Just like the current Sony, the display is attached via dedicated internal connections. The base is where power, video, USB, etc. plug in. All new ultrathin LCDs and PDPs will also have base-plugs only, also by necessity.

And about stiffness, ever seen an airplane wing? Plenty thin and plenty strong. Less than a foot thick usually, and carries multiple tons of fuselage and cargo. Carbon-fibre composites, etc. already on the market provide more than enough stiffness for large-size thin OLEDs.

Samsung 40-inch Full-HD OLED display unveiled (http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-40-inch-full-hd-oled-display-unveiled-2920737/#entrycontent)
29 October 2008http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10175

Year ago, Samsung was advertising their new thin LCD prototype WITH THE SAME PICTURES. Now they are recycling the same images to demonstrate new OLEDs.slashgear reused that LCD picture for their OLED article but I doubt that Samsung had anything to do with that.

My guess is it's initially about style.

But one of the possibilities of OLED is flexible displays, which you could roll up and take elsewhere, isn't it?

Rollups would work at certain size ranges, but I suspect it would be harder to make the surface stay flat and wrinkle-free bigger than 32". Perhaps little weights could be hung from the two lower corners. Deployment systems could be borrowed from projector screens too: roll-down displays! With wall-mounted clip-on tensioners at the bottom.

My gut tells me that the industry wants displays to have the style of wallpaper. Displays that are virtually flush with the wall. We already have items hanging on our walls that are an inch thick and I do not hear people complaining... they are called picture frames and I have about 20 of them throughout my house.

Global and China OLED Market Report (http://www.oled-display.net/global-and-china-oled-market-report)
6 November 2008

Researchinchina.com a new Global and China OLED Market Report 2007-2012

As the development trend of next generation display technology, OLED is still highly concerned.

In the year of 2007, influenced by shipment reduction of Samsung and LG in 2007Q3, growth rate of global OLED shipment was just 11.7%, and growth rate of shipment value was 7.6%.

Global OLED production capacity mainly distributes in Korea, Japan and China Taiwan; shipment of the top five manufacturers accounts for 98.7% of global total. However, occident companies hold core production technology of OLED such as Kodak and CDT. Although Japan possesses relevant production strength, due to the high cost, the OLED development momentum in Japan is not as good as in Korea.

OLED is mainly applied in mobile phone sub-screen and MP3 player, and the shipment for those two applications was 53.59 million and 25.22million respectively in 2007, together accounted for 85.0% of total shipment. With the maturity of OLED technology, more OLED applications will drive the industry to develop rapidly.

OLED technology is moving towards AMOLED. For example, Samsung had expanded its AMOLED production capacity; LG has turned to AMOLED from PMOLED.

China is a key mobile phone and MP3 manufacturing country in the world, it has a great demand on OLED. However, China still relies on OLED import.

Global OLED industry is still on its initial stage, OLED technologies are highly self-protected.

Compared with TFT—LCD, OLED has relative simple production process and less investment (about US$10 million, which is only 1/10 of TFT—LCD).

In China, more and more potential investors from home appliance, communication and LCD sectors are keep an eye on OLED, so far china has over 30 OLED manufacturers.

OLED production line of Beijing Visionox Technology Co., Ltd will be put into mass production in the second half of 2008.

Hey there,

What comes next after the 11 inch sony, and when?
Anything in Q1 and Q2 of 2009?

And about stiffness, ever seen an airplane wing? Plenty thin and plenty strong. Less than a foot thick usually, and carries multiple tons of fuselage and cargo. Carbon-fibre composites, etc. already on the market provide more than enough stiffness for large-size thin OLEDs.

Yes but the wing on a B747-400 will flex up during flight over 30 feet from its original position. The components of the wing and the structure of the wing are made with this in mind. Carbon Fiber components will flex even more. Most comercial planes are built this way.

I am just saying that your analogy is not very good. In the short term at least, OLED will still be made on .7mm glass substrates. In the airplane wing example, a 42" screen would have to be able to flex ~7" from one end to the other. I for one can say that I am not comfortable with that.

On the other hand a very thin display with the tuners and other inputs in a separate box makes service of everything but the screen just that much easier. It also eliminates a large number of cables that have to be ran through the wall as well to just 2, power and display.

Hey there,

What comes next after the 11 inch sony, and when?
Anything in Q1 and Q2 of 2009?

Sony spoke of having a 27" model by Q2 of 2009 (XEL-2?). CES 2009 is in January, so more info on potential OLED TVs will likely be unveiled there. ;)

I thought carbon fiber/epoxy laminate is just about the stiffest, most brittle material known to man.

laminating does make the carbon epoxy sheets stiffer... than sheets (which are not stiff at all).

carbon is brittle, epoxy is not, together they can be made with a very wide range of brittleness/maleability.

compare to a composite bow (archery) that laminates wood to make it stiffer and less brittle than wood alone. This make for extremely powerful bows, but they do still flex.

