This discussion of the white sub-pixel is still interesting to me. It seems like it's really most useful when displaying white and then some relatively small subset of hues where you can still use it. Thing is white -- or shades thereof -- is reasonably common. It might also be true that to realize the contrast potential of the display, being able to get white in a power-efficient manner is very valuable.


I havent seen anything on red or green, but Universal Display (an OLED materials supplier) claims that a saturated blue is only used about 10-20% of the time. The rest of the time you are generally using a "light" blue.

I assume that this is how LG can claim a fairly small drop in power consumption for RGBW. The white pixel must be used to create a fairly substantial portion of the color gamut.

This discussion of the white sub-pixel is still interesting to me. It seems like it's really most useful when displaying white and then some relatively small subset of hues where you can still use it. Thing is white -- or shades thereof -- is reasonably common. It might also be true that to realize the contrast potential of the display, being able to get white in a power-efficient manner is very valuable.

The probability of non-White-enhanced pixel assuming linear color space, 8-bit quantization and pure randomized input is:
3*256^2/256^3=3/256=1%
so 99% of pixels could be White assisted.
The color conversion scheme should be as follows:
(R,G,B) -> (R-Delta, G-Delta, B-Delta, W)
where:
Dellta = (Lowest_of_RGB * 3 * F_Coeff^3 < 256 ? Lowest_of_RGB * F_Coeff^3 | 255/3)
W=3*Delta
For instance assuming color filters efficiency coeff. (F_Coeff) as 1s:
(255,255,255) -> (85,85,85,255)
(125, 230,16) -> (109, 214, 0, 48) | Lowest-of_RGB=16 so: Delta=16
(125, 230, 100) -> (40, 145, 15, 255) | Lowest_of_RGB=100 so: Delta=255/3
(125, 230, 0) -> (125, 230, 0, 0)
Note that F_Coeff other than 1 resulting with rounding errors.
Note that if W is unfiltered color conversion scheme should be non-linear and reflect that W is not R+G+B.
Note that above scheme principle is to maximize use of W subpixel (power efficiency).

ferro and piquadrat, thanks for some incredibly useful posts. :)

Piquadrat, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your maths similar to white subpixel "helping" grayscale, not withstanding that there are few instances when saturated colors are used and subpixel white is not useful, as ferro pointed out?

Otherwise white subpixel helps with grayscale, luma and hence power, and more elegant than quattron yellow in implementation.


...but these RGB subpixels have to occupy less horizontal area. It's because you have to squeeze somewhere all White ones. Less area=less maximum luminance possible. In the end the only thing you gain is because of the color filters efficiency factors of RGB subpixels. At the expense of more complex driving circuity (TFTs for W) and stronger manufacturing precision requirements (smaller deposition windows).
There's no point in believing that W subpixel could be driven differently than RGBs ones so its maximum possible luminance is more or less the same as for every other subpixel. That's why one cannot get white color only with Ws and preserve luminance level at the same time. RGBs should be turned on also.
This LG's approach is not a big deal for me.
Actually I think RGBW occupy MORE horizontal area as an ADDITIONAL subpixel white is needed vs Sammy's RGB. As per xrox's diagram, there is a stacked RGB OLED under EVERY subpixel of RGBW. That's where most of the confusion comes from. It is NOT green OLED under a green color filter.

That means technically RGBW is less efficient and uses more power since need more horizontal area, but the practically is that the W pixel provide much of the luma needed that RGB can be driven less. That's also why quattron seems brighter. With four subpixels it can be brighter than 3 subpixels. They are driven same way but decoding and color mapping can be done relatively easier than quattron to optimise luma driving from RGB and White.

That's the elegance part I was talking about. Like I said this is similar (not same) to how video YCC operates.

Piquadrat, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your maths similar to white subpixel "helping" grayscale, not withstanding that there are few instances when saturated colors are used and subpixel white is not useful, as ferro pointed out?

Otherwise white subpixel helps with grayscale, luma and hence power, and more elegant than quattron yellow in implementation.

I don't think white subpixel can help with grayscale. The fact that W is unfiltered may produce problems as W is not R + G + B spectrum-wise.
It may be helpful with luma (increase it's maximum) on static images if they only consist of non-zero or non-255 pixels (so no: (125, 4, 0) nor: (255, 0, 0) in a frame buffer at a given time) working similarly as brightness. For moving pictures gain is not stable which renders it useless.


Actually I think RGBW occupy MORE horizontal area as an ADDITIONAL subpixel white is needed vs Sammy's RGB. As per xrox's diagram, there is a stacked RGB OLED under EVERY subpixel of RGBW. That's where most of the confusion comes from. It is NOT green OLED under a green color filter.

The horizontal area occupied by each pixel is defined by 3 factors: the physical dimensions of the whole panel, resolution and patterning (borders between pixels). This is the reason why LG took cross pattern. If they arranged subpixels in 4 stripes (assuming each pixel is a square of "a" size) the average statistical length of each pixel's border is:
L = 4*a/2 + 3*a = 5*a | /2-because each pixel shares border with neighbors
For 3 stripes arrangement L = 4*a and for cross pattern of 4 subpixels in LG's solution L = 4*a. So LG simply did not lose on boarders going to RGBW and on the other side did not win anything either.
L affects the luminance of a panel as the area of a border (dependent on L linearly) do not produce light.


That means technically RGBW is less efficient and uses more power since need more horizontal area, but the practically is that the W pixel provide much of the luma needed that RGB can be driven less. That's also why quattron seems brighter. With four subpixels it can be brighter than 3 subpixels. They are driven same way but decoding and color mapping can be done relatively easier than quattron to optimise luma driving from RGB and White.
That's the elegance part I was talking about. Like I said this is similar (not same) to how video YCC operates.
As stated above the effective horizontal area of RGBW pixel must be the same as RGB counterpart or -less- in non-cross-pattern approaches. YCC is a reversible color-space conversion as RGB->RGBW one. The similarities end here as YCC is used as an arrangement for loose compression of chroma channel in bandwidth limited scenarios. That's strictly a resolution keeper (balancing and optimizer). It doesn't help to get more luminance.

EDIT. But (255, 255, 255) -> (85, 85, 85, 255) so indeed you lost luminance (in comparison to RGB on the same horizontal area) as it should be (255, 255, 255, 255) to preserve it. The thing is if you want to get (255, 255, 255) -> (255, 255, 255, 255) the modified conversion scheme becomes discontinuous and for instance (255, 10, 30) -> does not have its RGBW representative and: (255, 85, 85) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) is the boundary. The closer to primary colors the worse.
Maybe someone wiser than me tell us how LG could succeed with this. Because it seems that they are not gaining luminance with RGBW but the opposite.

I don't think white subpixel can help with grayscale. The fact that W is unfiltered may produce problems as W is not R + G + B spectrum-wise.
It may be helpful with luma (increase it's maximum) on static images if they only consist of non-zero or non-255 pixels (so no: (125, 4, 0) nor: (255, 0, 0) in a frame buffer at a given time) working similarly as brightness. For moving pictures gain is not stable which renders it useless.

The horizontal area occupied by each pixel is defined by 3 factors: the physical dimensions of the whole panel, resolution and patterning (borders between pixels). This is the reason why LG took cross pattern. If they arranged subpixels in 4 stripes (assuming each pixel is a square of "a" size) the average statistical length of each pixel's border is:
L = 4*a/2 + 3*a = 5*a | /2-because each pixel shares border with neighbors
For 3 stripes arrangement L = 4*a and for cross pattern of 4 subpixels in LG's solution L = 4*a. So LG simply did not lose on boarders going to RGBW and on the other side did not win anything either.
L affects the luminance of a panel as the area of a border (dependent on L linearly) do not produce light.

As stated above the effective horizontal area of RGBW pixel must be the same as RGB counterpart or -less- in non-cross-pattern approaches. YCC is a reversible color-space conversion as RGB->RGBW one. The similarities end here as YCC is used as an arrangement for loose compression of chroma channel in bandwidth limited scenarios. That's strictly a resolution keeper (balancing and optimizer). It doesn't help to get more luminance.

EDIT. But (255, 255, 255) -> (85, 85, 85, 255) so indeed you lost luminance (in comparison to RGB on the same horizontal area) as it should be (255, 255, 255, 255) to preserve it. The thing is if you want to get (255, 255, 255) -> (255, 255, 255, 255) the modified conversion scheme becomes discontinuous and for instance (255, 10, 30) -> does not have its RGBW representative and: (255, 85, 85) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) is the boundary. The closer to primary colors the worse.
Maybe someone wiser than me tell us how LG could succeed with this. Because it seems that they are not gaining luminance with RGBW but the opposite.

I can't say I totally understand your maths but like I always declare: in my industry we strive to be roughly right rather than precisely wrong :)

1) is it confirmed that W is unfiltered and not passing through a white color filter? As discussed, Ferro already pointed out it will not be useful for saturated colors where the mapping is saturated ie 0 or 255.

2) I understand the border part but how do you conclude the NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area? Think Pentile.

3) I am saying YCC splits the chroma and luma which the W subpixel is acting as a Y luma. So from a decoding point of view it is not revolutionary or unprecedented. With (85,85,85,255) you have demonstrated that power can be reduced in RGB and made up for by W subpixel on an apple to apple comparison. To increase brightness and make J6P happy can't it be mapped to say (127,127,127, 255)?

I think RGBW can be brighter if power is not a consideration. But for similar power consumption with Sammy's RGB, then it will certainly will be dimmer because of the efficiency loss from color filter (and maybe RGB stack?).

Dupont is building an experimental fab to test their solution based printing technology for OLED's. They licensed an undisclosed Asian manufacturer (likely Samsung) in November.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120124/NEWS/201240342/DuPont-gets-920K-state-grant-for-prototype-organic-LED-plant

Hard to say how close this is to reality, but it is the holy grail for OLED's in terms of cost.

My point is, if you have given full hd 16:9 panel of 55" diagonal you can calculate the maximum possible area each pixel can occupy. And your goal as an engineer is to maximize the usage of it. If you just add another subpixel to already area optimized RGB pixel structure without changing the sizes of already existed subpixels all of the newly redesigned pixels becomes bigger and simply won't fit into the panel. You have to reduce the size of R and B and G when you add W.


1) is it confirmed that W is unfiltered and not passing through a white color filter? As discussed, Ferro already pointed out it will not be useful for saturated colors where the mapping is saturated ie 0 or 255.

The thing is (255, 0, 0) and (255, 0, 0, 0) are not equal in luminance. See above. Smaller area of R in RGBW means less light. If you allow one pixel to lower its "brightnes" you have to reduce the "brightness" of all pixels in frame buffer accordingly. You can't just ignore the fact that some colors becomes a little brighter and some a little darker going to RGBW space. It's a distortion.


2) I understand the border part but how do you conclude the NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area? Think Pentile.

See above. The NUMBER of subpixel does not affect the horizontal area of each pixel as each pixel area is determined by the resolution (1920x1080) and the panel size as a whole (55").

3) I am saying YCC splits the chroma and luma which the W subpixel is acting as a Y luma. So from a decoding point of view it is not revolutionary or unprecedented. With (85,85,85,255) you have demonstrated that power can be reduced in RGB and made up for by W subpixel on an apple to apple comparison. To increase brightness and make J6P happy can't it be mapped to say (127,127,127, 255)?

Yes it can. But this redesigned scheme will have it's own boundary somewhere between 0 and 85 - around 42 I suppose so (255, 42, 42) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) and (255, 41, 42) doesn't have its representative in RGBW space. The primary color problem will arise but a little later.
And you can't ignore this problem as it results in distortions every time such problematic pixel arrives into the framebuffer. This pixel is then displayed as darker then it should be.

Thanks I see your point now: basically we have to assume the display size is constant. I missed that. I have to reconsider then the premise of extra subpixel like the quattron somehow is brighter. Probably more because LCD is backlit vs OLED which is individual emitter.

And I can see how lower luma in other RGB could be an issue but frankly that should be relatively easy to compensate with W subpixel, if it is filtered white.

So is unfiltered white confirmed then?

Why is RGBW space limited to 85? It is a matter of interpolation and mapping?

"So is unfiltered white confirmed then?"

I have a lot of reason to believe that's correct, but not metaphysical certainty.

Why is RGBW space limited to 85? It is a matter of interpolation and mapping?
This 85 comes from assumption that 1 portion o R + 1 portion of B + 1 portion of G forms 3 portion of W. 3*85=255 and W cannot be higher then 255.
And I have finally found why all this color messing seemed strange to me from the beginning. Obviously I was wrong with the portions math. Not 3 portions of W but 1.
So this should look like this:
(124, 18, 30) > find the highest "common white" - (18, 18, 18) > substract (124-18, 18-18, 30-18) > add W component which is 18 not 3*18 > (106, 0, 12, 18)
And now all is ok.
And in real word scenario and the above example to maintain luminance W should be a little lower then 18 as W is brighter because unfiltered. Hence better power distribution.

Yes it can. But this redesigned scheme will have it's own boundary somewhere between 0 and 85 - around 42 I suppose so (255, 42, 42) -> (255, 0, 0, 255) and (255, 41, 42) doesn't have its representative in RGBW space. The primary color problem will arise but a little later.
And you can't ignore this problem as it results in distortions every time such problematic pixel arrives into the framebuffer. This pixel is then displayed as darker then it should be.

This 85 comes from assumption that 1 portion o R + 1 portion of B + 1 portion of G forms 3 portion of W. 3*85=255 and W cannot be higher then 255.



What I mean is that your 85 limit is only in the RGB space when translated directly to RGBW space. It could be 255 in the RGBW space with the proper transpose and remapping, and with more gradation in between. It doesn't need to be 1:1 ie (255,255,255) can be transpose to (255,255,255,255) rather than (85,85,85,255). it's a matter of decoding implementation taking into account the smaller pixel area which you explained.

On a similar note, panny also enlarged their green subpixel so that it is 50% brighter in 2012, so their mapping matrix will also have to change. Everybody's using "techniques" nowadays :D In short IMHO remapping shouldn't be a major deal.

It would be very strange to me if W is unfiltered because we both agree it will have chroma issue. Since Rogo and yourself alluded to it so I'll just assume it is for now :)

PS I have no idea what (124, 18, 30) means :D Interesting discussion nonetheless... the conclusion seemed to imply that LG RGBW may have color accuracy issue or even calibration issue. And less efficient than Sammy RGB for sure.

As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.

"We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD
5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may
be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from
71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up
is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies
adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down
our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider

Ouch, LG may have a chance to capitalize here.

As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans.

When you say "RGBW", do you mean "LG's RGBW competitive advantage"?

^^ yes I no longer used the oft quoted but misleading term of WOLED.

Ouch, LG may have a chance to capitalize here.

Knowing Sammy's tenacity, LG probably has at most 12 months breathing room.

I have read over the last few pages of this thread a few times because I found this whole "white" pixel discussion a bit confusing. I couldn't figure out how the addition of a "white" pixel could make a picture brighter without screwing up the colors. Earlier in the thread, someone had posted for example that the white pixels would make a red screen look pink. That was my thinking also, until I stopped looking at the 4th pixel as being a "white" pixel. It isn't. To me, this whole "white" pixel description is a misnomer. The "white" pixel should be renamed "multiplier" or "follower" pixel or some other name to eliminate confusion. The 4th pixel multiplies what ever color is produced by the RGB filters to increase brightness. The only time the 4th pixel can be called "white" is when the RGB emitters are driven at the same level to produce white light.

Simply brilliant, LG.

I have read over the last few pages of this thread a few times because I found this whole "white" pixel discussion a bit confusing. I couldn't figure out how the addition of a "white" pixel could make a picture brighter without screwing up the colors. Earlier in the thread, someone had posted for example that the white pixels would make a red screen look pink. That was my thinking also, until ...

