An OLED Characterization report of the Sony XEL-1 OLED tv has been published. The report includes measurements of lifetime by color & image, power consumption differential aging, burn-in, contrast ratio & luminance.

OLED TV estimated lifespan shorter then expected (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/oled-tv-estimated-lifespan-shorter-then-expected.html)

The results demonstrate that the Sony display is significantly inferior in many ways to the current AMOLED designs.

I guess it's not surprising given the rate of improvement in the technology. Time to market for that sort of bleeding edge product is usually higher.

The lifespan of the panels is a big worry. I'm amazed the red panel was degrading so fast.

Anyone know how much Display Search charge for their in depth articles?

An OLED Characterization report of the Sony XEL-1 OLED tv has been published. The report includes measurements of lifetime by color & image, power consumption differential aging, burn-in, contrast ratio & luminance.

OLED TV estimated lifespan shorter then expected (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/oled-tv-estimated-lifespan-shorter-then-expected.html)

The results demonstrate that the Sony display is significantly inferior in many ways to the current AMOLED designs.Predicted this a while ago. The number Sony quoted was probably obtained at a below average APL and 100% duty cycle. Using less than 100% duty cycle with current OLED materials is asking for trouble. Those curves look similar to early PDP lifetime curves. Looks like burn-in is a real threat with this display.

I guess it's not surprising given the rate of improvement in the technology. Time to market for that sort of bleeding edge product is usually higher.

The lifespan of the panels is a big worry. I'm amazed the red panel was degrading so fast.

Anyone know how much Display Search charge for their in depth articles?I know the annual reports are ~6,000$ US

Predicted this a while ago. The number Sony quoted was probably obtained at a below average APL and 100% duty cycle. Using less than 100% duty cycle with current OLED materials is asking for trouble. Those curves look similar to early PDP lifetime curves. Looks like burn-in is a real threat with this display.
Burn in is going to be a problem for OLED no matter what type and how good the materials are.

Plasma has a good pq, OLED will have a better PQ still, but since the actual light generation is done by chemicals that define the pixel, burn in will be a issue with OLED as well.

Face it, we are going to have LCD around in one way or another for a long time.

Face it, we are going to have LCD around in one way or another for a long time.


Yes, I also think LCD will be around for a long time ( and for sure as computer monitors) until a newer technology without a burn-in is used.

Just read the original article and I thought I will post it here but some proxy reader was faster than me... :D

here's the original source: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IYGIIWRDFS4J4QSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JV N?articleID=207601176

IMO this is the important part:

It turns out that the RGB architecture is very sensitive to the image, and it has a 5,000-hour lifetime for white and a 17,000-hour lifetime for the typical video image--well below the Sony's published specifications, according to the report.

Moreover the panel suffers from differential aging: After 1,000 hours the blue luminance degraded by 12 percent, the red by 7 percent and the green by 8 percent, said the report.

Other key findings include:

The sub-pixel architecture includes two TFTs and two capacitors. The pixel architecture does not use a common support layer, as the materials and thickness are different. The micro cavity structure results in multiple reflection interference. The brightness is severely reduced in high-ambient conditions. The black levels are less than 0.01 cd/m, lower than any other display (PDP or LCD) currently on the market. The top emission design includes a color filter and a circular polarizer. The cathode is semi transparent. The design includes a unique approach to cooling the OLED.

(keeping in mind that i am a complete non-expert, with an interest in the OLED industry)

All of you need to remember that the TV created by Sony does not represent what the OLED industry is capable of. They rushed an imperfect display to market for one sole purpose: the public relations advantage of saying that they had the worlds first OLED tv. It was a brilliant PR move: they generated huge amounts of publicity, and helped redefine their corporate image as being on the cutting edge. It helps the public to forget about the numerous scandals and debacles that constantly roil their deeply flawed company.

Current lifetimes for PHOLED materials*, except for blue, is something like 100,000 hours for red and 60-80,000 hours for green. It is far far superior. I know Barry Young personally, the guy who wrote the report, and he would be the first to tell you that a state of the art OLED is not comparable in quality to this obsolete sony effort.




* I forgot to mention that the Sony XEL-1 does not use PHOLEDs. In my opinion PHOLEDs are the best type of material for use in an OLED display.