Another OLED achievement: high pixel density. Apparently MICROOLED and CEA-LETI have designed a 0.38" display with a resolution of 560,000 pixels (1.7 million subpixels). According to their press release (http://www-leti.cea.fr/home/liblocal/docs/MICROOLED/Microoled%20press%20release%20anglais.pdf) this is 2 to 4 times more than other emissive technologies, and 4 times more power efficient.

http://www-leti.cea.fr/home/liblocal/images/Microoled.jpg

OLED still has competition in FED:
http://www.sonyinsider.com/2008/11/19/sony-shows-off-gran-turismo-5-at-240fps-on-a-fed-display/

South Korean scientists claim to develop 'true blue' for OLED screen (http://www.physorg.com/news146642012.html)

South Korean scientists claimed Sunday to have developed an efficient "true blue" material that can accelerate the development of next-generation organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays.
The development was announced by Pusan National University chemistry professor Jin Sung-Ho, who has led a joint state-funded project with Seoul National University engineers.

South Korea, the world's largest producer of liquid crystal displays (LCDs), is trying hard to develop more efficient OLED screens.

OLEDs must be made to mix green, red and blue lights. Scientists have developed efficient green and red OLED materials but they have had problems making a true blue OLED material.

Jin said his discovery would allow the creation of "energy efficient" OLED displays. Compared to LCDs, OLEDs offer a greater field of vision, better colour quality and require less power.

If I'm understanding Kodak, they believe all white oled using color filters is the best way to build large sized OLED TVs (WRGB).

If that is the case, the lifespan of Red, Green, and Blue OLED materials aren't going to matter for the companies building TVs with the Kodak method.

Samsung Expects Larger OLED Panels on Mobile Devices, VP Says (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081202/162214/)
Dec 2, 2008 20:57
Masao Oonishi, Nikkei Microdevices

"The warranty period against image burn-in for active-matrix OLED panels is expected to exceed 2,000 hours in 2010, and these panels will be available for laptops," said Woo Jong Lee, vice president of the Mobile Display Marketing Team of Samsung SDI Co Ltd.

He made this comment in the keynote speech for the 3rd TSR Seminar (hosted by Techno Systems Research Co Ltd), which took place in Tokyo, Nov 27, 2008.

In the speech, Lee explained about the future availability of active-matrix OLED panels in mobile devices. First, he pointed out their advantages such as a wide operating temperature range, an excellent compatibility with touch screens, a low environmental load at disposal and a high recyclability. Then, he said that OLED panels meeting the demands of product assembly manufacturers will be used in laptops, which have the most demanding requirements, as early as 2010.

Because OLED panels are all-semiconductor devices, a revolution in the area of, for example, flexible displays will happen once again, Lee said. He claimed that touch-screens will be the standard in mobile devices and that OLED panels have a higher noise resistance than TFT LCD panels because they are driven by DC power.

"Though the ultimate form is in-cell touch panel, capacitance touch-screen will be the mainstream for the next five or six years," he said.

Lee pointed out that entertainment content, especially videos, will be killer applications due to the increase in wireless communication speed. Under such circumstances, OLED panels will be available for use in smartphones and small mobile PCs equipped with larger screens.

"We are expecting 5-inch or larger OLED panels to be the mainstream in 2009 or 2010," he said.

Also, Lee forecast that OLED panels will be priced at about 1.1 times the price of LED panels by 2015 and that 28% of all laptops will feature an OLED panel. Samsung is promoting various kinds of projects utilizing a paper-thin OLED panel embeddable in passports and cards, a car navigation system with a transparent OLED panel installed on the vehicle windshield and so forth.

"Samsung will be ready to offer a greater diversity of applications in about two to three years," he said.

In the keynote speech, Lee introduced himself as the vice president of Samsung Mobile Display Co Ltd. Samsung Mobile Display is a joint venture between Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung SDI and slated for launch in January 2009. The venture company will specialize in the production and development of small- to medium-size panels. Lee said that he is already working under the new company's name.

Worldwide OLED Revenues Up 60% Y/Y in Q3’08, But Still Face Strong Price Competition from LCDs; RiTdisplay #1 in OLED Shipments, Passing Samsung SDI (http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/Worldwide_OLED_revenues_up_Q3_08.asp)
10 December 2008

AUSTIN, TEXAS, December 10, 2008—In its latest Q4’08 Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, DisplaySearch reported that the worldwide OLED display revenue in Q3’08 was US$141 million, down 11% Q/Q but up 60% Y/Y.

Chi Mei EL, the #2 supplier of AMOLED displays, posted record high shipments in Q3’08, while the leading AMOLED supplier Samsung SDI—which will merge with Samsung Electronics’ small/medium business to form Samsung Mobile Display in January—experienced lower shipments Q/Q. As a result, AMOLED shipments increased only slightly compared to Q2’08, reaching 1.7 million units.