Your thinking was right until here. The reality is quite simple:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/RGBW-OLED.jpg

The white subpixel takes care of the grey component of the color of a pixel, and the RGB subpixels take care of the rest. No increased brightness, just increased efficiency.

Ok, so is the white subpixel on its on RGB stack then? Because looking at that graphic, if red is being displayed, then the "white" subpixel would have to be red also since its on the same stack as the RGB filters. Correct?

I will try to be as simple as I can and you guys just point where I am wrong.
Lets take two pixels: one RGB and one RGBW and now let assume that we can redirect the same maximum power P to each of them. RGB and RGBW are both the same in horizontal area so this assumption is more or less justified. Both pixels (as wholes) are getting the same juice.
In RGB power P should be distributed evently between three subpixels so R gets 1/3*P, G gets 1/3*P and B the same 1/3*P.
In RGBW power P should be distributed evently between four subpixels so R gets 1/4*P, G gets 1/4*P, B gets 1/4*P and W gets 1/4*P.

And assume what specuvestor said (that you have transfer function which transforms (255,255,255)->(255,255,255,255))

Now let these pixels shine:
White color
RGB - (255,255,255)
P(RGB,white)=(255/255)*(1/3)*P + (255/255)*(1/3)*P + (255/255)*(1/3)*P=P
RGBW - (255,255,255,255)
P(RGBW,white)=(255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P + (255/255)*(1/4)*P=P
Red color
RGB - (255,0,0)
P(RGB,red)=(255/255)*(1/3)*P + (0/255)*(1/3)*P + (0/255)*(1/3)*P=(1/3)*P
RGBW - (255,0,0,0) | primary color issue
P(RGBW,red)=(255/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P + (0/255)*(1/4)*P=(1/4)*P

Now we have to display red square on white background. What is the power (luminance) relations between red and white part:
P(RGB,red) / P(RGB,white) = (1/3)*P / P = (1/3)
P(RGBW,red) / P(RGBW,white) = (1/4)*P / P = (1/4)

As you can see they are not the same. Which means the image is distorted. You can repeat this logic for any other intermediate pixel and conclude that the closer you are to primary the bigger "the dynamic misbehavior" is.
Ergo transformation (255,255,255) -> (255,255,255,255) is not a valid one.

Ok, so is the white subpixel on its on RGB stack then? Because looking at that graphic, if red is being displayed, then the "white" subpixel would have to be red also since its on the same stack as the RGB filters. Correct?

Good point. Each subpixel has its own stack. The graphic should be like this:

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6612/lgrgbw.jpg

Thanks for the clarification, ferro. On a another note, couldn't LG get the same results if the RGB subpixels were on the same emitter stack, with the "white" subpixel on a separate stack? Seems like that would be a simpler array.

No, it would be an infinitely more complex array and the first graphic was better. You need to break out of thinking of those stacks as anything discrete.

This is where it gets confusing.

The stacks are comprised of thin layers of red, green and blue OLED material. They cover the entire back of the screen. The only light you will ever see them produce is white. 100% "pure" white (pure is in quote marks because it's as pure as the OLED material allows).

Think of the letters on the bottom, the W G R and B as transistor. Think of the "stack" as a magical device that produces white light -- and only white light -- albeit in varying intensity.

To make the four sub-pixels into a specific colored pixel the display will work on a modified principle of any other display. It will vary the intensity of red, green and blue to create a color mix and intensity and if possible it will also use the white pixel to increase the intensity while allowing it to drive the colored sub-pixels at a lower level (hence the discussion above). The sub-pixels are like LCD sub-pixels: they are colored by a patterned color filter on the front of the display module with the light coming from behind. (Unlike an LCD, the light source is directly behind).

Thinking about the stack as having colors is not useful. It's shown that way to explain how the display is made only.

Thanks for the clarification, ferro. On a another note, couldn't LG get the same results if the RGB subpixels were on the same emitter stack, with the "white" subpixel on a separate stack? Seems like that would be a simpler array.
One of the design goals of this architecture is to keep the OLED layers uniform. This way you don't need to change masks at microscopic subpixel accuracy to deposit different materials on the same layer. Instead the same material is deposited on every layer, which increases production speed, increases yield, and therefore decreases costs.

One of the design goals of this architecture is to keep the OLED layers uniform. This way you don't need to change masks at microscopic subpixel accuracy to deposit different materials on the same layer. Instead the same material is deposited on every layer, which increases production speed, increases yield, and therefore decreases costs.

To be accurate, they aren't masking the layers in the stack at all (or at least not with any kind of precision). They are depositing the layers one on top of the other and relying on the transparency properties of OLED for mixing the stack's colors and the color filters for creating the sub-pixel precision.

As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.

"We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD
5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may
be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from
71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up
is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies
adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down
our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider

This will be interesting to see tomorrow. It's hard to believe they will actually ramp up the extended 5.5G operation and the 8G both in the last 2 quarters as this report suggests. And I'm be very skeptical if they claim they will.

There are bragging rights to be had here, but the false need to rush is unlikely to actually put hundreds of millions to work on an endeavor they can't yet be sure how they are undertaking.

The updated graphic of ferro's cleared things up for me. I understood the fact that the back of the the display is composed of the RGB OLED emitter layers to produce white, but the first graphic wasn't meshing with what I was picturing in my head as far as what was happening at the pixel level. It makes sense now.

Delete

As suspected, signs of RGBW taking a toll on Sammy's capex plans. Sammy will give capex details tomorrow.

"We anticipate weaker momentum from the OLED material division in 2012 as SMD
5.5G capacity expansion should be lower than expected and 8G line ramp-up may
be delayed. As such, we revised down 2012F OLED material sales growth from
71% to 37% as SMD 5.5G A3 ramp-up should begin in 2H12 and 8G V1 ramp-up
is now likely in 2H12. We believe V1 ramp-up will be delayed as new technologies
adopted for large OLED output still have to stabilize. Accordingly, we revised down
our 2012F OLED material sales estimate by 23% to W93.3bn from W120.5bn."- KIS on a materials provider


Wow Lg could really run away with this one. I the pictures of this TV are great.

Conference call notes from Samsung and LG Display. Note that I only listened to the English versions of the calls (for obvious reasons) and there is likely additional info in the Korean versions.

Samsung

Samsung has been pulling back on the amount of information that they give investors across the board. Unfortunately, OLED is no different. The only real info they gave was that display capex will be 6.6 trillion Won and that LCD will be a fairly minor part of that (only enough for maintenance capex). My WAG would put OLED capex around 5 trillion Won but would like to hear the analysts take since I dont have a good grasp on how much maintenance capex might be.

LG Display

Much more informative.

- Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.

- They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.

- They will price OLED's at a 'reasonable' price point. Wouldnt really give any color on this answer.

- It takes 18 months to go from an a-si LCD fab to full production on a TFT-Oxide OLED fab. The limiting factor is the lead time in deposition machines.

- Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).

- They had some issues with TFT-Oxide but they are resolved and are ready for production.

- OLED capex. A brand new facility costs about 2.5x that of a LCD fab. Conversion is somewhere between 1x to 1.25x that of a LCD fab (bit of confusion here).

- Launch with a 55" OLED television. Didnt mention any other sizes.

- Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue)..

Damn! I was really hoping that 100,000 hour figure people were floating around here was accurate. Screen burn-in is going to be a big problem with lifetime figures like that. LCD makers are going to more than happy pointing out that those expensive OLED screens aren't going to last as long as their LCDs will and you'll probably have some burn-in if you don't baby your television.

Damn! I was really hoping that 100,000 hour figure people were floating around here was accurate.

It is remarkable that they have not been able to improve on the 30,000 hours of the 15EL9500 from 2 years ago.

- Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).


?

For LG? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that statement.

In LG's design all of the sub-pixels are created equal with a WOLED setup and color filters. Because of this all of the sub-pixels should all degrade at the same rate given the same level of stimulus.

So does this mean all of the WOLEDs quickly start losing their blue? And you just don't notice on the red and green pixels since they're color filtered? So then blue starts to dim and white slowly turns yellow.

Last I read was a "stable" white from the WOLED for 100k hours. Perhaps this was just too good to be true.

Where did the 30k hours info come from?


Also begs the question for me as to what the life is like on a local dimming in-organic LCD LED set? Are they also limited to 30k hours or so? They too use "white" LEDs.

?

For LG? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that statement.

In LG's design all of the sub-pixels are created equal with a WOLED setup and color filters. Because of this all of the sub-pixels should all degrade at the same rate given the same level of stimulus.

So does this mean all of the WOLEDs quickly start losing their blue? And you just don't notice on the red and green pixels since they're color filtered? So then blue starts to dim and white slowly turns yellow.

Last I read was a "stable" white from the WOLED for 100k hours. Perhaps this was just too good to be true.

Where did the 30k hours info come from?

The info was from a quarterly conference call that LG Display holds for investors.

http://www.teletogether.com/irlivecasting/lgdisplay/2011Q4/

I dont really understand the blue lifetime either. I am pretty sure that Idemitsu Kosan has made substantial progress on the lifetime of their saturated fluorescent blue. It is possible that the speaker (VP of TV Marketing) made a mistake but she answered the question pretty confidently and obviously should be a position to know the answer.

Just thinking out loud, but lifetime can be measured at different points. The traditional number is LT50 (time to 50% brightness) but LT70 and LT95 are sometimes used as well.

Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).


Does that 30k refer to (1) half-life, (2) 95% life, or (3) a subjective "good enough" standard?

Just went through the numbers and a 30k half-life would be 2,220 hours to 95% (I have zero idea if 95% is the magic line of functionality, but it's the other fraction/percentage that I've seen frequently mentioned).

Edit: Just saw your above post, but I shall refrain from "delete" ;)

This is a transcript from the Q&A in question:

Hee Yeon Kim
In terms of lifetime, right now we have to consider the lifetime based on the proved basis, because the proved lifetime is the shortest, it is 3000 hours. It means 10 years of display in terms of eight hours displaying –30,000 hours.

Unidentified Analyst
30,000 hours?

Hee Yeon Kim
30,000, based on the blue.

Unidentified Analyst
And it is about for eight years, is it?

Hee Yeon Kim
10 years, based on eight hours play per day.

The first sentence is puzzling...

Yes, it means the "white OLEDs" (quotes added because they are a stack of colored OLED layers) will lose their blue the fastest. This will cause their color temperature to change and they will eventually no long emit white light, but instead something in the yellow range.

As for how important this is, it depends.... Are the red and green also losing brightness so that the color change isn't horrendous? Can the display compensate a bit for the changes over time by adjusting the amount of driving applied to the various stacks to to keep the color closer to true (let's call it D65 for now)?

I mean it's important, but I just don't know how important yet.

---------------

Slacker, even if Samsung only spent, say, 4 trillion won, that sounds like enough to not only keep ramping the 5.5G but also start the 8G. It doesn't read like a delay / pullback. That said, the fact they didn't explicitly talk about ramping TV does read like a delay.

This is a transcript from the Q&A in question:

The first sentence is puzzling...

It is not puzzling... He probably meant to say 30k and not 3k in view of his following sentence. On conference calls we talk about what can be done realistically rather than what lab produces :D Otherwise they will be in big trouble down the road for misrepresentation.

AFAIK the blue issue is not resolved on a production basis, despite all the promising results from various labs. The 100k RGBW is puzzling to me as well but I suspect their main focus should be on uniformity of RGBW decay, rather than half life, if you catch my drift.


Slacker, even if Samsung only spent, say, 4 trillion won, that sounds like enough to not only keep ramping the 5.5G but also start the 8G. It doesn't read like a delay / pullback. That said, the fact they didn't explicitly talk about ramping TV does read like a delay.

I was originally looking at KRW6tr OLED capex before CES. I wasn't available for the conf call but I would guess that probably means OLED capex is flattish 2012 at around KRW4.5tr. 8G does look to be delayed and it would be more symbolic than anything if they start a 8G plant this year.

That said I too would focus on putting out a feasible 55" product from my 5.5G fab then focus on 8G for now

OTOH I'm more keen to find out if LG really started a 4.5G that they had said previously they scrapped in favor of 8G? As discussed RGBW makes producing high quality OLED or motherglass size irrelevant. Only reason for 8G would be TV size volume rather than motherglass constraint.


LG Display

Much more informative.

- Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.

- They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.

-----------------------------

And assume what specuvestor said (that you have transfer function which transforms (255,255,255)->(255,255,255,255))

Now let these pixels shine:
White color

Red color

Now we have to display red square on white background. What is the power (luminance) relations between red and white part:

As you can see they are not the same. Which means the image is distorted. You can repeat this logic for any other intermediate pixel and conclude that the closer you are to primary the bigger "the dynamic misbehavior" is.
Ergo transformation (255,255,255) -> (255,255,255,255) is not a valid one.
Thanks for your patience. I now understand that luma uniformity will be an issue if you do not cap at 85 since it will get darker at saturated ends of the gamut.

Having an additional pixel for brightness is not as simple as I thought :) However it does seemed the industry is moving into brightness techniques. Their transformation algo must be more complex than I thought :)

You should probably join the Sharp Elite thread and help figure out the cyan issue with quattron :)

I was originally looking at KRW6tr OLED capex before CES. I wasn't available for the conf call but I would guess that probably means OLED capex is flattish 2012 at around KRW4.5tr. 8G does look to be delayed and it would be more symbolic than anything if they start a 8G plant this year.

Right, so when people in certain other threads yammer about how the forecasts from every industry forecaster "seem low", the reality is Samsung is moving slowly. And those forecasts take that into effect. It's an LG world in 2012 and that world is pretty small.

That said I too would focus on putting out a feasible 55" product from my 5.5G fab then focus on 8G for now

Only problem with that is while it will allow them to make a product, it won't do anything for the mass production of 55" from the 8G where they need to master the movable mask technology, among other things.

If they make a 55" on 5.5G it's symbolic and not a means toward reasonable large-size TV production.

OTOH I'm more keen to find out if LG really started a 4.5G that they had said previously they scrapped in favor of 8G? As discussed RGBW makes producing high quality OLED or motherglass size irrelevant. Only reason for 8G would be TV size volume rather than motherglass constraint.

I'd want to start on my 8G as soon as I could. It's the only way I can mass produce TVs and I need to master the yields of all the steps on that process. I'm not sure minimum viable product on a small fab proves much of anything. It certainly won't help drive down costs at all.

Again, if you want even 2 million TVs in 2015, you need to lay the groundwork now. I'm laughing at the people who find my numbers out toward decade's end pessimistic.

Found a good power point presentation on the technology:

http://www.sidchapters.org/sandiego/Intertech%20OLED%202004%20Rev3.ppt

That Powerpoint is good, but it's old. And as such, a number of things have changed a lot since it was made.

Only problem with that is while it will allow them to make a product, it won't do anything for the mass production of 55" from the 8G where they need to master the movable mask technology, among other things.

If they make a 55" on 5.5G it's symbolic and not a means toward reasonable large-size TV production.

I'd want to start on my 8G as soon as I could. It's the only way I can mass produce TVs and I need to master the yields of all the steps on that process. I'm not sure minimum viable product on a small fab proves much of anything. It certainly won't help drive down costs at all.

Again, if you want even 2 million TVs in 2015, you need to lay the groundwork now. I'm laughing at the people who find my numbers out toward decade's end pessimistic.

Sammy 5.5G fab is rather huge actually. In fact the estimate is that it can meet all the IPad demand if Apple move to OLED tomorrow. (hypothetical of course since Apple must love them and Sammy must stop Galaxy S) A3 should be able to produce maybe 100k 55" per month but I can't remember off the top of my head.

