←back to thread

M4 MacBook Pros use a quantum dot (QD) film rather than a red KSF phosphor film

(twitter.com)
151 points zdw | 3 comments | 16 Nov 24 00:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.625s | source
Show context
Sephr ◴[16 Nov 24 00:36 UTC] No.42153013[source]▶
Does this mean better motion response times? The M-series MacBook Pro displays have notoriously smeary displays while displaying high-motion content, so this would be a welcome addition.
replies(5): >>42153030 #>>42153115 #>>42153425 #>>42153692 #>>42154784 #
1. compass_copium ◴[16 Nov 24 06:20 UTC] No.42154784[source]▶
It shouldn't make a difference. The film is illuminated by a blue LED and constantly glows uniformly yellow, which is the same mechanism as the white LEDs in a traditional display (blue emitter illuminates yellow phosphor coating). The LCD filters this to make specific pixels and would be more responsible. I worked for a now defunct QD company.
replies(1): >>42155591 #
2. superjan ◴[16 Nov 24 10:02 UTC] No.42155591[source]▶
The way I thought LCD/LED displays worked was by RGB filtering a uniform white backlight. Is it only this design that does fosforescence per subpixel? Sounds way more energy efficient.
replies(1): >>42155882 #
3. usrusr ◴[16 Nov 24 11:32 UTC] No.42155882[source]▶
Oh, phosphorescence per subpixel (instead of flooding all in "white" that was created through phosphorescence from blue in a central place) sounds like an awesome power optimization for where you still want/need subtractive LCD instead of some *LED with additive per-(sub)pixel emitter.

For those following outdoor sports tech, I wonder if this might be the secret sauce that allowed Garmin to abandon transflective screens in the Edge 1050, which unlike their post-transflective watches is still technically an LCD. (the not secret at all meat of the change is a depressingly massive battery and big loss in runtime, but I suspect that the battery alone isn't enough to explain that the loss isn't even bigger)