After a strong Q2, PMOLED shipments were affected by reductions in mobile phone sub-display orders, so shipments fell 22% Q/Q. However, most of the shipment reduction was in monochrome PMOLED, while area color and full color PMOLED gained popularity. This led to an increase in average selling price for OLEDs in Q3’08.

“OLED displays have very attractive performance: wide viewing angle, wide color gamut at all gray scales, fast response time, low power consumption, thin/light weight and wide operating temperature. Lifetime has improved dramatically in recent years, and red and green lifetimes are long enough for many consumer electronic applications. Despite this, OLEDs still face strong price competition from TFT LCDs and PM LCDs,” said Jennifer Colegrove, PhD, Director of Display Technologies at DisplaySearch.

“The OLED display industry is changing rapidly, with new companies entering the business, existing companies expanding capacity or exiting the market, and other companies changing their application focus,” added Dr. Colegrove.

In its latest Q4’08 Quarterly OLED Shipment and Forecast Report, DisplaySearch analyzes the dynamic of OLED display industry: shipments by each supplier; AMOLED vs. PMOLED; small molecule vs. polymer; monochrome vs. area color vs. full color; and shipments by application, such as mobile phone main display, sub-display, MP3, auto console, car audio, digital still camera, near-eye, TV and others.

RiTdisplay passed Samsung SDI to take the lead in total OLED shipments with 36% market share. Samsung SDI is #2 in shipments, but still the leader in total OLED revenues thanks to its AMOLED shipments. TDK passed Pioneer to become #3 in shipments at 17%, while Pioneer fell to the #4 position at 12%; Univision was #5. The top five suppliers accounted for over 95% of total OLED shipments in Q3’08, as shown in the following table.

2008 is almost over...what will 2009 hold for OLEDs? (http://www.oled-info.com/2008-almost-overwhat-will-2009-hold-oleds)
19 December 2008

2008, the year of the OLED?

When 2008 began we thought that this will finally be the 'year of the OLED'. Sony, Samsung, CMEL and LG geared up to start making AMOLEDs, which huge investments (over 1 Billion dollars, in total). Other companies such as Toshiba and Panasonic also joined the OLED camp.

We saw the first bunch of gadgets using the new 2" to 4" AMOLED displays (most of them made by Samsung SDI) - mobile phones (such as the Nokia N85), A/V players from iRiver and Cowon and other devices.

In the OLED light world, we had the world's first OLED lamp released by OSRAM, and advancements were announced almost every week - from OSRAM, GE, Kodak, Konica-Minolta, Philips, UDC and more. Companies predicted they will start selling OLED lamp products in 2009-2011 - Philips even started shipping product samples to 'designers'.

Towards the end of 2008, the tone was less enthusiastic. The economy is shaken, and companies are less optimistic - Samsung are not so sure about OLED TVs any more, LG and Panasonic seem to be more 'cautious', Samsung SDI's AMOLED sales has dropped and a couple of companies have been closed (MED, OLED-T).

So what will 2009 hold?

Our guess is that the small 'mobile' AMOLEDs will continue to grow strong. It is most likely that we'll see dozens of new A/V players, mobile phones and digital cameras that include such displays. The biggest market is probably mobile phones, and hopefully Nokia and Samsung will continue to introduce new models with AMOLEDs, with other companies will have to start doing the same - Sony Ericsson, Motorola and LG. We're all still waiting for Apple to make an OLED iPod or iPhone - who knows, they might finally try it in 2009...

At the end of 2009 CMEL introduced the largest available AMOLED - 7.6", as used in Kodak's 999$ photo frame. The price of these panels (currently very high) will probably drop quickly, and in 2009 we'll see more devices using those panels.

In May 2008 Sony announced that they'll release a 27" OLED TV (the XEL-2?) within 12 months - which means by May 2009. Samsung are working on 14.1" and 31" displays. The 14.1" ones are for laptops, which will enjoy the power efficiency and might accept the higer prices of the OLEDs. Samsung said these will be officialy announced at CES 2009 (January), and will be available by 2010. They might be able to even make them in 2009...

In 2008 we saw some pretty cool new OLED prototypes - flexible thin displays, foldable phones, transparent 'windows' with embedded OLEDs, and even a 40" High-Def OLED TV by Samsung. Even though these are exciting, it's hard to believe that any flexible displays will become available in 2009 - it will take several more years for this technology to mature.

2009 - OLED lighting year?

We predict that the most exciting news will come from the field of white-light OLEDs. Hopefully the quick advances in OLED white light efficiency will continue during 2009. If Philips will hold true to their word, they will start selling products in 2009, with GE following suit at 2010.

So is it likely that real, commercially priced OLED lamps will be available? Will 2009 be the year of the OLED light bulb? Our bet is to wait till 2010... but we'll be happy to be wrong on that one.