That said I agree with most of your assessment in the other thread. More so in the next 3 years because further than that it's very contingent on industry capex from 2013 onwards, and the price down demand drive.

OK, so Spec I'm not going to argue your numbers -- you know 'em better than me. The point is though if they make 1M TVs per year on 5.5G that's all well and good, but it's not good for actually ramping OLED TV production into the many millions, which will require 8G (or ideally 10G at some point) and the attendant mastery of technologies that currently really only exist on paper (the mask scanning technology, for example).

I also am with you that as they invest out in coming years, we'll have more visibility into coming years. I would point out my assumptions for the later years presume tens of millions of OLED TVs at that point, which presumably will require significant cap ex that isn't announced yet. In other words, I'm assuming that at some point it will be.

I'm lost....as usual. :)

So what is 5.5G, 8G and 10G?

I'm lost....as usual. :)

So what is 5.5G, 8G and 10G?

It's an indication of the glass substrate size that is being produced at a plant:

5.5G: 1,300 x 1,500mm
8G: 2,200 x 2,500mm
10G: 2,880mm x 3,130mm

The display panels are cut from these sheets.

So Samsung is not spending money on LCD, but is spending money.

So either you have to believe they are spending it on Plasma (doubtful) or OLED.

I think they will move forward, but how fast depends on what they heard at CES from retailers.

They have a hard decission to make. Do you compete with LG, spending money on making current tech OLED TVs to stay in the public's mind as a leader, or do you save that early expenditure and work on the New manufacturing technique that promises more profit but not till next year?

The delay of the Galaxy SIII may hint at what's going on. Samsung can only make so many panels, and delaying the SIII in favor of a few OLED TVs could be the reason. Or the delay could be due to Table use of OLED screens.

Sounds like Samsung is making those decissions right now after talking to retailers at CES.

My guess though is they will move faster not slower with OLED. They are losing market share in LCD, they have to give the marketing department something to increase sales with. The supposed drop in MSRP might help, but they need something better then that in the next 2 years to keep investors happy.

Conference call notes from Samsung and LG Display. Note that I only listened to the English versions of the calls (for obvious reasons) and there is likely additional info in the Korean versions.

Samsung

Samsung has been pulling back on the amount of information that they give investors across the board. Unfortunately, OLED is no different. The only real info they gave was that display capex will be 6.6 trillion Won and that LCD will be a fairly minor part of that (only enough for maintenance capex). My WAG would put OLED capex around 5 trillion Won but would like to hear the analysts take since I dont have a good grasp on how much maintenance capex might be.

LG Display

Much more informative.

- Production is still on track with previous projections (summer ramp). This is the TFT-Oxide Gen 8 fab with 8K substrates a month of capacity. A single substrate can produce up to 6 55" televisions.

- They had previously indicated that they would make a decision on whether to proceed with further expansion of their OLED capacity in the 2nd half. They may pull that decision in due to the good feedback at CES.

- They will price OLED's at a 'reasonable' price point. Wouldnt really give any color on this answer.

- It takes 18 months to go from an a-si LCD fab to full production on a TFT-Oxide OLED fab. The limiting factor is the lead time in deposition machines.

- Blue is the limiting factor in lifetime. 30,000 hours (that is the same as Samsung's blue).

- They had some issues with TFT-Oxide but they are resolved and are ready for production.

- OLED capex. A brand new facility costs about 2.5x that of a LCD fab. Conversion is somewhere between 1x to 1.25x that of a LCD fab (bit of confusion here).

- Launch with a 55" OLED television. Didnt mention any other sizes.

OK, so Spec I'm not going to argue your numbers -- you know 'em better than me. The point is though if they make 1M TVs per year on 5.5G that's all well and good, but it's not good for actually ramping OLED TV production into the many millions, which will require 8G (or ideally 10G at some point) and the attendant mastery of technologies that currently really only exist on paper (the mask scanning technology, for example).


The problem is RGBW is making Sammy's life very difficult.

I guesstimated Sammy's RGB will sell for about 3X Sharp Elite 60" price while LG RGBW will sell for 2X. As per feedback from CES, it seemed the choice is pretty clear which set people will buy at these price points. I believe RGB ultimately SHOULD be a better solution but at this point of time Sammy is between a rock and a hard place.

So yes they might be able to produce a million OLED TV a year. But they probably need to figure out how to compete against a perceptibly superior product at a 50% higher price point. IMHO their problem is not LCD comparison. It is RGBW comparison.

If 8G is built we all know it is for TV market volume. Otherwise if it is niche (ie <1% market) next 24 months then it makes sense for Sammy to concentrate on 5.5G and even for LG to restart their 4.5G plan (plausible rumour IMHO) LGD 2012 OLED capex matches Sammy's last year's OLED capex if I read correctly.

EDIT: LG 2012 OLED capex is 10% of 4tr but may be misleading as the new 8G plant can be either LCD or OLED, with OLED capex cash outlay in 1H13 after a decision taken in 3Q12

I guesstimated Sammy's RGB will sell for about 3X Sharp Elite 60" price while LG RGBW will sell for 2X.

At 3X and 2X the price of the Sharp Elite 60'', the Samsung and LG OLED 55'' will not sell.

Isn't the rumour that Samsung is the "asian manufacturer partner" that DuPont say they have?
If that is so, Samsung also have to decide how much they shall invest in their current OLED manufacturing for TV or wait until they can "Ink Jet print" OLEDs.

Or is there a third company we don't know about that will do the InkJet process together with DuPont?

They sort of have to worry about that in the 2-5 year timeframe. The technology DuPont has is being trialed soon. It's nowhere near ready for production volumes. Maybe it will be in a few years and Samsung can use it then. It might never work at production volumes; they can't sit around doing nothing waiting to see. Unless, of course, they become convinced their current plans won't work economically -- which seems very premature.

People talked about it but I've not heard of Dupont method being operationally ready yet.


At 3X and 2X the price of the Sharp Elite 60'', the Samsung and LG OLED 55'' will not sell.

That has been the argument why OLED TV will never see the light of day if you looked back this thread past 18 months.

But does seem apparent now that the Koreans are willing to bet literally billions that IN FUTURE they will be able to price down substantially.

On hindside we will probably see the minuscule thousands of OLED TV sold next 12 months will herald in something more substantial, like huge size TVs, while skeptics laugh at the volume.

Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.

I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.

Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.

Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.

I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.

Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.

Yes, the Phillips Plasma TV was a whole new revolution. Flat screen display you can hang on the wall. Show movies in widescreen 16:9 format. It was like nothing else available. It was help along by the widespread roll out 18" satellite with DVD quality signal and HD a few years later.
OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.

Yes, the Phillips Plasma TV was a whole new revolution. Flat screen display you can hang on the wall. Show movies in widescreen 16:9 format. It was like nothing else available. It was help along by the widespread roll out 18" satellite with DVD quality signal and HD a few years later.
OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.

So, when will we see Philips OLED TVs? At the moment they are very busy with OLED lighting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSE80NZL1s


I forgot the transparent OLED car roof they and BASF made -
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy9/8mile13/db77fbdf.jpg

Back in 1998 when Philips introduced their flat screen plasma at 42inches...price was $14,999. Plasma back in the day was super expensive.

I remember going to best buy and seeing small plasmas selling for $10,000.

Every new technology is always priced high when first coming out to stores.

yeah i remember back in '02-'03 being at a good guys store (now out of biz) and seeing a large plasma made by nec or fujitsu that was 70-80" and was blown away by it.

talked to a salesman about it and he said they were going for 18-20k. i laughed and asked if anyone had bought any. he said yeah, he had just sold 2 to T.O. who was then playing for the niners.

so now we know who are first oled owners will be.

yeah i remember back in '02-'03 being at a good guys store (now out of biz) and seeing a large plasma made by nec or fujitsu that was 70-80" and was blown away by it.

talked to a salesman about it and he said they were going for 18-20k. i laughed and asked if anyone had bought any. he said yeah, he had just sold 2 to T.O. who was then playing for the niners.

so now we know who are first oled owners will be.

Not T.O., who is pretty much broke. :)

OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.

It is very likey it will be a niche as the market research companies tend to be more realistic than manufs: iSuppli - only 34,000 OLED TVs to sell on 2012, will grow to 2.1 million by 2015 (http://www.oled-info.com/isuppli-only-34000-oled-tvs-sell-2012-will-grow-21-million-2015).

Hmm, less than 1% market share in 2015? Indicates lots of talk here is just talking about nothing. I think OLED TV could be reappearing as a real topic if it first starts making significant inroads into the portable display market. Still there are no signs of it and in this segment estimates for 2015 are 10% market share.

It is very likey it will be a niche as the market research companies tend to be more realistic than manufs: iSuppli - only 34,000 OLED TVs to sell on 2012, will grow to 2.1 million by 2015 (http://www.oled-info.com/isuppli-only-34000-oled-tvs-sell-2012-will-grow-21-million-2015).

Hmm, less than 1% market share in 2015? Indicates lots of talk here is just talking about nothing. I think OLED TV could be reappearing as a real topic if it first starts making significant inroads into the portable display market. Still there are no signs of it and in this segment estimates for 2015 are 10% market share.

I kind of agree with you, except that videophiles are going to be in that 1% in 2015 if the TVs deliver on their promise (likely). We want the best picture and we want it as cheaply as possible. So, sure, there's a lot of chatter, but overall a lot of reasonable learning about how this stuff works, the challenges bringing it to market, and the promise of the picture.

I mean, you can call that a lot of talk about nothing, but I'd argue it's a lot like the rest of AVS.

Hi

Samsung to invest 6 billion $$$$$ :eek: in OLED (2012)

Reuters reports that Samsung plans to invest 47.8 trillion Won (around 41.1 billion USD) in new factories, employees, acquisitions and research. Around 7 trillion (6.2 billion USD) has been earmarked for investment in OLED technology. This is the highest sum Samsung has even invested in a single year. Samsung currently employs 350,000.

Samsung's investments in OLED technology will cover both research and production facilities. Samsung is currently the largest OLED manufacturer in the small-to-medium size screen segment and in 2012 they want to expand to the OLED-TV segment with their 55-inch OLED TV that will be available in the second half of 2012.

According to sources, Samsung will also invest in flexible OLED panels and is expected to have the first mass production line up and running by Q3 2012. Additional capacity will be added in Q2 2013.

Link to full report:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1327926619

Regards

I'm wondering which one should I believe... I think Reuters context is misquoted. KRW6.6bio refers to the entire display product division. And 2012 capex is KRW25tr for Samsung Electronics. They may be referring to Samsung Group.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/news/newsIrRead.do?news_ctgry=irpublicdisclosure&page=1&news_seq=20098&rdoPeriod=specific&from_dt=&to_dt=&search_keyword=

FYI we discussed this last week:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21556540#post21556540

For what it's worth, Samsung Austria has apparently commented on the $8,000 rumors that are floating around:

"The price of the 55 inch Super-OLED-Tv will be much cheaper than 8.000.- Dollar. It will be a little bit higher than the premium LED-Tv/Plasma-Tv devices from Samsung."

Link: http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-will-be-much-cheaper-than-8-000-dollar/

^Exciting. I see their highest priced 55" LED set is $3500. A "little bit higher" could mean as much as $500 by my estimation, so maybe the $4000 estimates were indeed closer. Their plasmas are priced lower ($3000 for a 59"), so I'm not going to use that as a benchmark.

So, when will we see Philips OLED TVs? At the moment they are very busy with OLED lighting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viSE80NZL1s


I forgot the transparent OLED car roof they and BASF made -
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy9/8mile13/db77fbdf.jpg

Bingo

OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it’s a revolutionary technology

I'm wondering which one should I believe... I think Reuters context is misquoted. KRW6.6bio refers to the entire display product division. And 2012 capex is KRW25tr for Samsung Electronics. They may be referring to Samsung Group.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/news/newsIrRead.do?news_ctgry=irpublicdisclosure&page=1&news_seq=20098&rdoPeriod=specific&from_dt=&to_dt=&search_keyword=

FYI we discussed this last week:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21556540#post21556540

I'm going to presume that the combination of the original report and the conference call and the fact that the day before earnings, one of the Korean analysts cut back on materials needs predictions means the somewhat lower number was in fact accurate.

For what it's worth, Samsung Austria has apparently commented on the $8,000 rumors that are floating around:

"The price of the 55 inch Super-OLED-Tv will be much cheaper than 8.000.- Dollar. It will be a little bit higher than the premium LED-Tv/Plasma-Tv devices from Samsung."

Link: http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-will-be-much-cheaper-than-8-000-dollar/

Samsung Austria? OK, maybe they are correct, but that's not exactly the horse's mouth. I'd love to see the TVs come out at $4000 instead of $8000. But I think they are mostly blustering because (a) they won't ship this year -- or at least not much and (b) they know LG has a cost advantage so they are trying to signal that doesn't bother them.

....OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it’s a revolutionary technology

And in 10 or 15 years, it'll be taken for granted.

Yap and we would have moved onto the successor

Yap and we would have moved onto the successor

I doubt it. Revolutions in display and lighting are few and far between. However successful OLED is (and likely fairly successful), it will be with us for a long long time. The LED lighting revolution (and to a lesser extent OLED due to more limited applications, but it will make its mark) is just beginning but once entrenched it'll be the last lighting revolution we have for a while (note also that other non-LED technologies will be part of it -- things like phosphor-based lighting -- but that once they're in, they will also last decades).

LED and plasma each took more than 20 years to become viable enough to displace CRT. OLED will take at least a decade to reach half the TV/PC market. Once this kind of stuff happens, the economics become ridiculously favorable for it and that's why little changes. There is much hand-wringing by people about how "LCDs don't make money" but that's largely because they are so cheap. In the meantime, they are in most phones, all laptops, all desktop monitors and 90% of TVs. And achieving that took years and lots of overinvestment.

If we assume that someday OLED will be cheaper to produce than LCD is then (instead of the useless proclamations made by OLED hypesters about OLED someday being cheaper than LCD is now), the next technology will have an even harder time displacing it.

^^true that. Probably once a decade you probably have a revolutionary invention that will take another decade to develop. It is easy to forget that OLED "died" once.

OLED is more an evolution. It may have the the best picture when they finally start showing up in 2013, but the top of the line LCDs like the Elite will not be that far behind, and if the 4K marketing grabs the public attention, the OLED segment may remain a high priced niche product.

OLED is more than just a display device. People still don't understand the potential of OLED tech. IMO, it’s a revolutionary technology

That's what I wanted to say. OLED structure is nothing like LCD, plasma or CRT. It is more like Sony's CLED. It is evolution if you don't understand it.

True (to both ^^^)

But technology is advancing rapidly (exponential growth). I wouldn't be surprised if we move away from OLED to another form of LED tech. As our knowledge of the quantum expands, so does our ability to create better technology. After all, without the recent advancements in quantum tech, we would’ve have those shiny new LEDs.

LED is a 50 year old tech from quantum mechanics :) The train of progress chugs along slowly but surely :)

Off topic but does anyway know why I have not heard OLED having the same heat issue as LED, since both are quantum?

It is recently they've progressed to become jewels of lighting. No longer classed as dim indicator :D

Or the materials company exagerated it's potential sales and has rolled it's estimates back to what LG/Samsung told them to expect.

Always 3 ways to look at everything.

I'm going to presume that the combination of the original report and the conference call and the fact that the day before earnings, one of the Korean analysts cut back on materials needs predictions means the somewhat lower number was in fact accurate.



Samsung Austria? OK, maybe they are correct, but that's not exactly the horse's mouth. I'd love to see the TVs come out at $4000 instead of $8000. But I think they are mostly blustering because (a) they won't ship this year -- or at least not much and (b) they know LG has a cost advantage so they are trying to signal that doesn't bother them.

