhone, iPad, and various other popular devices).

RGBLED monitors are essentially TN panels (bottom of the bunch) paired with higher quality back lighting; RGBLED as opposed to WLED or blue LED. As for OLED (and it's variants), they are kinda pricey and impossible to find outside of TVs and mobile devices.

 

RGBLED is a type of backlighting, not a panel type. You can get IPS panels with RGBLED backlighting for example.

Also, the type of panel doesn't determine the display quality of panel. Many say that IPS is the best, but e.g. I have a number of PVA screens that offer equivalent to superior image quality.

The main functional deal with TN vs IPS/PVA is the way the panel changes colour when you look at it from anywhere but dead-on straight. You can see this really easily in big TN monitors, such as budget 24" monitors where you can see the corners start to change colour even though you're looking at it straight. IPS/PVA panels don't have this problem.

There's been an IPS vs PVA battle raging for a while, but the fact that some camps have managed to reduce the cost of IPS panel manufacture seems to have ended that - personally I thought the speed vs quality balance was better achieved with PVA, certainly with the Eizo monitors I still use.

OLED panels are completely different: They have an LED group per pixel effectively speaking (OK, this is simplistic - but it'll suffice) and they aren't backlit since they are, well, LED's. So blacks are black, viewing angles are excellent and colours are very saturated, and switching times are faster - check out many non-Apple phone handsets for examples of this. The problem at the moment is that it's still expensive to make large OLED monitors, compared to the established technologies. The potential for overall quality is the highest here, but there are still issues to be overcome.

 

Thanks, guys. A lot of misconception on my part. That helps me understand a whole lot better.

The only reason I brought up OLED was, I've always been interested in it. And I saw this a few days ago (still with prices of $4k and above).

Sony keeps OLED hope alive with 'budget' monitor line (video) -- Engadget

 

Well, technically IPS is the best, but that only holds true for $2000+ monitors where PVA doesn't compete... It would be more accurate to say that IPS has the potential to be the best, if you have an unlimited budget.

At consumer price levels, both IPS and PVA can be good choices and what's better depends more on the specific monitor in question than the panel type employed.

Also, there's some horrible IPS and PVA monitors out there too ( like this one, which is PVA), so it's important to look at more than just the panel type when selecting a monitor.

 

With the emphasis on $2K plus. I still have the older Eizo CG242W(PVA) hanging around in addition to the CG243W and the HP LP2480ZX (which is certainly a better, more stable-performance monitor - but then it is, what, $1K more?) - as well as of course the usual (larger) suspects from HP, Dell and Apple. I have to say in terms of display quality, the PVA's were neck and neck with IPS monitors around then when I compared them - and at the Eizo level, we are talking monitors almost $2K.