What are your own predictions?

We'd love to hear your own predictions - tell us what you think will happen in 2009!

exciting news for sure....I really enjoyed reading this thread!!

Looks like Sony won't be producing 27" OLEDs in 2009 due to slowing LCD TV sales. I suspect Samsung and others will follow.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nb20081220a3.html

"Referring to its next-generation thin TVs equipped with organic light-emitting diode displays, Sony will "accelerate development for OLED TVs as planned," Chubachi said, adding, however, that the company has to postpone investment for the mass production of them in view of slowing LCD TV sales."

What are your own predictions?


My prediction is: 23" Samsung OLED tv - $ 5,000. in November 2009.
Nothing from Sony.

Researchers at University of Florida claim big efficiency gains in Blue OLED.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/23/researchers-achieve-new-efficiency-record-of-blue-oleds/

Excerpt:

"Reportedly, a gaggle of whiz-kids from the University of Florida have "achieved a new record in efficiency of blue organic light-emitting diodes, and because blue is essential to white light, the advance helps overcome a hurdle to lighting that is much more efficient than compact fluorescents." Franky So (pictured) and his diligent crew were able to reach a peak blue OLED efficiency of 50 lumens per watt, which is halfway to his goal of at least 100 lumens per watt."

Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?

Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?

Yes.

Will OLED make it past 50-inches by 2015?

Yes.

Will it do so before SED or some other tech?

Exactly when will OLED break the 50-inch barrier?

Exactly when will OLED break the 50-inch barrier?

April 17, 2011.

(Joking, but of course it will by 2015, unless the tech does an SED. And maybe a 50" at the next CES courtesy of Samsung, according to some of the rumors...)

I like that: "does an SED."

Hope not, but it's a catchy expression, for those in the know, and not living on de Nile.

April 17, 2011.


You mean April 1, 2011? :)

Well... only 11 more days till CES 2009. Maybe SED will rise from the dead! :p

I'll bring the silver bullets, you bring the wooden stake. :p

Cheaper OLED TV on the horizon (http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2008122201.htm)
22 December 2008


http://www.toppan.co.jp/english/news/images/news446_1.jpg (http://www.physorg.com/news65115733.html)

Upper Left: Flexible TFT using Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor
Upper Right: Prototype of Flexible Electronic Paper Display
Bottom: Close-up of Prototype using Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor TFT (on glass substrate)

Samsung has developed an improved manufacturing process for the manufacture of OLED TV's which is set to dramatically cut the cost of their production.

OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) technology is based on organic materials which emit light naturally after an electrical charge is passed through them. OLED pixels generate their own light which brings a whole host of technological advantages. Every OLED prototype we have seen produces brighter, sharper images while using less power than any plasma or LCD TV.

OLED and LCD TV's use the same fundamental technology to create an image. A set of transistors (TFT) instruct the pixels which colour to display in order to create the image.

Previously, the set of transistors in OLED/LCD TV's have been made of amorphous silicon which is not only expensive to produce but prone to failure. Samsung have developed amorphous oxide TFTs, which are much more cost effective and reliable.

The new technology can actually be applied to LCD, AM OLED, thin film solar cell and LED. Amorphous Oxide TFT's can integrate into current LCD panel mass production processes and potentially lower manufacturing cost significantly.

More good news. Things really seem to be happening faster and faster.

OQO's Next UMPC Will Include OLED Touchscreen (http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=14728)
BY: Ed Hardy, Brighthand.com Editor
PUBLISHED: 1/1/2009

OQO is set to unveil an updated version of it Ultra Mobile PC. Like its predecessors, this will be a tiny PC running the regular version of Windows, but the upcoming model will add some new features, including an OLED touchscreen.

http://www.brighthand.com/assets/5658.jpg

OQO's current UMPC, the model 2, looks like a slightly larger than normal handheld, but runs either Windows XP or Vista.

The current version uses a track stick pointing device to control a cursor, but the next edition -- the OQO model 2+ -- will add a touchscreen. Rather than this being a standard LED, this will be an organic LED, which should use less power.

But this won't be the only change. The upcoming model will be based on a 1.86 GHz Intel Atom processor, rather than a slightly slower one from VIA as the current model does.

Also, OQO says the model 2+ will sport "worldwide 3G capability," which almost certainly means it will have HSDPA, and possible HSUPA, too. EV-DO Rev A is an option for its predecessor.

This pre-announcement information comes directly from OQO, who says the model 2+ will be unveiled at CES in mid-January.

There's no word yet on what this UMPC will cost, but the current version starts at $1,300.

CES 2009 expo is only a few days away......

Can't wait for more OLED news and updates here :D

:)

Just read a PC World report that says the 50 inch OLED at CES is a Sony. Earlier video from CNet says its a Sammy. Guess we have to wait and see. The 11 inch Sony OLED TV is just wonderful to behold. Wish I could have made it to CES this year.. maybe next.