Samsung says 55-inch OLED HDTVS will be "much cheaper than 8,000 dollars".

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-will-be-much-cheaper-than-8-000-dollar/

Any 37" OLED coming out in 2012?

Any 37" OLED coming out in 2012?

None have been announced. Though the link pdoherty972 just shared seems to indicate that Samsung intends to introduce the KN55ES9600 for less than $8,000 before LG! :eek:

At least we'll get a nice looking 5" Samsung OLED display in a couple of weeks! (PS Vita - $249)

Sony OLED 24.5" for only $26,000

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-BVME250/

Sony OLED 24.5" for only $26,000

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-BVME250/

What a joke.

Sounds like they want to say that they have them but price them so high that no one will buy one. That way, they can say they were first without actually having to build one.

B&H sells it and less than half.

gary,

That's a different model.

The BVM-E250 is $23,400.

But they do have a 25" OLED for $5,490. hmmmmmm, what's that about?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Sony+OLED&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

That's the broadcast models Jim. The good one is really expensive, the other one is... just expensive.

Eventually, a flat display will simply not be able to deliver better PQ. It will already deliver PQ higher than our eyes can perceive, so no further visual improvement will be possible. Then it will be down to costs and other factors. 4K OLED might be about it, as they continue improvements.

After that, a holo-tank.

After that, a holo-suite.

Eventually, a flat display will simply not be able to deliver better PQ. It will already deliver PQ higher than our eyes can perceive, so no further visual improvement will be possible. Then it will be down to costs and other factors. 4K OLED might be about it, as they continue improvements.

After that, a holo-tank.

After that, a holo-suite.

I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.

Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.

I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.

Once again, in mankind's technological/scientific history, we have reached a plateau that stretches further out into the future than anyone can see. ;)

I also have a hard time believing these sets will be only a little more than the top sets of 2012. Maybe we're talking $4000??? That being said, I also can't imagine these being priced more than the Elite if the goal of this thing is to ignite tv sales for 2012.

We don't know what they're doing behind the scenes to cut costs, but who knows how well they'll calibrate if blown out colors is the goal for the average consumer.

Samsung says 55-inch OLED HDTVS will be "much cheaper than 8,000 dollars".

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-will-be-much-cheaper-than-8-000-dollar/


Yeah an interview I saw with an LG rep for mashable said under 8k as well. If the could manage a 4k-6k price point those things would fly off the shelf. LG also said its going to to start ramping up production to 48,000 a month that is quite a bit maybe and the price point to interest me in the1st gen.

It's, of course, ridiculous for these sets to be "a lot better" than the Elite / Kuro. I've explained why numerous times.

Aside from people perpetually mis-reading these news reports and believing what they want to believe, the best 55" today is about $3000. The 60" Elite is $4000ish (I think more, but bear with...) There will be nothing "flying off shelves" as even the high end 55s do not do this. For 50-200% more, they will be trickling off the shelves.

The long term future is bullish, the short term future is one of very few units sold at high prices. It's nice that some tiny division of Samsung is claiming they will be "much less than $8000", but there is a lot of reason to doubt Samsung will even be shipping in 2012. Yes, they might, but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath... they are farther from market than LG. Also, phrases like "much cheaper" have no meaning. At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.

Samsung will even be shipping in 2012. Yes, they might, but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath... they are farther from market than LG. Also, phrases like "much cheaper" have no meaning. At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.

Actually from Isuppi 6k and under is a huge sales jump and another when you hit under $4,300 even if LG sells only a 100k TVs in 2012 which would be well under projections, you have to remember these are not only residential it would still constitute RD costs. They are also quoted as ready to make 48,000 a month which is an awful lot so they have probably done the research and sales checking I doubt they would get it wrong.

I agree Samsung will probably not be on the market until 2013. I think TVs over $6,000 accounted for $1.2b in sales (neilson) in the U.S alone so to say that is a small market is small thinking. World wide that is probably close to $2b with profit of 200M plus (not big compared to total TV sales). Right now that is split between a few companies LG will be first to market so they stand to make a fair amount of money to push the tech that is much cheaper for them to make printable Oleds into their new standard.

AU Optronics ("AUO" or the "Company") (TAIEX: 2409; NYSE: AUO) today announced that the Company and Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Idemitsu") agreed to form a strategic alliance in the field of OLED, which is expected to be used for next generation displays. The strategic alliance includes technological collaboration to develop high-performance OLED displays and OLED-related patents.

Under this strategic alliance, Idemitsu will supply high-performance OLED materials to AUO, including device structure proposal. On the other hand, AUO will reinforce the development of OLED products using high-performance OLED materials supplied by Idemitsu. This will accelerate business growth in AUO's small-sized OLED displays for smartphone and tablet, which have emerged as a new growth area in the display industry, and that of large-sized OLED displays for TV.

Actually from Isuppi 6k and under is a huge sales jump and another when you hit under $4,300 even if LG sells only a 100k TVs in 2012 which would be well under projections, you have to remember these are not only residential it would still constitute RD costs. They are also quoted as ready to make 48,000 a month which is an awful lot so they have probably done the research and sales checking I doubt they would get it wrong.

I agree Samsung will probably not be on the market until 2013. I think TVs over $6,000 accounted for $1.2b in sales (neilson) in the U.S alone so to say that is a small market is small thinking. World wide that is probably close to $2b with profit of 200M plus (not big compared to total TV sales). Right now that is split between a few companies LG will be first to market so they stand to make a fair amount of money to push the tech that is much cheaper for them to make printable Oleds into their new standard.

Um, hi, let's just say that the global market for "TVs over $6000" was in fact $2 billion. That's very roughly 300,000 total TVs. That's... you pissing in the ocean. You... blowing a kiss across the Grand Canyon.... You standing in your living room cheering during the Super Bowl.

Like I said, that changes nothing from the forecasts. Also, stop quoting the 48,000 per month. They are going to be yielding under 50%, not 100%.

According to the most recent rumors, Apple has dropped Sharp as a supplier for the iPad 3.

The reports so far have been a little light on details so it would be tough to say if this is a "They can't build enough displays for us" issue or an "IGZO isn't ready for prime time issue".

http://english.etnews.com/news/detail.html?id=201201100006

I believe that was the original source. There are about ten billion other articles out in the last week saying Sharp has been dropped as a supplier for the iPad 3.

It'll be interesting to find out if that has anything to do with IGZO TFT quality/yields.
Do you actually know how much capacity Sharp has committed to this project?

I would take ETnews with a pitch of salt. Sharp was meant to replace CMI which cannot make retina display, and to a lesser extent Samsung for obvious reasons. I would be keen to see what Sharp say early next month during their earnings results

Turns out to be half truths: the IGZO shipment is delayed from December to February. So IGZO problem is true. Sharp dropped as supplier is not.

\At $6000, it would be much cheaper, and still twice as expensive as any other high end 55" TV. I don't sales at $8000 as measurably different from sales at $6000.

Sales would be virtually the same, but an initial price of $6000 would say some very good things about the likely cost curve going forward.

It is interesting to see how $8000 has gone from being a floor for the initial price to the likely ceiling over the last few months.

Sales would be virtually the same, but an initial price of $6000 would say some very good things about the likely cost curve going forward.

Yes. Cheaper earlier is better. Although I tend to believe the initial price will be entirely fake regardless.

It is interesting to see how $8000 has gone from being a floor for the initial price to the likely ceiling over the last few months.

Well, a lot of people are / were guessing. They still are. And listening to Samsung when LG is going to ship first is a fool's game. Look, $6000 is better, let's hope that's right. Fact remains, I'm a lot more interested in where they drop to in 2013. The first year the price cut will be a synthetic cut from a synthetic price... once volume is ramping, you will see prices fall very approximately 30% per year.

Turns out to be half truths: the IGZO shipment is delayed from December to February. So IGZO problem is true. Sharp dropped as supplier is not.

Also worth noting that they are considering transitioning a portion of their Gen 10 fab to IGZO. In the medium term, OLED's and LCD's might be competing using the same backplane technologies.

I saw a 22 inch OLED a year ago and was blown away.

If one of these actually comes out in 2012 and looks as good as people say at a price below $5K, I will have to buy one.

Also worth noting that they are considering transitioning a portion of their Gen 10 fab to IGZO. In the medium term, OLED's and LCD's might be competing using the same backplane technologies.

Not only the same backplanes (well almost the same), but nearly the same color filters as well. :)

Not only the same backplanes (well almost the same), but nearly the same color filters as well. :)

I really do hope these things drive the costs down in the next 2 years along with production scaling.

Is there any plans for a plant that has the capability to produce panels bigger than 55" in the news/rumor mill?

What size is the panel now they cut the 55" from? 110"?

I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.

Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.

I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.

I don't know about these 1st OLED panels, but once they get the bugs out of it...

True color; no dithering
Better *smooth* gradients on complex scenes
No PWM noise
no phosphor lag

It'll be easy to spot if you have them side by side, especially the PWM noise.

Question is what new quirks and terminology will come from the OLED bugs ;) And does PWM noise actually help hide some of today's problems like compression artifacts?

I really do hope these things drive the costs down in the next 2 years along with production scaling.

Is there any plans for a plant that has the capability to produce panels bigger than 55" in the news/rumor mill?

What size is the panel now they cut the 55" from? 110"?

Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.

As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?

Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.

As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?

Good question, I'm not sure. Most of the pushing/hype I've seen starts with the vendors on these sites creating an artificial stir. It spreads like a virus from there...

So I did a bit of math... I came up with.
55" TV is about 47.9 W and 27 H for viewing area

And my conversion on the mother glass is 73.6" x 86.6"

So it's two panels per mother glass. Do they use the rest of the glass for smaller displays or does it just get recycled?

Good question, I'm not sure. Most of the pushing/hype I've seen starts with the vendors on these sites creating an artificial stir. It spreads like a virus from there...

So I did a bit of math... I came up with.
55" TV is about 47.9 W and 27 H for viewing area

And my conversion on the mother glass is 73.6" x 86.6"

So it's two panels per mother glass. Do they use the rest of the glass for smaller displays or does it just get recycled?

I havent done the math, but I have read multiple times that a Gen 8 fab will support 6 55" televisions per substrate.

So thinking about it, to hit 2 million units in 2015, they would need to have capacity for 40,000 substrates with 75% yields.

Um, hi, let's just say that the global market for "TVs over $6000" was in fact $2 billion. That's very roughly 300,000 total TVs. That's... you pissing in the ocean. You... blowing a kiss across the Grand Canyon.... You standing in your living room cheering during the Super Bowl.

Like I said, that changes nothing from the forecasts. Also, stop quoting the 48,000 per month. They are going to be yielding under 50%, not 100%.

You realize 300,000 TVs is pretty much nothing. Lets say only 30% are for meeting rooms etc hotels conferences around the U.S. non traditional consumers from what you are used to. So its 200,000 for typical consumers in the U.S by household would be 120million house holds were looking at .016% of house holds or multi millionaire and up territory and that is if they only buy 1. even at 300,000 it does not make a dent. Hell its only 6,000 per state at 300k

Worldwide lets only count 2 billion people that have access to them or .0001% of the population again same set of people.

This is not including cruise ships, sporting events, govt centers, museums, scientists and a whole host of other people who buy these types of TVs! What are you smoking?

Also I said they were prepared for 48,000 not they are going to make 48,000.

You realize 300,000 TVs is pretty much nothing.

Yes, which is my point. It's pretty much nothing.

This is not including cruise ships, sporting events, govt centers, museums, scientists and a whole host of other people who buy these types of TVs! What are you smoking?

I don't smoke, but I can promise you that sporting events, museums and government centers don't buy $6000 TVs.

Also I said they were prepared for 48,000 not they are going to make 48,000.

They talk a lot. That doesn't mean what they are saying is true.

From my personal experience, cruise ships don't buy $600 TVs, much less $6,000 TVs.

From my personal experience, cruise ships don't buy $600 TVs, much less $6,000 TVs.

The TVs on our Holland America cruise were recently upgraded (within the past 2-3 years) and were roughly $200 models, I'd estimate.

Samsung's 8G LCD motherglass is 1,870mm × 2,200mm if you feel like doing some math.

As for larger motherglass, no one has technically announced an 8G OLED fab yet (although Samsung is expected to start one this year for trial-ing and LG is likely to begin converting an LCD line). Going bigger, I fear, is several years away. Which makes you wonder if the market for >60" TVs was as big as some people claim, why would that be?

I can't find a link right at this moment, but I thought that SMD had stated that they would be dealing with g8.5 glass (2200 x 2500) on their initial (V1) oled line. I believe they are to cut the backplane down to 1/6 size for deposition using SMS or some hybrid form of FMM. That will yield the 55" screens for the small run late this year. The V2 will hopefully come online sometime in 2013 and should also use 2200 x 2500 glass. In that case, the hope is to handle that size glass through production, though I'm not quite sure they have settled on a deposition technique. LITI seems like overkill until they want quad-HD resolution.

Time will tell.

Wow. I haven't been here in a while. That is an OLD signature line. Guess I won't update it 'til I can list an OLED TV. I'll just go without a sig for now.

:)
Andy

The V1 8G line is the one delayed that we've been talking about. Likely slow start in 2H12 but main focus should be 5.5G A3 line which can make the 55" effectively. The A2 line is not optimal for 55" as it uses LTPS IIRC.

The V1 8G line is the one delayed that we've been talking about. Likely slow start in 2H12 but main focus should be 5.5G A3 line which can make the 55" effectively. The A2 line is not optimal for 55" as it uses LTPS IIRC.

Went back and did a little reading on the thread. Nice to see this thread is still pretty good at keeping its ear to the ground.

Regarding V1 and A3, IMHO the 1/6 2200x2500 is pretty specifically geared toward the 55" screens. Their reluctance to specify dates, prices and volumes at CES indicates that they are still finalizing their plans for deposition techniques vis-a-vis FMM vs SMS vs LITI vs some hybridization. Getting final installs on that equipment will take time, and I would not be surprised at all if the production slips to very late in 2012 or even later. I do think they feel the need to hurry as they don;t want LG to beat them to market by more than a hair. The importance of getting deposition right is KEY as they move forward with production plans that handle full size 2200x2500 substrates. Getting V2 up mid-year 2013 will be the REAL start of mass production.

My GUESS is that management at Samsung Electronics HOPES that getting V2 up and running to capacity will fill the gap until solution processing is ready for rolling out is 2015 or so. Part of that depends on the ultimate design of the fab where the V2 line is going in and how much capacity they can move through that facility. Anyone here have knowledge on that? They must be pouring concrete near the railroad lines somewhere by now.

Regarding A3 I would love to see LITI there, and I would love to see it dedicated to 1080p or even denser panels for the tablet and laptop markets. Start with 7.7-9.7" range and maybe grow to 13-15" screens.

I know some of you guys are disappointed that Samsung is only scheduled to spend $4.5 billion - $5 billion dollars on building out OLED production during 2012. But GEESH consider that they are spending $4,500,000,000.00 or more on OLED production this year and they spend a similar amount last year. THAT is commitment and a leap of faith for a technology where the blue material still has room for improvement.

Keep your ears to the ground, and you will here the stampede coming. As ROGO seems to like pointing out, it is still a ways off, and we will here the rumble get louder over the next 12-18 months, but there it IS approaching.

Andy

Gotta get rid of that signature line. I do miss my old DTV Tivo's, and my Panny is still running strong through its component inputs though. ;^)

It seems to me that in the RGBW system, the white subpixel is used differently from the filtered subpixels, so it is going to age differently, probably dimming faster. Is that any better than the blue subpixel dimming faster in an RGB system?

