 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
It relies on jargon which is not defined anywhere else in Wikipedia -- it is therefore the duty of the editors to define these terms. The article will also benefit from one or two diagrams showing how the liquid crystals lie in a horizontal plane (for example, what does horizontal mean in this context? parallel to the glass front of the monitor? parallel to the table the monitor rests on?), and perhaps two schematic diagrams showing how the electrodes and wiring differ from those in ordinary TFT TN monitors.
In the section on "History" only the 1st, 2nd, and 4th sentences actually touch on history. Not a word in this section about the men and women, and companies, that invented and developed IPS.
Super-IPS and Super-PLS are mentioned, but are not explained, not even by cross reference. Are they the same thing?
The section on "Advantages" reads like an advertisement written by someone who is still learning the English language. Some of it is truly incomprehensible -- copy-editing would be futile. Why is there no corresponding section on disadvantages? Even better would be a table comparing the strengths and weaknesses of all the flat-panel display technologies, but might be the nucleus of a different article.
Come on, someone has to fix this. Before IPS is driven from the market by the next great thing, whatever that might be.
Eall Ân Ûle (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SwissLCD (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Agreed! I could have sworn that there was another article on IPS at some point, one that made sense and that wasn't written so poorly, but I must be mistaken. Also, as mentioned below, the Super PLS section is basically an ad (a really bad one at that) by Samsung!
I don't know enough to fix it, and what it really needs is to be deleted and started from scratch! I'll see if I can find someone who can re-write it, but, if there's anyone else out there who can, please do so!
Ge0nk (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It was designed to solve the main limitations of the twisted nematic field effect matrix LCDs at that time". At what time? 173.172.70.38 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Super PLS section looks like it was written by a Samsung PR person with no technical knowledge - supports "resolutions of up to almost 1 megapixel" and doubles viewing angles (which are already quoted at 178 degrees) are the most egregious examples of someone talking out their arse. Bpdlr (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this article appear to be verbatim copies or very close paraphrases of portions of the source texts they cite. While it is good that the sources are credited, these really need to be rewritten in original prose if this is in fact the case. ::Travis Evans (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this article and the comments on the talk page I have made an effort to draw a schematic and add an explanation of a particular type of IPS operation closest related to twisted nematic LCDs. A lot of details are left out for a better understanding of the basics.
However, a similar effort is still needed to explain super IPS and other more advanced versions. I have left LCD R&D in 1980. Therefore, I am not an expert on the later evolution. SwissLCD (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye yi yi. Perhaps these are the bumps in the road for a new article. I'm pulling a completely backwards statement. Absolutely everyone here will agree. Inside IPS panel#Technology there is the following bit of nonsense (forgive my hyperbole):
"VA offers a wide viewing angle. VA panels have other problems.[5]"
First of all, that source does not even say that!!!!! It says that VA has "wider viewing angles than TFT". NOT compared to IPS. Secondly, one of the amazing hallmarks of IPS (all flavors) is the enormous viewing angles.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this apparent contradiction. The summary says:
> It was to solve the main limitations of TN-matrices at the time: relatively slow response...
But then the Disadvantages section says:
> IPS panels have slower response times and are therefore more prone to the ghosting effect.
Which is it? 141.59.18.72 (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edits habe been made to change the category German inventions to US or Swiss inventions. Neither the RCA team in the US nor Helfrich and Schadt at Roche in Switzerland experimented with electric fields parallel to the glass substrates of LCDs at the time. The inventors at the Fraunhofer Institute in Freiburg, Germany, came up with an IPS implementation patented and used by many licencees.
SwissLCD (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Lexein (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The chart in the history section is beyond useless. It really does reek of marketing PR (notice all the quantify tags?). I'm tempted to remove it, but wanted to post here first to see if any of the editors are still active here and would like to propose an alternative first. Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 10:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a link to [1] that explains (and shows) what "grayscale inversion effect" is. Obviously, a more neutral source (and presumably more stable) like a book or paper that shows this would be nice. I found a few books on g-books that talk about it:
Liquid Crystal Display Drivers: Techniques and Circuits, p. 62, at Google Books and Progress in Liquid Crystal Science and Technology, p. 325, at Google Books, and a 2006 paper (Park, Chi Hyuk; Lee, Seung Hee; et al. (2006). "Control of gray scale inversion in a film-compensated twisted nematic liquid crystal display using beam steering optical film". Applied Physics Letters. 89 (10): 101119. doi:10.1063/1.2345248. - conference session link: "Reduction of grey scale inversion in a film-compensated twisted nematic liquid crystal display using beam steering optical film". Chi-Hyuck Park et al.)
The books links don't have pictures (I don't think). The article has a picture (Figure 6), but it's behind a paywall. So we're left with a picture from a manufacturer website. Anyone have any better idea? Jimw338 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IPS panel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwtbh22 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