Below is a hotlinnk and quote from the PC World article.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/156382/hdtv_and_mobile_gear_to_steal_ces_2009_spotlight.html


"Sony is rumored to show off a 50-inch OLED TV prototype. That's a big jump from its shipping 11-inch XEL-1 model. We also expect abuse of the phrase "You can't be too rich or too thin" when it comes to discussing HDTVs at this year's CES."

Samsung teases with 50-inch OLED TV for CES, scolds us for caring (http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/03/samsung-teases-with-50-inch-oled-tv-for-ces-scolds-us-for-carin/)
3 December 2008

When SED development hit the brakes a few years ago, OLED technology quickly stepped in to fill the emptiness felt by our fickle hearts' desire for the blackest of blacks. Up until now, prototype OLED panels have been limited to a max size of about 40-inches. But these won't be available for consumers until 2010 or so. For now, we're "stuck with" Sony's little 11-inch XEL-1 if anyone actually wants to purchase an OLED TV for their living room kitchen. Samsung's vice president of flat panel development, HS Kim, says that Sammy "may demonstrate" a 50-inch OLED TV at CES in January but quickly tempers any enthusiasm with a crushing blow of reality,

"I'm sure that if we marketed such a set at ten times the price of current LCD TVs, which is what it would be now, no-one would buy it."
Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV. Of course, manufacturers can also dump all that tech into a display-side box much like Sony does with it's XEL-1, but hey, he's on a roll. When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home.

vicious puppy!

Samsung teases with 50-inch OLED TV for CES, scolds us for caring (http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/03/samsung-teases-with-50-inch-oled-tv-for-ces-scolds-us-for-carin/)
3 December 2008

"I'm sure that if we marketed such a set at ten times the price of current LCD TVs, which is what it would be now, no-one would buy it."
Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV. Of course, manufacturers can also dump all that tech into a display-side box much like Sony does with it's XEL-1, but hey, he's on a roll. When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home.Just like what we've been saying here for 2 years now.

Eyes on with LG's near-production 15-inch OLED TV: come on summer (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/eyes-on-with-lgs-near-production-15-inch-oled-tv-come-on-summe/)
7 January 2009


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv0000.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv00022.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv001.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv00122.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv002.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv00422.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv00222.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv00322.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv004.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv005.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv006.jpg


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv008.jpg


While Sony's OLED TV is little more than a beautiful, 11-inch novelty, LG is swaggering dangerously close to a respectable kitchen TV with this 15-inch AMOLED TV prototype. On display here at CES and planned for a production run sometime this summer, the image is absolutely stunning -- every bit as impressive as the Sony's XEL-1. Nothing else compares to the incredible contrast achieved by these OLED displays. Have a look in the gallery -- we've got the prototype pictured with and without its chubby TV bezel. It's credit-card thin (0.8-mm) and only on Engadget.

15-inch LG oled is as beautiful as Sony's 11".

My biggest hope is that Phillips is going to pioneer oled tv mass production together with LG.
Sony, Samsung, Panasonic want to continue selling lcds and plasmas forever. They get no respect from me.

phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.

anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.

why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...

phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.

anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.

why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...
hahaha

phillips? they make awful stuff so i dont know why you'd want them to mass produce new tech. your biggest hope? hahaha.

anyhow, i came here to ask about OLED announcements from Samsung and Sony.

why havent they announced anything? i was expecting 32 inch OLEDs this year...

All it would take is one company even phillips to take the lead. Others would then panic and come to market to not be left out.

The reason the others are so stubborn and sitting on their hands with OLED is that they want to milk their LCD plasma factories as much as they can. It is all about money.

Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha

Do I hear black helicopters?

Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha

Like this Cinema 21:9 LCD TV (http://www.cinematicviewingexperience.com/press.html)? Hahaha.

I love oled ever since I got to see the little sony ( man its good! ) and even if they are small I would buy one as soon as the price is at least affordable, what ever that is...

Has it been long since Philips forgot about making awesome High-end LCD TV's and started making "awful stuff"? haha

I am a bit in love with a new philips right now actually! one of the best tvs I have ever seen is the new LED lCD they have, its fantastic! the only thing i dont like is the scroll wheel on the remote.
its got the brightness of a LCD but the blacks of a kuro ( even better maybe!).

All it would take is one company even phillips to take the lead. Others would then panic and come to market to not be left out.

The reason the others are so stubborn and sitting on their hands with OLED is that they want to milk their LCD plasma factories as much as they can. It is all about money.

That 2500$ 11" OLED from SONY didn't induce any mass panics in the industry. It seems the economic woes sweeping through the world of electronics has hampered any and all enthusiasm for OLED technology. In that interview with the Samsung guy it is clear that their company policy has shifted from promoting OLED to talking it down as an expensive novelty in favour of talking up their current LCD offerings, such as the upcoming LED backlight Luxia line. Why would Samsung want to wet the appetites of potential customers with the holy grail of display technology still many years off when the sales of their bread and butter LCD's are about to hit a roof?