^^ read back the thread past 3 weeks. You are mistaken on how RGBW works.

I think I know how it works but I didn't explain my point well. So let's take an extreme case. Let's say you watch only black and white movies. It's possible that this grey-only data would be displayed with only the W subpixel leaving the filtered subpixels off all the time. This would age the unfiltered pixels unequally from the filtered. This would not be an issue with pure RGB (ignoring the blue problem).

This is not a real-world example. Another one would be to watch only saturated colors. That would have the opposite effect where the unfiltered pixels are not aged at all. Again, not a problem in pure RGB.

These examples demonstrate that the filtered and unfiltered subpixels would be used differently. So my question is whether the effects of the extremes would balance out in real-life viewing. My gut says no, and that the unfiltered subpixels would naturally be overused. I probably think that because the calculations proposed by piquadrat maximized the used of the unfiltered pixels to reduce power. I'm confident that they could use fancy algorithms to make it balance out, but are they doing that?

My gut says no, and that the unfiltered subpixels would naturally be overused.

The same applies to Red, Green and Blue: they are not used exactly the same either. I can think of 2 methods to address this:
You can tune the White Mixing Ratio in such a way that White is not used significantly more or less than Red, Green and Blue.
You can correct the driving currents over time for White, Red, Green and Blue based on their relative usage and the aging characteristics of the materials.

My gut says that differential aging of the white sub-pixel is not going to be a problem.

Fact that you keep mentioning the blue subpixel means you are mistaken how RGBW works. All RGBW "color" you see comes from RGB OLED materials stacked and pass through color filter ie the subpixel you see. It is not blue material emitting blue light passing through blue subpixel. Supposedly this will negate blue material lifespan issue.

The problem that you mention is infinitely remote even if we assume half life of OLED TVs are 30k hours. Besides W, RGB are activated even in grayscale, which applies if you only watch B&W movies.

I'm sure that LG RGBW approach requires subpixel power balancing algorithm.
It's because of the non-linear character of luminance vs current (power dissipated) curve of organic materials.

I continue to think about this after viewing my 500m Kuro. How much better can OLED really be??? Maybe the distance between my finger and my thumb.

Seriously, unless there becomes a new/expanded HD color standard and 4k, I don't know what the draw is going to be.

I start to wonder if the real draw outside of infinite black will be the blown out colors that j6p will enjoy. Those who look for calibration reference might be a little disappointed.

I have to agree. I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.0006 fl. Peak brightness in ISF Day mode is about 43 fl. That makes the CR about 70K. I typically watch in darkness and I am finally satisfied with my black levels (which I was not before calibration).

Based on this experience, I think that at around 0.0005 fl give-or-take, black levels are "good enough" (at least with 8-bit per color channel sources) and any further improvement is perceptually insignificant. At the moment, I can see keeeping this panel as my main monitor for a very long time.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the local dimming in the Sharp Elite LEDs is also calibrated to bring blacks in at about 0.0005 fl. That is the point where the last significant amount of "gray haze" vanishes from the picture.

^^ agree... Unless you are watching in a non dark environment. That's where OLED with its hybrid characteristics shines, despite some inherent limitations which I think is solvable, rather than structural.

... I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.0006 fl.Thanks for your calibration report. I've included it in the flat panel (post #2) lists that are linked at the bottom of my post.

I have to agree. I got my 141FD calibrated by D-Nice last week and, by using his proprietary calibration techniques, he managed to get the black level down to 0.000610 fl. Peak brightness in ISF Day mode is about 43 fl. That makes the CR about 70K. I typically watch in darkness and I am finally satisfied with my black levels (which I was not before calibration).

Based on this experience, I think that at around 0.0005 fl give-or-take, black levels are "good enough" (at least with 8-bit per color channel sources) and any further improvement is perceptually insignificant. At the moment, I can see keeeping this panel as my main monitor for a very long time.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the local dimming in the Sharp Elite LEDs is also calibrated to bring blacks in at about 0.0005 fl. That is the point where the last significant amount of "gray haze" vanishes from the picture.Dammit Americans, why are you using scientific instruments and then giving measurements in foot-lamberts. Do you not realise how ridiculous that is? This forum, and one or two older American technical papers, are the only places where I see this measurement referenced. Everywhere else in the display world uses candelas per square metre. (cd/m², or nits) I realise this is not your measurement, so it's probably the only data you have, but it really has to stop. It's an embarrassment to the AV Science Forums name. (don't get me started on people posting xy gamut plots)

---

0.00061fL (0.002090018cd/m², thanks America) seems optimistic, unless you are altering the panel driver settings, which means you're likely going to run into misfiring in the future. This puts the panel at roughly 48,000:1 when calibrated to reference levels. (100cd/m² white, which the Kuros cannot maintain at medium-to-high APL) Last I checked it was closer to 33,000:1. (around 0.003cd/m² black)


That kind of black level is rather easy to detect when watching films in a dark room. Even CRT had a slight glow in a dark room persisting on the phosphors for a few seconds, though it was still darker than this by some margin. My full-array LED backlit LCD turns the panel off when it fades to black. The Kuro's reddish glow did not satisfy, nor did all the other image quality compromises. (dither, banding, discolouration, flicker, motion blur)

There is plenty of room for OLED displays to improve upon the Kuros, and something that HT enthusiasts will notice and enjoy. Is it necessarily going to be an improvement that the general public will notice or care about? Probably not.

But the Kuros are relics. You can't buy a new one, they don't support 3D or a number of conveniences that modern displays offer. They have a high processing delay. (3–5 frames, though it's not specified whether they mean at 60Hz or not, so it could be between 50 and 167ms) They aren't suitable as a computer monitor, nor are they a good choice as a gaming display. They were very expensive compared to other TVs.

The plan is for OLED to replace LCD televisions. To bring image quality superior to the Kuros to the masses. Initially they will be high end sets of course. While the general public may not notice the differences between the Kuro and an OLED TV, they're certainly going to notice the difference between them LCDs/non-Kuro Plasmas.


If you already own a Kuro and are happy with it, yeah, maybe an OLED display isn't for you just yet. If you were unsatisfied with the Kuro, are wanting to upgrade from your Kuro, were unable to buy one before they pulled out of the display market, or simply couldn't afford one, we have OLED.

If you were unsatisfied with the Kuro, are wanting to upgrade from your Kuro, were unable to buy one before they pulled out of the display market, or simply couldn't afford one, we have OLED.Right. We're knee deep in OLED. :eek:

I think CRT glow is probably different from MLL. I could not see a CRT is on when I enter a dark room (except of course the power inducator) but I could always SENSE it. Radiation, electricity whatever it doesn't matter now :D

Similarly plasma problem is pre-charge to prevent misfiring, which xrox had it well documented. But OLED doesn't have to, so technically it should be darker than Kuro.

But this is unlikely to be perceivable in a dark room as the eye's sensitivity to contrast is around 10K. but would be different in a brighter room where OLED's luma should outshine plasma, if not zonal LED LCD.

Right. We're knee deep in OLED. :eek:Well it's coming this year, for those that can afford it. It should be easier to get one of them than a Kuro.

But this is unlikely to be perceivable as the eye's sensitivity to contrast is around 10K. but would be different in a brighter room where OLED's luma should outshine plasma, if not zonal LED LCD.Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.

Yes, sci-fi or anything containing predominately nighttime scenes on an OLED should yield better black level perception in the dark versus Kuro, most assuredly.

Well it's coming this year, for those that can afford it. It should be easier to get one of them than a Kuro.You have more faith in a commercially viable OLED producing great images and reaching the market this year than I do.

I think DLP RP was in it's fourth or fifth year in the market before I bought one so I suppose it's just me. ;)

Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.

Yes but in a dark room with a "true black" panel dynamic range is useless as there is no "reference" for the eye to contrast :) assuming calibrated 100% brightness similar for OLED and Kuro at say 100 cd/m2

I actually think dynamic range is the reason why galaxy S looks better than LCD handset. HTC will be shipping OLED handsets again soon.

My gut says that differential aging of the white sub-pixel is not going to be a problem.

I agree with the filters it will probably age more evenly than RGB.

Our sensitivity to simultaneous contrast (ANSI) may be around 10,000:1, but our dynamic range (sensitivity to a "black" TV in a dark room) is orders of magnitude higher than that, and there's far more benefit to OLED than just black level.

Sorry for the double post but where did you read this, I don't mean to call you out I am just interested to read it my self.

Yes but in a dark room with a "true black" panel dynamic range is useless as there is no "reference" for the eye to contrast :) assuming calibrated 100% brightness similar for OLED and Kuro at say 100 cd/m2
When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front. :D

Sorry for the double post but where did you read this, I don't mean to call you out I am just interested to read it my self.

He's correct on ANSI/simultaneous contrast. Honestly, that battle has largely been won on displays like the Sharp Elite, the Kuro, and perhaps a couple of others. Humans simply cannot process more than about 10K:1 in an instant.

That said, doing simultaneous contrast without any hint of haloing and with a satisfactory white and black level will be a given in all likelihood on any OLEDs, so we should be pleased to see them come to market to make that kind of performance more readily available.

That said, the notion that the "orders of magnitude" that humans can perceive are useful on displays is a bit of a canard. It's absolutely true human visual perception is in fact millions to one in contrast. Think about it this way. Sit in a very nearly dark room for about 10 minutes so your eyes adjust. Not pitch dark, because you really can't see in pitch darkness unless you have echolocation (in which case you aren't seeing). You'll be able to make out shapes and such with the most minimal of illumination.

The next day, go outside and glance at the sun for a quick second. There's no question, the stimulus range is literally millions of times more potent. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic scenario on a display for a ton of reasons. First of all, your eyes cannot adjust between scenes in any especially useful way. It takes an extended period of time for your iris to fully open or close and several orders of magnitude of your visual perception range only exist in different states of your iris. Second of all, if your TV got as bright as the sun, it would be painful. You really never want this.

The bottom line is that a well-built OLED TV is going to offer the most intrascene contrast anyone can hope for and could well exceed the performance of a Sharp Elite (don't bother talking up the Kuro, the ABL circuitry limits its maximum brightness to a level below the maximum some of us would like on certain material... sorry) or a Sony HX929 or equivalent. But we are talking about a small margin of usability in that regard.

It's definitely true that a well-designed and executed OLED has the potential to be superior to the best display we've ever seen and it's absolutely the case that videophiles are excited by that prospect. It's similarly true that 5-7 years from now, when OLEDs are inexpensive, it will potentially "democratize" videophile-level picture quality the same way $80 BluRay players and inexpensive HDTVs have given everyone a chance to enjoy beautiful movies at home. But in the short run, the amount of "room" the technology has to exceed the best currently being offered is actually remarkably small. And some of that is quite literally due to how close existing TVs are to the limits of what humans can see.

Terrific post, rogo. The last sentence is literally the bottom line. Edit: Yet I wait the OLED with a great deal of excitement. I'm an early adopter.

Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-international-edition/

Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-international-edition/The problem is that I don't believe Android has colour management yet, so that vivid OLED screen which makes other displays look "washed out" is oversaturating everything you display on it.

The problem is that I don't believe Android has colour management yet, so that vivid OLED screen which makes other displays look "washed out" is oversaturating everything you display on it.

It's true that Samsung's AMOLED displays are oversaturated, but it is equally true that most mobile LCD's are way undersaturated. I think most only hit something like 70% of the color gamut. We are just used to the undersaturation.

Thinner and better battery life, at least for video on that Samsung.

Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption.

Of course, does the battery life hold up when you're browsing or using mobile apps, which light up all the pixels, versus video playback?

Review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 OLED - they absolutely love the OLED screen, calling all other tablet's screens "washed out" in comparison.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/07/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-international-edition/

The other displays are only look washed out because of ambient light glare. The Samsung is way over saturated and the higher contrast can compensate for the glare. Once the other LCDs tablets add Nippon glare free glass it will be much closer, and the Samsung display will start to look cartoonish and inaccurate. If they can solve those problems on the OLED though, the smaller power consumption makes them ideal for portable displays, not so much for your big screen living room TV.

When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front. :D

Have you seen the report on LG 15" in a dark room?

I don't think so...is it as much as we'd hoped? I haven't followed the smaller form-factor OLEDs very closely (probably to my disadvantage).

Well my Galaxy S phone is pitch black with any black content. If there's any luminance coming from it I can't tell at all.

As expected for a long time... sooner or later as SDI doesn't have the financial strength and now the issue has become urgent with LG's RGBW

"SEC pursuing SMD: Samsung Electronics (SEC) yesterday disclosed that it may fully take over Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) by acquiring Samsung SDI’s minority stake in order to enhance business synergies. The electronics giant in Aug 2011 denied that it had such intentions, so yesterday’s announcement could be seen positively. If SMD is acquired, SEC could help it more easily meet capex demand as the AMOLED market is expected to grow significantly over the next few years."

"Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."

So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.

That and costs and also can they produce the kind of volumes Apple needs?

"Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."

So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.


Well they do consume much less power part of the problem is your phone is displaying very little black unless your watching a video.

Email-games-pretty much any thing you do on a phone is not allowing them to shut off. Hell even a background picture.

Though it is interesting to think if WOled LGs that uses color filters will use less power then a standard Oled RGB. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Well they do consume much less power part of the problem is your phone is displaying very little black unless your watching a video.

That's like saying "They consume less power, except when they're on." In other words, it's true, except that it's not true. The power consumption figure that's relevant is not some hypothetical lab figure, but rather the normal use case figure. And there, OLED is not beating LCD in mobile.


Email-games-pretty much any thing you do on a phone is not allowing them to shut off. Hell even a background picture.

Right.

Though it is interesting to think if WOled LGs that uses color filters will use less power then a standard Oled RGB. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Actually, the LG method is less light efficient and will be worse than the RGB OLED. It is unlikely to be adopted in mobile anytime soon and perhaps not ever.

Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption.

Plasma doesn't have a backlight either, yet it consumes the most power.

This reference to OLED being thinner and more efficient due to not having a backlight shows up in a lot of the marketing/news hype materials and yet doesn't make a bit of sense.

jeff

When the bezel is indistinguishable from the screen in heavily dark scenes while viewing in a pitch black room, I will know we have made it on the black level front. :D

My D-Nice calibrated Samsung 8500 in a pitch black room has no bezel to speak of.Its actually annoying at times when im trying to decide at beginning of a film if its going to fill screen or leave black bars so i can adjust screen aspect between screen fit or 16:9 which actually gives a bigger picture aspect ratio.If title comes on in a full black screen you see nothing but letters in space.

Well, that's the LED-based LCD model, which has other faults like blooming and angle viewing deficiencies. Do not want a Bandaid for black level solution.

Yes definitely angle deficiency but very little blooming after calibration.well Im on this thread so Im also ready to jump on an oled as soon they are affordable and kinks worked out.Will not buy another LED since its all about new technology if you have been on the forum as long as i have

The other displays are only look washed out because of ambient light glare. The Samsung is way over saturated and the higher contrast can compensate for the glare. Once the other LCDs tablets add Nippon glare free glass it will be much closer, and the Samsung display will start to look cartoonish and inaccurate. If they can solve those problems on the OLED though, the smaller power consumption makes them ideal for portable displays, not so much for your big screen living room TV.

If this was the problem you make it out to be pros wouldn't be raving about how awesome the Sony pro OLED monitors are.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/editingpost/story/the_crt_replacement_is_here.._finally/

I was able to dial the monitor in to an exact match to my calibrated CRT so I could test against a standard I know. After a few days, the only other perceptible difference between the two monitors was one of detail. My CRT was starting to look very blurry. With a multiburst test signal fed to the PVM-2541, I could clearly see the very fine black and white bars on the right side which just blend to a gray field on the CRT. That resolution difference soured me on my trusty CRT. So it appeared I was gaining resolution without sacrificing color rendition.

