TCL's German QLED Ban Puts Pressure on TV Brands to be More Honest About QDs
hubie writes:
"This is a serious warning shot"
Germany recently banned TCL from marketing some of its TVs as QLED (quantum dot light-emitting diode), with a Munich court ruling that the TVs lack the quantum dot (QD) structure and performance associated with QLED TVs. The decision increases pressure on TV companies to be more honest with their marketing.
Samsung has actively campaigned against TCL's use of the term QLED. A year ago, Samsung sent Ars Technica results from testing performed by Intertek, a London-headquartered testing and certification company, on TCL's 65Q651G, 65Q681G, and 75Q651G. The results showed that the TVs lacked sufficient amounts of cadmium and indium (two chemicals used in QD TVs, either individually or in combination). Intertek reportedly tested the optical sheet, diffuser plate, and LED modules in each TV using a minimum detection standard of 0.5 mg/kg for cadmium and 2 mg/kg for indium.
At the time, a TCL representative told me that TCL had "definitive substantiation for the claims made regarding its QLED televisions."
But based on previous dissections of TCL TVs shared online [Videos not reviewed - Ed.] and conversations with industry experts, it seems those TVs may employ some QDs but not enough to offer a significantly wider color gamut than similarly specced, non-QD rivals. It's common for TVs marketed as QD, especially budget sets, to primarily rely on phosphors or a combination of phosphors and QDs at varying ratios, for color conversion. That's instead of, as the terms QD TV and QLED suggest, QDs. Phosphors are cheaper than QDs, and their associated color performance in displays is not as good.
Other manufacturers, including Samsung [Videos not reviewed - Ed.], have been accused of marketing TVs that rely heavily on phosphors as QD or QLED.
[...] "Some products marketed as 'QLED' use conventional backlight architectures (standard phosphors, optical films, diffuser plates) and rely on picture modes or software tuning to create a more saturated 'vivid' look," a January whitepaper by TUV Rheinland and QD supplier Nanosys reads. The whitepaper, "Re-defining a 'true' Quantum Dot Display," also points to devices that have QD material at "trace levels, or in packaging and integration designs that limit excitation and light extraction of certain wavelengths."
"In these cases, the display may still achieve competitive headline gamut coverage, yet the measurable optical signature of an effective QD system is absent or minimal," the whitepaper says. "The spectrum, color, volume behavior at high luminance, chromaticity stability, and temporal response can remain similar to those of non-QD LCD solutions."
For now, the German ruling brings needed scrutiny to "QLED" and other potentially misleading display terms.
[...] With TV marketing remaining murky-and often misleading-digging into detailed performance reviews remains the most reliable way to gauge how a display might perform in the real world.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.