SONY is set to post more than 1 billion operating loss for this fiscal year come this march 31st and has scheduled a more than 10.000 heads being shortened and separated from their company as a result. Maybe we can hope that SONY has more vision than Samsung and will continue to invest money in bringing OLED to the market faster than everyone else. But with their economic problems, the PS3 being in the third place and sales of their LCD line going down and loosing ground to Samsung I'd say I wouldn't blame them if they mothball the whole OLED thing until all those things have been taken care off, which won't be anytime soon.

As it stands the 11" SONY OLED coming to the market so soon seems more and more like it was a just a fluke and not the beginning of the OLED floodgates being opened on the market. I was hoping to see a 40" OLED by the end of 2009 back in the beginning of 2008 but now it seems 2010 or later is a more likely date for that to happen. Meanwhile I have to cringe every time I see the subpar quality on my current inferior LCD display technology. As it stand I can't imagine I will be able to stand my current display for more than a year, unfortunately by then there still will not be a OLED TV for me to replace it with. Can't a videophile catch a break?

After all the stuff I've read on OLED (including in this very thread), there's an issue which has only been mentioned once (it was from a single post at Slashdot who saw the Sony 11").

Flicker.

Apparently, the Sony 11" flickers like the old CRTs did. What's going on? I though these new OLEDs shone the pixel for a full 60th of a second, until the next 60th of a second, and then changed it (or switched off to black).

If this is true, then assuming a supposedly 'constant' white pixel, how much of the pixel remains white, and how much black? Is it 50/50?

That 2500$ 11" OLED from SONY didn't induce any mass panics in the industry. It seems the economic woes sweeping through the world of electronics has hampered any and all enthusiasm for OLED technology. In that interview with the Samsung guy it is clear that their company policy has shifted from promoting OLED to talking it down as an expensive novelty in favour of talking up their current LCD offerings, such as the upcoming LED backlight Luxia line. Why would Samsung want to wet the appetites of potential customers with the holy grail of display technology still many years off when the sales of their bread and butter LCD's are about to hit a roof?

SONY is set to post more than 1 billion operating loss for this fiscal year come this march 31st and has scheduled a more than 10.000 heads being shortened and separated from their company as a result. Maybe we can hope that SONY has more vision than Samsung and will continue to invest money in bringing OLED to the market faster than everyone else. But with their economic problems, the PS3 being in the third place and sales of their LCD line going down and loosing ground to Samsung I'd say I wouldn't blame them if they mothball the whole OLED thing until all those things have been taken care off, which won't be anytime soon.

As it stands the 11" SONY OLED coming to the market so soon seems more and more like it was a just a fluke and not the beginning of the OLED floodgates being opened on the market. I was hoping to see a 40" OLED by the end of 2009 back in the beginning of 2008 but now it seems 2010 or later is a more likely date for that to happen. Meanwhile I have to cringe every time I see the subpar quality on my current inferior LCD display technology. As it stand I can't imagine I will be able to stand my current display for more than a year, unfortunately by then there still will not be a OLED TV for me to replace it with. Can't a videophile catch a break?

I guess I should have said "As soon as a company produces the *first decent sized and affordable* OLED then the rest will follow". That Sony OLED was pointless. It is too small, too expensive, and too low resolution to make an impact. If they would have come out with at least a 32" set at least true 720P resolution and cost $1800 it would have been a bit different.

The problem is that most of the time good is good enough for the masses. People aren't dumping their DVDs in favor of blu-ray en masse either. DVD for most people is good enough. It just isn't worth the extra cost to upgrade all af their equipment for a picture that is "a little crisper". They will just say "My old DVD player still works, and I don't notice much difference or don't care"

The same goes for TVs. Their LCD or PDP is good enough. The masses just aren't bothered much by black levels, brightness , viewing angle, response time, etc. The thing driving OLED right now is small devices where thickness and power consumption are most important.

After all the stuff I've read on OLED (including in this very thread), there's an issue which has only been mentioned once (it was from a single post at Slashdot who saw the Sony 11").

Flicker.

Apparently, the Sony 11" flickers like the old CRTs did. What's going on? I though these new OLEDs shone the pixel for a full 60th of a second, until the next 60th of a second, and then changed it (or switched off to black).

If this is true, then assuming a supposedly 'constant' white pixel, how much of the pixel remains white, and how much black? Is it 50/50?There have been many posts on this subject. The flicker is there to prevent hold-type blurring which LCDs suffer from because they use a 100% duty cycle. The problem is that in this mode of operation the panel must increase the current through the OLED material which degrades the lifetime. I'm not sure what duty cycle the XEL-1 uses but it definitely flickers similar to a CRT.

Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?

Also, do you know in what proportion of black to white. Is it something like: on for 1/120th of a second, then off for a further 120th?

I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.

Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?

Also, do you know in what proportion of black to white. Is it something like: on for 1/120th of a second, then off for a further 120th?

I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.It is far more likely that OLED will use zero flicker, 100% duty cycle type systems as this maximizes lifetime. However, at 60Hz there is considerable blur associated with this type of system. Yes, 120 or 240Hz driving can overcome the blur and still keep 100% duty cycle but you will have to get used to interpolated frame type look of the image (similar to Samsung's AMP)

Interesting - thanks, obviously I haven't read enough. Is it possible for future OLED tech to avoid this? Can certain types of OLED (such as TOLED, POLED, PHOLED etc.) avoid this flickering?

...

I think I read earlier that simply increasing the refresh rate to 120 or 240hz would prevent it too, similar to what the latest LCDs do.

Ideally, you do not want to eliminate the actual flickering because that will cause "sample and hold" blur. Ideally, I think having the pixels scan on and off with a 120Hz or 240Hz frequency will get you the best of both worlds - no perceptible flicker and no sample and hold blur.

Good to know that OLED can at least potentially overcome this.

but you will have to get used to interpolated frame type look of the image
No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..

Ideally, you do not want to eliminate the actual flickering because that will cause "sample and hold" blur.

I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.

Am I still right in saying that no OLED type (PHOLED, TOLED etc.) will allow this holy grail then where the pixel is lit for the entirety of the 1/60th of a second, and then only (potentially) changes once that 1/60th second is complete?

No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..Repeating frames has no benefit regarding blur unless duty cycle is reduced.



I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.Hold type blur is created on your retina irrespective of display type or technology.

IAm I still right in saying that no OLED type (PHOLED, TOLED etc.) will allow this holy grail then where the pixel is lit for the entirety of the 1/60th of a second, and then only (potentially) changes once that 1/60th second is complete?You are not right. In fact, the holy grail you speak of is actually a tradeoff that OLED needs to employ to improve lifetime. And more specifically to your question, OLED is entirely capable of 100% duty cycle (ie - lit for the entire 1/60th of second)

I assume you mean in the case of OLED that this holds. Intrinsically, eliminating flicker is a 'Good Thing' and doesn't necessarily lead to blur, except in the case of OLED, LCD etc where a side effect is unfortunately produced.

Hold type blur is created on your retina irrespective of display type or technology.
As Xrox says, the blur is caused by they way the retina reacts to an image with an 100% duty cycle. If someone designed a new type of plasma display that didn't use PWM and had an 100% duty cycle, it would also have motion artifacts.

Flicker is neither a "Good Thing" nor a "Bad Thing" intrinsically. Designers need to balance factors like flicker, blur, light output and product lifespan when deciding on the duty cycle it uses.

Wow. Just wow.

If you guys are right, then I don't think I've been more wrong about something - this assumption I made about movement turns out to based on a faulty premise. I've often disliked 30fps refresh rates, and I suppose that seemed blurry to me, but I always thought the move to 60fps (even with full duty cycle) would remove blur completely (how wrong was I).

This is probably not the right thread to discuss this, so I may take the discussion elsewhere, but my mind is bursting with questions (of course). I'll just ask two for now:

Q1: Just to make sure we're speaking on the same wavelength, just confirm this will produce blurry motion:
(KEY: T=time in 1/60ths of a second; P1=pixel 1; P2=pixel 2 (just to the right of P1); P3=Pixel 3 (right of P2); P4=pixel 4 (right of P3) )

T p1 p2 p3 p4
0 on off off off
1 off on off off
2 off off on off
3 off off off on

That will simply show a pixel moving from left to right. So just to double check, I assume it will blur then if those measurements are followed exactly.

Q2: Will it still blur if the last fraction of a fraction (say 1/500th of a second) is pitch black? Or is something like 50%/50% better? Or perhaps mostly black is even better still where the pixel is on for a very very short time (say one tenth of 1/60th sec), and most of it remains off (nine tenths of 1/60th sec). In that last case, although the flicker is at its worst, the motion blur will be minimised almost completely I'm guessing.

It would seem the 'holy grail' has now turned into where everything is shot at 500 fps and shown at that rate too. Maybe wait another 50 years for that to develop ;D

Designers need to balance factors like flicker, blur, light output and product lifespan when deciding on the duty cycle it uses.

This is why i think some day frame rates will be raised (at the source) and these problems go away.

Q1: Just to make sure we're speaking on the same wavelength, just confirm this will produce blurry motion:
T=time in 1/60ths of a second; P1=pixel 1; P2=pixel 2 (just to the right of P1); P3=Pixel 3 (right of P2); P4=pixel 4 (right of P3)

T p1 p2 p3 p4
0 on off off off
1 off on off off
2 off off on off
3 off off off on

That will simply show a pixel moving from left to right. So just to double check, I assume it will blur then if those measurements are followed exactly.