The upshot?… I’ve ordered them to replace all my CRTs.

If this was the problem you make it out to be pros wouldn't be raving about how awesome the Sony pro OLED monitors are.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/editingpost/story/the_crt_replacement_is_here.._finally/...and that's the difference colour management makes.

Yeah, um, the Sony Pro OLEDs are small production and sold to broadcast studios (and trucks). They cost a lot of money per unit. It shouldn't surprise that they are good.

But again, conflating the notion that because they are really good, all OLEDs must be really good is ... like saying that because the BMW M5 is really fast and handles exceptionally well, all cars should be really fast and handle exceptionally well. After all, the fundamental technology is the same in an M5 and a Chevy Cruze.

Funny you guys just started talking about these as I just stumbled across the same thing elsewhere;
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-BVME250/

Only $26k, now that makes LG's $6k set really look cheap. :D

Regarding that above article;Cons:
-Limited viewing axis. As with LCDs, when you get too far off center, the color shifts. Excellent off-axis viewing is one thing I really miss about CRTs that even plasmas handle better. This means you have to be careful about placement in your viewing environment.
-Audio sync will be an issue with interlaced material depending upon the I/P mode you use. See above.
-Burn-in. OLEDs are like plasmas in this regard and you have to be careful with them. The PVM has a built in screensaver that dims the picture if it sits on a still frame for ten minutes. But leaving up a mask or BITC could be fatal.
-Shorter lifetime of OLED panels. I had to weigh this one on a business side. We don’t really run our monitors 24/7 all year around. They do get spurts of that but not all year. I’m figuring I’ll get five years out of the panels. That comes to $1,100 a year. I can easily amortize that in a professional viewing environment.$1,100 a year, that's not too bad either. ;)

I'll stick with my DLP and it's $100 lamp replacement every 4-5 years.

^There's another report about off-axis color shifting. Michael2000 on the forum claimed to have witnessed this with green when viewing the LG at CES. And then the burn-in concerns...OLED is no panacea, as many have been claiming for 10 years, but it will hopefully become the best source of video reproduction available for the videophile.

"Without a backlight, OLEDs should be better on energy consumption."

So far, they haven't been. I do expect this to change, but so far, it hasn't been true in mobile, which is one reason that Apple hasn't been so jazzed to go OLED.

FYI, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus using LCD/LED has about 8 hours battery life. The 7.7 model using OLED has 12 hours. The OLED model has 10% larger screen and 16% faster CPU so actual battery life difference would have been even greater if they were equally matched hardware.

FYI, the Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus using LCD/LED has about 8 hours battery life. The 7.7 model using OLED has 12 hours. The OLED model has 10% larger screen and 16% faster CPU so actual battery life difference would have been even greater if they were equally matched hardware.

You are drawing the conclusion that the superior battery life is due to reduced consumption of the display solely. Every component that was replaced between the two of them probably uses less power, including the faster processor.

It's also true that the newer tablet has a newer version of Android which better manages power.

I'm not actually stating that the new display isn't more power efficient than the old one -- it might be -- but the evidence from bench testing and real-world experience to date is that OLED displays on mobile are not meaningfully more "sippy" than the sippiest LCDs.

That said, it's absolutely true that OLED TVs are expected to set records for power consumption for their screen sizes.

And then the burn-in concernsThat was a major surprise.
Why/how can this occur?? I'm at a loss here. :confused:

That was a major surprise.
Why/how can this occur?? I'm at a loss here. :confused:

Emissive displays that wear out can wear out unevenly.
It is the nature of the beast. However, as the lifetime gets very long it becomes less of a concern. OLED Blue has aged faster causing color shifts and uneven wear.

- Rich

Emissive as in CRT & Plasma?
I found this, but it is a little over my pay grade :o;
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/projects/abbott/emissive.htm

Nice article.
If you were to display blue only from one area and it wears quicker that the other colors, then if you display white there, light output is darker and you will see it as burn in.

I have seen Samsung OLED phones at the Verizon store that are left on continuously show after images of the icons when you display a white screen.

- Rich

If you were to display blue only from one area and it wears quicker that the other colors, then if you display white there, light output is darker and you will see it as burn in.Which is what happens to CRT's & Plasma's.

-Limited viewing axis. As with LCDs, when you get too far off center, the color shifts. Excellent off-axis viewing is one thing I really miss about CRTs that even plasmas handle better. This means you have to be careful about placement in your viewing environment.

I see the off-axis quoted as a problem for lcd, mostly. My mother has a 46" Sharp, 2-3 yrs old now, wasn't top of the line either. I checked a week ago, and up to 45 degree, the display still looked pretty bright and contrast wasn't much worse, if any compared to direct view. I can't speak for others, but I do NO serious viewing from 45+ degree off axis, which makes me wonder how many people would really find this a problem. OLED, even LG's should do better than my mothers LCD.

-Burn-in. OLEDs are like plasmas in this regard and you have to be careful with them. The PVM has a built in screensaver that dims the picture if it sits on a still frame for ten minutes. But leaving up a mask or BITC could be fatal.

I've never owned a plasma, but I do have a 65" CRT based RPTV which uses 7" tubes. It's about 10 yrs old now, , fairly heavy viewing the first 6 yrs or so. Less so now that I have a projector, but I still use it for golf and football on the weekends, and probably an hour a day other days. I no longer bother to change SD material to widescreen, I watched plenty of 2.35:1 movies in the early days. Early on I was concerned with the logos, but at this point there is not a hint of burn in that I can see, and tube life is not generally thought to be greater than 10k hrs for these. OLED should be more than double that life, but we will have to see what gets quoted when LG and Samsung actually bring theirs to market. Unless you decide to display a logo on it 24x7, I don't think this will be much to worry about. Don't the 4g cells have a lot of static screens on them? So if they are burning in, that doesn't necessarily mean that a 55" display will. Also people do use them outdoors and to see anything in ambient light, you may have to turn brightness way up, which will age the OLED faster. Not as much of a problem when the display is in the living room. Also outside UV is higher than inside and UV is apparently a killer for OLED. I know the displays will have UV filters, but I don't know how much UV they filter out. UV may be a complete non-issue with cell phones.

-Shorter lifetime of OLED panels. I had to weigh this one on a business side. We don’t really run our monitors 24/7 all year around. They do get spurts of that but not all year. I’m figuring I’ll get five years out of the panels. That comes to $1,100 a year. I can easily amortize that in a professional viewing environment.


If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.

Nwe Sony president Kazuo Hirai Profile (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=2535638&ticker=SNE:US) planning major investments in Crystal LED and OLED TECH-On! (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20120203/204334/)

If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.

Plasmas quote 100,000 hours life (half brightness) and yet you can burn them in with static images.

We will have to wait and see.

- Rich

Yeah, um, the Sony Pro OLEDs are small production and sold to broadcast studios (and trucks). They cost a lot of money per unit. It shouldn't surprise that they are good.

But again, conflating the notion that because they are really good, all OLEDs must be really good is ... like saying that because the BMW M5 is really fast and handles exceptionally well, all cars should be really fast and handle exceptionally well. After all, the fundamental technology is the same in an M5 and a Chevy Cruze.

No worse than the implicit assumption made by the poster I was replying to that OLEDs have a saturation "problem". They're dialed in that way on purpose.

...and that's the difference colour management makes.

Something about mobile OLEDs that makes you think it's not possible to do there as well?

You are drawing the conclusion that the superior battery life is due to reduced consumption of the display solely. Every component that was replaced between the two of them probably uses less power, including the faster processor.

It's also true that the newer tablet has a newer version of Android which better manages power.

I'm not actually stating that the new display isn't more power efficient than the old one -- it might be -- but the evidence from bench testing and real-world experience to date is that OLED displays on mobile are not meaningfully more "sippy" than the sippiest LCDs.

Samsung is using Red and Green PHOLED emitter materials now, which greatly increase power efficiency. Maybe this tablet has R and G which accounts for the better battery life.

Something about mobile OLEDs that makes you think it's not possible to do there as well?Absolutely—these are low power devices that don't have the computing power or battery life spare to implement a CMS for colour managed image viewing.

The only thing I'm aware of that is colour managed is the Spyder Gallery (http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-ms-spydergallery.php) app for iPads, which is just a photo viewer. There's no OS-wide support, or even support in the web browsers.

I have cautious optimism that 4 years from now, an OLED will be offered that's clearly superior to anything on the market and spending the extra on the Elite will feel wasted.

Hijacked this quote from another thread.

Rogo you must have heard something since 1) you weren't even THAT optimistic after seeing them in CES 2)you've been saying the difference between Elite and OLED would not be that vastly different

OLED future looks brighter than ever in past 2 years. Hope the execution delivers.

Hijacked this quote from another thread.

Rogo you must have heard something since 1) you weren't even THAT optimistic after seeing them in CES 2)you've been saying the difference between Elite and OLED would not be that vastly different

OLED future looks brighter than ever in past 2 years. Hope the execution delivers.

Four years is kind of an eternity. I do believe the gap is small, Spec, but I also believe that as OLED matures, there are reasons why I think that it might not have the perennial problems we keep seeing with LCD (uniformity issues, off-axis issues, and, honestly, quality-control issues).

Look, I have an obsolete plasma now. It's been with me a good two years longer than I forecast it would when we bought it. If I buy an Elite now, it has to last 6-7 years -- it's too expensive to have a planned obsolescence of merely 4 years. Something that is 30-40% cheaper, I can at least think about replacing in 4 years... and maybe it again stays in the Rogo house for 6 years.

This isn't really important to most of you; but it does give color on (a) how I think about upgrades in that I want them to last and be reasonably priced because honestly they are not permanent items (on home improvements, I don't worry about saving $500-5000 because the changes are there forever) and (b) what I see as the promising future for OLED, a technology I do believe will eclipse LCD, however slightly. And while there seems to be some game of "gotcha" where I get caught being more optimistic or less optimistic, the reality is I already have posted the following sentiment:

OLED has the real potential to bring "Elite-level quality" to mid-range prices if/when OLED gets mainstream pricing. It's going to be hard to make an OLED that doesn't have super high contrast, brightness and viewing angles. And once they are reasonably good at color, it's going to be hard to build one that can't at least be calibrated to do good color. That scenario has absolutely no chance of materializing in the next 2-3 years, but it does have a chance of materializing in the next 4-8 years.

0.00061fL (0.002090018cd/m², thanks America) seems optimistic, unless you are altering the panel driver settings, which means you're likely going to run into misfiring in the future. This puts the panel at roughly 48,000:1 when calibrated to reference levels. (100cd/m² white, which the Kuros cannot maintain at medium-to-high APL) Last I checked it was closer to 33,000:1. (around 0.003cd/m² black)


That kind of black level is rather easy to detect when watching films in a dark room. Even CRT had a slight glow in a dark room persisting on the phosphors for a few seconds, though it was still darker than this by some margin. My full-array LED backlit LCD turns the panel off when it fades to black. The Kuro's reddish glow did not satisfy, nor did all the other image quality compromises. (dither, banding, discolouration, flicker, motion blur)


My calibrated Kuro's black level is substantially below the light level in the night sky I see out of my living room window. (Before calibration, it was about the same). Granted, I live in the 'burbs so there is some glow from streetlights a few miles distant, but it helps put things in perspective. Night scenes on the panel can actually look blacker than real-life night scenes outside my window!

As for "reddish glow," I'm not seeing it in the blacks--they seem pretty neutral, although they are *so* dark that my eyes have very little ability to distinguish color at that luminance level. (Rods, cones, and all that...) Maybe I lucked out.

I watch the panel from about 11' (3.35 m...satisfied now?:rolleyes:) and don't see the dithering at that distance. If I move closer enough to the panel to see dithering, I also notice loss of resolution due to the limitations of 1080p.

About the only complaint I have with the picture is that I have seen green phosphor trails occasionally, but only from fast-moving white credits scrolling vertically on a pitch-black background. I haven't checked to see if calibration helped that situation. I haven't seen this since the calibration, but I haven't specifically sought out material to demonstrate it.

@rogo no gotcha there. Am trying to keep track of your view and if you've heard anything new. Its always comforting to have a fellow skeptic agreeing rather than a forever-optimist agreeing :)

My calibrated Kuro's black level is substantially below the light level in the night sky I see out of my living room window. (Before calibration, it was about the same). Granted, I live in the 'burbs so there is some glow from streetlights a few miles distant, but it helps put things in perspective. Night scenes on the panel can actually look blacker than real-life night scenes outside my window!

As for "reddish glow," I'm not seeing it in the blacks--they seem pretty neutral, although they are *so* dark that my eyes have very little ability to distinguish color at that luminance level. (Rods, cones, and all that...) Maybe I lucked out.

I watch the panel from about 11' (3.35 m...satisfied now?:rolleyes:) and don't see the dithering at that distance. If I move closer enough to the panel to see dithering, I also notice loss of resolution due to the limitations of 1080p.

About the only complaint I have with the picture is that I have seen green phosphor trails occasionally, but only from fast-moving white credits scrolling vertically on a pitch-black background. I haven't checked to see if calibration helped that situation. I haven't seen this since the calibration, but I haven't specifically sought out material to demonstrate it.
Chrono is hypercritical of the Kuro and tends to blow its weaknesses out of proportion, IMO. I want a better black level than the 111FD can provide, but not with the compromise in PQ that LED enthusiasts readily accept. The fact that a 4-year-old panel is still being used as a benchmark today tells me all I need to know...and represents my best display purchase yet. Frankly, I see no compelling reason to upgrade it with current tech (so as to compromise the viewing experience in other areas that would perturb me more than the hubbub about the Kuro's weaknesses) and am eagerly awaiting OLED's (hopefully rapid) development.

@rogo no gotcha there. Am trying to keep track of your view and if you've heard anything new. Its always comforting to have a fellow skeptic agreeing rather than a forever-optimist agreeing :)

Spec, I believe that Samsung and LG would like to never invest in LCD again. I believe they will continue to increase their OLED investment in the hope of replacing 100% of their LCD production with OLED over the next decade or so.

There are reasons that goal might not be achieved, of course, but I am convinced that is there intent. I was not convinced of that a year ago, but I am convinced of it now.

So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.

So, honestly, while the future is not yet written, I believe this is the future they desire and that's not insignificant.

Spec, I believe that Samsung and LG would like to never invest in LCD again. I believe they will continue to increase their OLED investment in the hope of replacing 100% of their LCD production with OLED over the next decade or so.

There are reasons that goal might not be achieved, of course, but I am convinced that is there intent. I was not convinced of that a year ago, but I am convinced of it now.

This is actually non consensus but it looks pretty much what's happening past 18 months. If there's anymore LCD fab investment it would be in China.

It would be hard to find many that agree with us but I always look at actions rather than words. And their action is telling us LCD peak capex is over.

This is actually non consensus but it looks pretty much what's happening past 18 months. If there's anymore LCD fab investment it would be in China.

It would be hard to find many that agree with us but I always look at actions rather than words. And their action is telling us LCD peak capex is over.

Here's another truth: The growth of the LCD / flat panel TV market has practically stalled. It's forecast for sub 10% for 2012 from a much-much-lower-than-expected 2011 number. The 8G fabs are not especially old and probably none of them are even running at capacity.

Throughout the growth phase of LCD (and even plasma) in the earlier part of the 2000s, everyone planned their fabs on the Field of Dreams model ("if you build it...") and the reality is they came, but never in the numbers to justify the amount of capacity that was built. Between upgrades and retrofits, you could easily satisfy the demand for all the world's LCD TVs and computer screens with the world's existing fabs.

