Direct view Micro LED displays are a relatively new display technology that so far has been publicly demonstrated only by Samsung and Sony, the two of which tend to experiment with variety of technologies in general. At IFA last week TCL, a major maker of televisions, threw its hat into the ring by demonstrating its ultra-large Micro LED-based Ultra-HD TV.

Dubbed the Cinema Wall 132-Inch 4K, TCL’s Micro LED television uses 24,000,000 individually controlled LEDs as RGB subpixels, and features a 1,500 nits max brightness level as well as a 2,500,000 contrast ratio (good enough to compete against OLEDs). The manufacturer claims that the TV can display a wide color gamut, but does not disclose whether they're using DCI-P3 or BT.2020.

Like other early-generation display products, TCL is not revealing if and when plans to release its 132-inch 4K Micro LED TV commercially, but the fact that that it has a device that is good enough to be shown in public (see the video by Quantum OLED channel here) is an important step. Just like other makers of Micro LED televisions, TCL might want to increase peak brightness supported by these devices, as many modern titles are post-produced using Dolby’s Pulsar reference monitor for Dolby Vision HDR, which has a peak brightness level of 4000 nits.

Numerous TV makers are currently investigating Micro LED technology as a viable alternative to OLED-based screens. While OLEDs tend to offer superior contrast ratio when compared to LCDs, they have a number of trade-offs, including off-axis color shifting, ghosting, burn-in, etc. WOLED has mitigated some of these issues, but it has also introduced others due to the inherient limitations of using color filters.

By contrast Micro LED TVs are expected to be free of such drawbacks, while still retaining the advantages of individual LEDs like brightness, contrast, fast response time, and wide viewing angles. As an added bonus, Micro LED TVs will not need any bezels and can be made very thin.

Related Reading:

Sources: Quantum OLED, MicroLED.info, LEDs Inside

POST A COMMENT

72 Comments

View All Comments

  • guidryp - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    Sure, at only 5 cents/pixel. ;) Reply
  • Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    While up to 75 - 80" a 4K resolution is perfectly adequate, at 100+" sizes, and most certainly at 132", 8K is required (unless you always sit 5+ meters away, assuming you have the space). The panel of this TV has just 33 PPI and a pixel pitch of 0.76 mm, which is poor to say the least. Perhaps microLEDs of that size are easier and cheaper to make?
    I would be personally fully content with a TV with a 70" large 4K microLED panel. Besides being much more .. manageable and a better fit for my home it would also have almost double the pixel density.
    Reply
  • Santoval - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    p.s. Sorry guidryp, I accidentally clicked "reply" to your comment rather than "Post a comment". When I require sleep I get very absent-minded... Reply
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    Heh, I was just thinking, at this density, you'd get 1080p on a screen just a hair larger than my 65" 4K set. And while I'd certainly agree that 1080p is too low for a 65"-class TV, I wonder how far the wide gamut, deep contrast, and fast response time would go to make up for it.

    Then again, sitting five feet away from a screen with 33ppi would be the same as holding an iPhone 11 half a foot from your face...
    Reply
  • Kjella - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    What are you talking about? If you have 20/20 vision watching a 132 inch TV you have to sit closer than 8.6 feet / 262 cm to notice any 4K+ details. No mainstream movie is mastered at more than 4K and if they did 99%+ of cinemas wouldn't be able to show it nor is there a consumer format that does 8K. At best you get upscales from 4K BluRays and 4K streaming.

    The big benefit of MicroLEDs is that they consist of panels so costs scale proportionally with area and you can make really huge TVs, like if a 50" TV costs $1000 then a 100" TV will be $4000, a 150" TV $9000 and 200" $16000 and the biggest TV will also have the highest resolution. MicroLED will be a rich man's playtoy with their 8K video wall, not for "small" TVs like today.
    Reply
  • schujj07 - Friday, September 13, 2019 - link

    I can tell you that I can see the pixels on my 55" 1080p TV, 40.05 ppi, when the contrast is right from a distance greater than 8ft, with a 65" that would be even more pronounced. For that reason you would want an 8k resolution for a TV at 132". Reply
  • buttabean - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link

    I have a 134" stewart screen with a 1080p projector. it looks fantastic at the viewing distance of 14'. If i'm 5' or less from the screen you can see the pixel structure. 4k would improve things but improve on nits/contrast/color volume and all those types of things will make for a much better experience than 4k/8k. Good thing that all these displays are improving in these areas at the same time, some from the increase in resolution as a side effect. The brightness of a display does effect the perceived resolution as well. It's really noticeable when a bulb is at the end of its life span and you put a new one in the projector, it's like a brand new display! Reply
  • PixyMisa - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link

    Yeah, but 20/20 vision is actually kind of bad. Good vision is more like 20/12. Reply
  • bigboxes - Monday, September 16, 2019 - link

    Derp Reply
  • nikaldro - Saturday, September 14, 2019 - link

    Lol? A 132" 4K screen has the same pixel density as a 66" 1080p one, and a 33" 720p one Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now