We already know a huge chunk of mobile phone won't be LCD for much longer (and perhaps eventually few will; we'll see within 36 months how that plays out I'd guess). Global computer sales also appear to be in a permanent tapering off (and their monitors tend to be replaced even less often on the desktop at least). Tablets are growing like crazy, yes, but no one is constructing a new fab to support that market -- which is amazingly telling.

I posited in a post some weeks ago -- that a lot of OLED fans didn't like -- that under the most aggressive forecasts OLED could reach about 1/3 of the TV market by the end of the decade. Let's just pretend that against all rational odds, the TV market somehow expands from ~200 million now to ~300 million by decades end (it's actually hard to believe this will happen and I believe the TV market -- like the major-manufacturer / "first world" auto market -- is eventually going to stop growing entirely and fluctuate with economic growth, but let's go with it). The world's existing LCD capacity would meet all that demand.

If any Chinese fab were to be built by any new entrant or in a JV with an existing player and was 10G, it could literally produce more than 10% of the world's required output for 2020. Against that backdrop, and with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi and Sharp all suffering under Korean competition, a strong yen, a terrible TV market, their own bad decision making, whatever, why would anyone invest in an LCD fab? They are all sitting with "dry powder" and all of them are looking to find a TV product that is profitable; not the one they are currently making -- which is typically LCD.

For various signaling reasons, I suppose the game of global flat-panel chicken starts with no one coming out and saying it, but really, I think they know what we believe: If OLED production doesn't hit snags and starts to ramp as LG and Samsung hope it does, the era of LCD fabs is over. The huge caveat is that if OLED production does begin to ramp and it becomes clear that it won't actually get cheaper than LCD, we will see LCD fab investment restart before mid-decade as Samsung and LG build 10G and finish off Japan for good.

So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.

The weird part is that the WOLED approach has been around for years and years. I had always assumed that there were drawbacks in terms of picture quality since there was no consensus around using the WOLED architecture (it is obviously easier to manufacture). Some of the reports about Kodak's samples at SID and your comments about the LG at CES from a few years ago seemed to back that up.

I dont know if we are going to get some sort of surprise when LG launches their television but it certainly seems that WOLED offers near equivalent quality to RGB. That is a big change and should help some of the other display companies more quickly launch an OLED television over the medium term.

Slacker, I think it probably is "worse", but I think we are very likely to end up splitting hairs -- especially until Samsung produces something amazing, which hasn't even happened yet.

Having seen the prototypes and explained the reality (which for some reason bothers some people) that OLEDs have limited room to be superior to the very best LCDs and plasmas, I'd describe it -- now speculatively -- thus:

Best TV on market: 1.0 quality, improving to, say 1.2 over time
LG OLED: 1.1.5-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.4
Samsung OLED: 1.15-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.5

Obviously, that's speculative, but I'm suggesting RGB OLED has the most overhead. An interesting question, however is this: The techniques that will allow for affordable RGB-making (these spray-on methods being worked on, e.g.) don't yet exist in any sort of production-ready way. Even if they materialize, the possibility exists that RGBW may have already taken off and become so cheap that they can never compete.

What there isn't room for is an OLED manufacturing technology that is running smaller numbers, costs more and maybe delivers very, very slightly better picture quality. The math won't add up. This isn't like making a niche LCD where you add better parts to a mass-produced panel. This would be entire production dedicated to something that is costing more and selling less. That would -- I believe -- be why Samsung is reconsidering what to do from here. It's a pretty significant decision.

So it's not so much that I've heard anything new. It's that the balance of what I learned / saw at CES plus the investments plus Samsung's willingness to admit that LG might have a better technological roadmap plus that LG roadmap's much greater simplicity etc. etc.

So, honestly, while the future is not yet written, I believe this is the future they desire and that's not insignificant.

I agree I doubt they want any more investment in LCD, also I saw some news online that Samsung is considering Woled in the future and are conducting tests this seems to reinforce your idea that LGs road map is better.

Here's another truth: The growth of the LCD / flat panel TV market has practically stalled. It's forecast for sub 10% for 2012 from a much-much-lower-than-expected 2011 number. The 8G fabs are not especially old and probably none of them are even running at capacity.

Throughout the growth phase of LCD (and even plasma) in the earlier part of the 2000s, everyone planned their fabs on the Field of Dreams model ("if you build it...") and the reality is they came, but never in the numbers to justify the amount of capacity that was built. Between upgrades and retrofits, you could easily satisfy the demand for all the world's LCD TVs and computer screens with the world's existing fabs.

We already know a huge chunk of mobile phone won't be LCD for much longer (and perhaps eventually few will; we'll see within 36 months how that plays out I'd guess). Global computer sales also appear to be in a permanent tapering off (and their monitors tend to be replaced even less often on the desktop at least). Tablets are growing like crazy, yes, but no one is constructing a new fab to support that market -- which is amazingly telling.

I posited in a post some weeks ago -- that a lot of OLED fans didn't like -- that under the most aggressive forecasts OLED could reach about 1/3 of the TV market by the end of the decade. Let's just pretend that against all rational odds, the TV market somehow expands from ~200 million now to ~300 million by decades end (it's actually hard to believe this will happen and I believe the TV market -- like the major-manufacturer / "first world" auto market -- is eventually going to stop growing entirely and fluctuate with economic growth, but let's go with it). The world's existing LCD capacity would meet all that demand.

If any Chinese fab were to be built by any new entrant or in a JV with an existing player and was 10G, it could literally produce more than 10% of the world's required output for 2020. Against that backdrop, and with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi and Sharp all suffering under Korean competition, a strong yen, a terrible TV market, their own bad decision making, whatever, why would anyone invest in an LCD fab? They are all sitting with "dry powder" and all of them are looking to find a TV product that is profitable; not the one they are currently making -- which is typically LCD.

For various signaling reasons, I suppose the game of global flat-panel chicken starts with no one coming out and saying it, but really, I think they know what we believe: If OLED production doesn't hit snags and starts to ramp as LG and Samsung hope it does, the era of LCD fabs is over. The huge caveat is that if OLED production does begin to ramp and it becomes clear that it won't actually get cheaper than LCD, we will see LCD fab investment restart before mid-decade as Samsung and LG build 10G and finish off Japan for good.

It's actually not difficult to project MATHEMATICALLY. 5 years ago with the infancy of 8G fab, there was already calculation that the world could support 4 10G and probably 6 (8?) 8G, assuming global average size comes to 42", which is happening. Problem is estimating demand fluctuations.

By my humble experience, a lot of predictions by people in the know usually come to pass... the problem is time frame. People tend to be too optimistic on timeframes because it will sound better ie newsworthy and second it looks better on ROI basis. Think 3G in 1999. From hype with UK 3G licenses auctioned for GBP22b to distress in 2005 (before iPhone) that it's a hype, to reality now.

So I think eventually the capacity will be fully utilised, especially with some capacity changed to OLED and some changed to huge size TVs. And it makes a lot of sense builing LCD fab in China, it being the largest backend process of LCD TVs, and soon the largest TV consumer in the world. Problem is of course politics and technology transfer, which is obvious. 10G in China makes sense as like I said, there are good demand there for the "loudest" electronics :) Chinese companies are in fact trying to start OLED fabs.

For a technology that people assume it's hogwash 18 months ago, to "niche" just not long ago, to 1/3 of market is good enough for me, in terms of how OLED will grow :)

PS ("if you build it...")... that's why I'm never a believer of supply side economics :D I actually think it makes more sense focusing on incentives structure that fosters demand.


Best TV on market: 1.0 quality, improving to, say 1.2 over time
LG OLED: 1.1.5-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.4
Samsung OLED: 1.15-1.2 quality, improving over time perhaps to a ceiling of 1.5

The difference between us is that I have always maintained that the 20% (or so) difference between OLED and LCD is perceivable to J6P, and hence premium would be justified. How much is subjective.

"The difference between us is that I have always maintained that the 20% (or so) difference between OLED and LCD is perceivable to J6P, and hence premium would be justified. How much is subjective."

I do a lot of shopping for fun. It is my opinion that J6P doesn't see what I'd call a 50% difference in picture quality very often. People have to either talk themselves into high-end models or be talked into them... and usually that's on features, not picture quality.

The Elite, for example, is easily 20% better than almost anything around it. Most people just shrug and acknowledge it looks good. OLED is not going to sell on real picture quality, but it will sell somewhat on people being told it's better.

Incidentally, I don't know if it will reach 1/3 of the market by 2020 obviously. I was merely extrapolating from a 2015 forecast I believe is realistic (+/- a year). I was slammed by people here who insist that somehow OLED will have more than half the market in that timeframe, which still seems something just shy of impossible.

But if things like what Tracy read are true and Samsung eventually adopts an RGBW approach, a lot of the production roadblocks will fade. I suspect that most people have no real concept of just how much easier that production is going to be (regular folks). It's a major, major shift.

But it will ever-so-slightly mitigate the small picture-quality advantage. The market challenge is still out there: Convince early adopters to pay a lot for something that is only somewhat better and will become much much cheaper soon after they buy. Yes, that's achieved in other businesses but rarely is the new product such a direct substitute for the existing one. I suppose we need just enough people who want big viewing angles, and local-dimming-type contrast ratios who will seek out the "newer, better" to get us there. But I'm confident that marketing hype will convince at least some of the needed people.

Key is it is perceivable by J6P, not AVS forumer :) If it's not perceivable then it's very hard to market for eg better plasma black in bright showroom. As good as none.

Not surprising Sammy looking at RGBW. We've been talking about it since LG debut at CES which will affect Sammy roadmap.

But ultimately I think RGBW is an intermediate solution just as edge lit is to full backlit LED.

CNET UK states that Samsung has told them that the UK will get the 55" OLED this spring.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/samsung-oled-tv-coming-to-the-uk-this-spring-50006941/

This would obviously be a limited launch ahead of the London Olympics, but it would still be great to get some feedback on performance in a few months.

But ultimately I think RGBW is an intermediate solution just as edge lit is to full backlit LED.

See that's an interesting comment. Full back-lit LED is all but dead. The marketplace has voted with its wallet and edge-lit LCD has satisfied the masses while maybe getting marginally better over time.

I'm not disagreeing with you that we might see full RGB OLED, but if Samsung and LG ramp RGBW significantly, we also might never see it. The fact that something is theoretically possible doesn't necessarily me its ever seen in the market.

lcd is a very mature technology yet it still has some significant fundamental flaws that still persist. off angle viewing, uniformity issues, blooming, finally in this last year we've reached the holy grail of lcds with the local dimming arrays and they still have issues even though they have entered kuro territory.

i acknowledge the the sharp elite may have better black levels than my kuro, but it still has off angle issues, color inaccuracy issues, and that weird pulsing issue. none of those problems exist with my kuro.

i'm not here to reap love on kuros, only to point out that i wouldn't spend 4-6k for an elite while those issues still exist.

rogo said something i believe to be true. lg and sammy want out of lcd as there's so little profit in it. oled will be the next big thing and if they can commercially produce it and are ahead of the field, they will price it with profit margins far in excess of what they can attain with their lcds.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/business/la-fi-nanosys-20111107

Does this replace OLED in 2013?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/business/la-fi-nanosys-20111107

Does this replace OLED in 2013?

No.

lcd is a very mature technology yet it still has some significant fundamental flaws that still persist. off angle viewing, uniformity issues, blooming, finally in this last year we've reached the holy grail of lcds with the local dimming arrays and they still have issues even though they have entered kuro territory.

This is going to sound confusing to some, but uniformity issues, blooming, and off-axis are not really picture-quality flaws at all. They are technology limitations (off axis on non-IPS panels) or implementation flaws (non-uniform back/edge lighting and blooming). They do need to be improved for the small number of us who care, but other than off-axis issues -- which are noticed by people who can't watch square on -- they tend to be widely ignored by the mass of consumers.

i acknowledge the the sharp elite may have better black levels than my kuro, but it still has off angle issues, color inaccuracy issues, and that weird pulsing issue. none of those problems exist with my kuro.


A testament to Pioneer's quality control / QA to be sure.

rogo said something i believe to be true. lg and sammy want out of lcd as there's so little profit in it. oled will be the next big thing and if they can commercially produce it and are ahead of the field, they will price it with profit margins far in excess of what they can attain with their lcds.

Yes, that's the idea. And since LCDs are so profit-less for them, those numbers ultimately might end tolerable for a lot of us.

If the Samsung retail-price maintenance strategy for 2012 is to be believed, it is my opinion that it is designed to ensure a framework under which they use marketing hardcore to convince people their slightly more expensive stuff is much better. They are going for an Apple-esque strategy and one that tries to preserve their retail partners. We'll see how it plays out.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/business/la-fi-nanosys-20111107

Does this replace OLED in 2013?

Old news.

Jason Hartlove was a guest on Scotts show today.

Old news.

Yep, and way to much money in Oled now its coming to market.

Plus large printable Oled displays are really in the interest of any one making them as they are much cheaper to produce but sell at a premium.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/20/business/la-fi-nanosys-20111107

Does this replace OLED in 2013?

Doesn't even look like new display tech. Looks more like a substitute for color filter. IMHO not impossible as an improvement for existing tech but it's a chicken and egg problem since REC709 gamut is limited anyway. You need better gamut spec for this to be useful.

If OLED panels have a 25k hr. life, that works out to just under 7hrs a day of viewing for 10 years. They may get quoted as lower, so you'd have to judge, but I doubt many on this forum keep the same display as the main viewing display for 10 years, and 7 hrs a day is a LOT of couch time.

Some go as high as 35,000-50,000 hours we don't have the first gen to say yet but Oled that lasts 10plus years is way more than most people keep their sets around and long enough for me.

Oops, Samsung/CNET retracts the spring launch date...reiterates second half launch.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/televisions/samsung-oled-tv-coming-second-half-of-2012-not-spring-50006947/

How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?

Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?

http://www.avforums.com/forums/forum-news-notices/1591936-oled-new-black-inside-sony-day-1-a.html

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=293116&d=1329250475

Sony had three Professional Monitors set up, a CRT from 1999, an LCD from 2006 and between the both, an OLED from 2011. With the lights out the blacks on the CRT looked far better than the LCD, as you would expect but the black levels on the OLED were just astounding, completely black, so much so that you couldn’t see the screen at all. The image accuracy and colour performance was also very impressive and the pixel response was as quick as the CRT screen. However before anyone starts getting excited, the 25” OLED Professional Monitor sells for 25,000 euros but at least its good to see that Sony are working on OLED technology. It was also good to see just how incredible the image on an OLED screen can look, it truly is the new black!

Oops, Samsung/CNET retracts the spring launch date...reiterates second half launch.


Saw that coming a mile away.

How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?

Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?

They are going to have to make choices about how the final product works.

The LG prototype had no electronics on board and needs to be tethered to a port/power box by an "umbilical". I've spoken repeatedly about how much people hate that design. Some AVSers like it, but really, not one model with that design has ever been successful or liked. It's an option for LG, however.

Alternatively, they can add a small amount of depth to the design to support standard plugs and cables.

As for mounting, so long as they have a way of attaching a mounting plate, they'll be fine. The design is light enough that they can create a small system of rails/grooves and let you slide a plate into then then lock that down with a couple of tiny screws. The plate would be designed to work with VESA standard mounts.

Do we know the width of this 55" Samsung? Smaller form factor may let me go bigger in the same space and let me replace 50" Pro110.

If they keep getting lighter, you'll be able to mount them on the wall with these (http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Marine/Home/Products/Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20S4K7000000_nid=1CBSDM0QMGgsQH8HT 14PGTglL6N23BBW53bl).

Doesn't even look like new display tech. Looks more like a substitute for color filter. IMHO not impossible as an improvement for existing tech but it's a chicken and egg problem since REC709 gamut is limited anyway. You need better gamut spec for this to be useful.

We have a winner! The whole production chain would need to change. Again.

^^ It's just color filter, not the entire chain

http://www.avforums.com/forums/forum-news-notices/1591936-oled-new-black-inside-sony-day-1-a.html

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=293116&d=1329250475

Again as discussed on multiple threads, these pictures are good marketing tool, but not totally truthful. Light bounces off the back structure of CRT and plasma while LCD will block light. OLED cathode can be transparent.

But better comparison for AVS is in a dark room, where OLED will be like invisible while giving other displays more justice :)

How would one mount an OLED tv to the wall. Isnt the tv too thin for mounting screws? Also, are all the internals to run these (LG or Samsung) OLED TVs contained in the monitor?

Also, isnt an HDMI plug too big (most of HDMI blugs are deeper than 10 mm)?
As rogo mentioned, it would just be like hanging a picture with the right THIN mounting plate :)

And yes as I mentioned before, I think these sets would have separate box and probably we would see a "as-it-is monitor" comeback in TVs :)

As rogo mentioned, it would just be like hanging a picture with the right THIN mounting plate :)

And yes as I mentioned before, I think these sets would have separate box and probably we would see a "as-it-is monitor" comeback in TVs :)


I did see a press release from Lg that said they are going to have 2 options If its on a stand all the hook ups that are thick (hdmi...etc) are going to in the stand.

If it is mounted the TV will have a back pack(removable) making it thicker no size listed but I would guess maybe 1/2-3/4 inch or so.

So they are thinking of what people want.

Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.

Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.I'm rarely in a position to predict anything, but in this case I'm confident that all OLED displays will have a "hanging" option. :eek:

I did see a press release from Lg that said they are going to have 2 options If its on a stand all the hook ups that are thick (hdmi...etc) are going to in the stand.

If it is mounted the TV will have a back pack(removable) making it thicker no size listed but I would guess maybe 1/2-3/4 inch or so.

So they are thinking of what people want.

Samsung said they are keeping it all in the base. I did not see anything about a wall option could just not be released yet.

Bravo to LG then, that's the right approach -- especially if the stand piece is somehow able to be converted into the backpack.

I'm rarely in a position to predict anything, but in this case I'm confident that all OLED displays will have a "hanging" option. :eek:

I see the future, and it matches your prediction.

I see the future, and it matches your prediction.I wish I could get my wife to read AVS. :cool:

This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.
I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oG7hmbkjtPVxMADjRXNyoA?p=samsung%20c9000%20wall %20mount&fr=fp-yie9-s&fr2=piv-web

This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.
I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oG7hmbkjtPVxMADjRXNyoA?p=samsung%20c9000%20wall %20mount&fr=fp-yie9-s&fr2=piv-web

That looks pretty cool.

I would concur that the end result will be somewhat similar.

This was Samsung's solution to mounting the C9000 series from 2010.
I'm guessing whatever they come up with for OLED will be along the same lines.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oG7hmbkjtPVxMADjRXNyoA?p=samsung%20c9000%20wall %20mount&fr=fp-yie9-s&fr2=piv-web

Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.

I do agree I can't imagine Samsung being that short sighted to have no option for wall mounting.

Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.

I do agree I can't imagine Samsung being that short sighted to have no option for wall mounting.

I must of missed it. What's the back pack idea ? How does it differ ? On the surface it seems to me that they would be the same thing. Being that the Samsung solution serves as a base and a wall mount ?

Looks like kind of a pain in the ass to me. I prefer the LG back pack idea.


haha agreed. Looking at that Samsung video I kept thinking "holy crap, that looks complicated as heck to do for the average person."

They need to come up with an easier way than unscrewing and screwing lots of screws.

They need to come up with an easier way than unscrewing and screwing lots of screws.Screw drivers are just too high tech. :eek:

Behold the idiocracy (not posting to incite, just a general trend that can be seen).

Konica Minolta’s first commercial OLED inkjet printing head will be available to display makers this spring.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1329392549

From the link: "According to industry sources, Dupont’s OLED printing technology is not optimized on the sub-pixel level, however. Each pixel on a display panel requires three sub pixels in red, green blue (RGB) to form one pixel."

Can anyone explain what they mean by this? I'm sure Konica is using RGB.

From the link: "According to industry sources, Dupont’s OLED printing technology is not optimized on the sub-pixel level, however. Each pixel on a display panel requires three sub pixels in red, green blue (RGB) to form one pixel."

Can anyone explain what they mean by this? I'm sure Konica is using RGB.

I read that too. It implies they can print OLED material, just not very well. Since the "very well" is the entire problem with RGB manufacturing of large sizes right now, I don't really know what to make of that comment.

Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?

Some go as high as 35,000-50,000 hours we don't have the first gen to say yet but Oled that lasts 10plus years is way more than most people keep their sets around and long enough for me.

At $10,000 for a 55" set, my freakin grand kids better be able to use it.:D

Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?

CES 2013.

^You're taking bets on neither of them making it to market in 2012 then? ;)

Any guesses when we might be hearing more info on the Samsung or LG OLED tvs?

I really doubt you'll hear much of anything before the summer. And I'm very skeptical of Samsung shipping this year.

At $10,000 for a 55" set, my freakin grand kids better be able to use it.:D

They'll rather use the holosuite. :p

The stage is set.. .and not unexpected:

" Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said it will spin off its unprofitable liquid-crystal-display division as the company changes its focus to the next generation of TV displays.
The new company, provisionally named Samsung Display Co., will be set up April 1, Samsung said in a filing today. Samsung may merge the unit into the Samsung Mobile Display venture that makes organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, panels, Nam Ki Yung, a Seoul-based spokesman, said by phone.
Samsung’s LCD business had an operating loss of 750 billion won ($668 million) last year as TV sales slowed. Merging its panel-making operations will help the company expand its OLED business by utilizing LCD-manufacturing resources, according to Korea Investment & Securities Co. and Hanwha Securities Co."

I really doubt you'll hear much of anything before the summer. And I'm very skeptical of Samsung shipping this year.

Me too. I am not super set on that larger blue subpixel Sammy will have to use seems like it will make a blue shift in the colors.

^You're taking bets on neither of them making it to market in 2012 then? ;)

Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.

http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/

^Ouch. That's okay, I can't afford a new TV this year anyway. :D

Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.

http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/

For the record it is $20 and it was for LG that OLED TV this year is not vapourware

No pricing on Samsung OLED because the group anouncing LCD pricing won't be the one selling OLED,

Get your wallet ready. LOL


Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.

http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/

^Got him on a technicality. ;)
Yes, I think I have a $5 bet with spectator or saprano that there will be no OLED for sale in the US before Dec 31, 2012. I'll have to check. Good news for me so far is Samsung and LG announced there 2012 model available and pricing sheet and there is no mention of either OLED set.

http://hdguru.com/samsung-2012-hdtv-prices-leaked/7349/
BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?

The stage is set.. .and not unexpected:

" Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said it will spin off its unprofitable liquid-crystal-display division as the company changes its focus to the next generation of TV displays.
The new company, provisionally named Samsung Display Co., will be set up April 1, Samsung said in a filing today. Samsung may merge the unit into the Samsung Mobile Display venture that makes organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, panels, Nam Ki Yung, a Seoul-based spokesman, said by phone.
Samsung’s LCD business had an operating loss of 750 billion won ($668 million) last year as TV sales slowed. Merging its panel-making operations will help the company expand its OLED business by utilizing LCD-manufacturing resources, according to Korea Investment & Securities Co. and Hanwha Securities Co."


i wonder does this include their plasmas or just lcds?

^^ plasma panel is under Samsung SDI and the above pertains to Samsung Electronics. Whether plasma will come under the new Sansung Display will be known in due course when we see the restructuring in SDI. To be honestly blunt, nobody in LG or Sammy cares much about plasma nowadays.

^Got him on a technicality. ;)

BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?

It's not cast in stone anyway. Sharp 80" and Elite was not announced on 2011 lineup as well.

QUESTIONS

Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?

Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?

^Got him on a technicality. ;)

BTW, this doesn't cover LG announcements (or the lack thereof). Gotta link for that?

LG has way to much riding not to bring a product to market by say September. Samsung took a loss on LCDs and is using a blue shifted sub pixel arrangement. I don't see Samsung for sale by 2012. I can't imagine LG not selling in 2012 though.

Be we start seeing advertising campaign stuff by juneish.

QUESTIONS

Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?

Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?

Yes as long as they don't use in line scanning 55" - 65" is about the max your going to see with that tech. (currently samsung uses thins in their oleds.)

Other than that its just a market issue maybe by 2015-2016?

QUESTIONS

Will OLED TVs eventually be cheaper to manufacture than LCD or plasma TVs?

That is the hope. But it's not happening soon. Anyone who claims it is happening soon is simply wrong.

Will we ever get OLED TVs in giant sizes, such as 120" and 133" diagonal?

Um, doubtful with any currently known production process.

Will we see 80"? 90"? Probably. The logistics of building and selling 120" and 133" OLEDs are so daunting, there is simply no chance anyone is actually planning on doing this.

I suspect we will need a flexible substrate before you see 120" and 133" OLEDs. By this, I do not mean rollable or folding, but flexible to the point where it can be shipped in a relatively thin container because it is impact resistant and it could be slightly "bent" to fit through a doorway.

All this seems unlikely this decade.

Well, I would hope they will at least match Panasonic's 103" plasma TV in size. A 103" OLED TV would be about 75% less heavy than a plasma TV.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6825094989_91c6e6b565_o.jpg

http://www.avforums.com/forums/16378852-post18.html

Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2012/02/182_105263.html

smart move IMO

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6825094989_91c6e6b565_o.jpg

http://www.avforums.com/forums/16378852-post18.html

The image is broken.

My Kuro will last me well into the time when OLED's are priced lower and much larger.

Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2012/02/182_105263.html

I think the most interesting thing in that article is the following quote
"We can’t construct an OLED panel-producing plant in China due to the risk of a technology leak,’’ said a Samsung official.

Sounds like they are really working to keep their OLED technology from finding its way into China.

"SAMSUNG SPINS OFF LCD BUSINESS, OLED IS THE FUTURE"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1329755852


"Last week we reported that Samsung was reviewing the future of their LCD business. Samsung has now officially confirmed that they will spin off their LCD division from the parent company to a new subsidiary company called Samsung Display Co.

Samsung and Sony recently ended their LCD partnership and last week Reuters wrote that Samsung has realized a loss of 1 trillion Won (around $891 million) from their LCD business in fiscal year 2011. Samsung has now taken action based on that fact.

Samsung plans to move all their LCD operations from the parent company, Samsung, into a new subsidiary called Samsung Display Co. This is formally scheduled to happen April 1, 2012."

There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.

But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it with other Samsung businesses, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.

There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.

But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it with other Samsung businesses, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.



this is exactly how i interpret it.

Samsung has now officially confirmed that they will spin off their LCD division from the parent company to a new subsidiary.

Same here.

Same here.

Congrats on spinning off your LCD division, Sun.

Err the spinoff was already official 2 days ago. I posted the news :P

Spinoff does not mean they are going to sever the ties with Samsung but the new Samsung Display will be part of investment income in terms of Korean GAAP. But essentially nothing changes for Samsung Electronics until the SDI restructuring.

But longer term it does indicate that Samsung is consolidating the display business into one unit and possibly reducing stake in future through IPO and list it separately like LG Display

So Samsung is cutting in a sense, depends on your timeframe and how u slice it. It's likely to become a subsi rather than fully owned.

Samsung and LG are cutting their investment into Chinese LCD fabs to focus on OLED's.

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2012/02/182_105263.html

Like I said, building a large LCD fab in China makes sense, while migrating the korean LCD capacity to OLED. Building an OLED in China doesn't. The Chinese are trying to get into the OLED game as well.


Sounds like they are really working to keep their OLED technology from finding its way into China.

If the Chinese were to steal the secrets of OLED television tech--would it mean cheaper OLED TVs in the US market quicker?

Err the spinoff was already official 2 days ago. I posted the news :P

Spinoff does not mean they are going to sever the ties with Samsung but the new Samsung Display will be part of investment income in terms of Korean GAAP. But essentially nothing changes for Samsung Electronics until the SDI restructuring.

But longer term it does indicate that Samsung is consolidating the display business into one unit and possibly reducing stake in future through IPO and list it separately like LG Display

So Samsung is cutting in a sense, depends on your timeframe and how u slice it. It's likely to become a subsi rather than fully owned.



Like I said, building a large LCD fab in China makes sense, while migrating the korean LCD capacity to OLED. Building an OLED in China doesn't. The Chinese are trying to get into the OLED game as well.

If the Chinese were to steal the secrets of OLED television tech--would it mean cheaper OLED TVs in the US market quicker?



the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.

the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.

I actually go out of way to not to buy Chinese products now because they are so ****** I think the maybe $2,000 I have spent extra I have very easily saved this year by things not breaking needing repair etc. I have go so far as to buy clothes everything etc.

Its a wonder how much better made in japan/korea/germany/india/indonesia/usa is.

China is working on a limited time frame soon they will be at 7% growth which is not enough to outpace inflation there not to mention that govt controlled currency will crack some time. Most countries are getting better about their trade deficit.

As for Oled I will say LG Q3-Q4 and willing to put $5 on it. Samsung 2013.

There's a lot of nonsense in Samsung's spinoff announcement. I want to be clear that I'm on record here a few weeks back as basically saying Samsung was done investing in LCD (other than to maintain existing production), so I'm not surprised by them making announcements in that direction.

But the press stuff you are reading on them spinning off the LCD business is a lot of gibberish. They are still the sole owner, they are talking about merging it with other Samsung businesses, etc. This is not like they are cutting it loose. They are doing this to have cleaning reporting of the financials of the parent company, which is making nice profits in mobile, and to allow them to have this ugly stepchild run around and make all their screens with its crappy financials. I'm not sure how Korean accounting laws are, but in the U.S., the parent would still have to report all the results of a wholly owned subsidiary in its bottom line, although it would invariably try to convince Wall St. that non-GAAP earnings ex. the sub co. were the number you really wanted to follow.

It is not so. Spin-off means preparation for scaling down this part of business. You can't sell it since it is bad and/or you would give away lots of IP. Thus you have to take it down gradually and spin-off allows for easier restructuring.

I actually go out of way to not to buy Chinese products now because they are so ****** I think the maybe $2,000 I have spent extra I have very easily saved this year by things not breaking needing repair etc. I have go so far as to buy clothes everything etc. Its a wonder how much better made in japan/korea/germany/india/indonesia/usa is.
China is working on a limited time frame soon they will be at 7% growth which is not enough to outpace inflation there not to mention that govt controlled currency will crack some time. Most countries are getting better about their trade deficit.


Heh, you underestimate the nature of this kind of development. I refer you to history books where you can read how everybody was joking/getting mad about the government controlled economy and cheapy, low-Q goods from Japan, Korea and Taiwan:).

It is not so. Spin-off means preparation for scaling down this part of business. You can't sell it since it is bad and/or you would give away lots of IP. Thus you have to take it down gradually and spin-off allows for easier restructuring.\

What is not so?

You dispute my post and then produce not a single counter-factual argument.

Haven't seen a China explosion of deep black Plasma TVs.

We will see how they can do with this hard to perfect OLED making process.

the chinese will steal oled tech like they do everything else, and then build oled displays that will be sold at a loss at walmart eliminating all other manufacturers, but your oled display will only last 12-14 months before breaking.

I wonder since OLED being so light, if shipping damage will be less now.