Q2: Will it still blur if the last fraction of a fraction (say 1/500th of a second) is pitch black? Or is something like 50%/50% better? Or perhaps mostly black is even better still where the pixel is on for a very very short time (say one tenth of 1/60th sec), and most of it remains off (nine tenths of 1/60th sec). In that last case, although the flicker is at its worst, the motion blur will be minimised almost completely I'm guessing.

It would seem the 'holy grail' has now turned into where everything is shot at 500 fps and shown at that rate too. Maybe wait another 50 years for that to develop ;DYou got it perfectly right. The anwer is yes to all.

Using your example think of it this way. Your eye tracks/follows that "on" pixel as it moves. Where the problem occurs is your eye tracks/follows it in a continuous analog fashion while the pixel is stationary at each location (each frame). Therefore the pixel literally draws a line on your retina in the direction your eye is moving. Ideally the pixel needs to emit light for the shortest possible time at each location to avoid drawing this line on your moving retina. Ideally the pixel should draw a dot onto your moving retina (pulse).

Simply put hold type blurring is the conflict between the continuous analog type movement of your eye with the sequential still frame of a display.

Right, the first example you gave would have retinal blur if it was done on a display with an 100% duty cycle. If it was just one pixel of an entire display that was moving, I doubt it would be very severe, though, unless it was a lot brighter than the background.

Yes, a 99.08% duty cycle would result in more blur than a 50% duty cycle. By the time you get to about ~50% problems with retinal image retention would be pretty minor at normal viewing brightness levels. A 0.17% duty cycle would have negligable blur, but quite bad flicker (ie. worse than CRT).

A high frame rate (eg. 500Hz in your example) will improve temporal resolution, but is far less important to flicker and blur than duty cycle is.

No interpolation if you just repeat each frame again. a, a, b, b, c, c etc..

That is useless for SAH displays! Just note that if the duty cicle is 100%, a,a,b,b,c,c at 120Hz = a,b,c at 60Hz. The displayed picture is ALWAYS the same because there is no "off" between the frames.

If you repeat the frames on a PDP panel, for example, you get the same motion handling with less flicker. Kinda 1080p24 displayed at 72Hz on a PDP, or movies displayed at 48Hz on the cinema. That happens because you avoid SAH with a <100% duty cicle, while you reduce flicker with a higher display rate.

Unfortunately SAH displays, in order to get "cristal clear" just need to make a,a,b,b,c,c != a,b,c so that's why the motion interpolation exists. The higher the changing frames are on a SAH panel, the less motion blur you PERCEIVE.

Unfortunately there's no way to fully recreate nature with interpolation algorithms. Everything moves strangely once you do that. The faster the action, the worse the result.

I'd like to see a movie recorded and displayed at 240Hz. Many people says that would break the "cinema feel", and maybe they're right. But I'd like to see that once, just in case :p

This is why i think some day frame rates will be raised (at the source) and these problems go away.
Yes, it'd be great to have stuff shot at say 75fps or more, and then we can emulate the CRT flicker (whatever duty cycle it uses at that rate) for brilliant video. The fact that LCD makers have gone up to 120hz or more sets a good precedent for video shooters to follow.

Actually, it would be a nice idea for TV/monitor makers to allow the duty cycle to be custom, so those who prefer non-blur at the cost of flicker can have it that way and vice versa.

I'll ask just one more question, since this probably isn't the best thread for the topic:
What would appear subjectively less blurry (assume a theoretical 0 second shutter speed for the camera, and 0 ms response rate for the display in each case):

a: 120fps with 100% duty cycle (shot at 120fps and displayed at 120fps)
b: 60fps with 50% duty cycle (shot at 60fps and displayed at 60fps)

I'd like to see a movie recorded and displayed at 240Hz.
Too right. I'd love to see that too. If worst comes to worst, one can always artifically add motion blur or similar if the final result isn't satisfactory (or simply chop 9/10 frames out of course and run it at 24fps). Actually, maybe the artificial motion blur on 240fps would look even more 'film-like'.

Yes, it'd be great to have stuff shot at say 75fps or more, and then we can emulate the CRT flicker (whatever duty cycle it uses at that rate) for brilliant video. The fact that LCD makers have gone up to 120hz or more sets a good precedent for video shooters to follow.

Actually, it would be a nice idea for TV/monitor makers to allow the duty cycle to be custom, so those who prefer non-blur at the cost of flicker can have it that way and vice versa.

I'll ask just one more question, since this probably isn't the best thread for the topic:
What would appear subjectively less blurry (assume 0 ms response rate in each case):

a: 120fps with 100% duty cycle
b: 60fps with 50% duty cycle


Too right. I'd love to see that too. If worst comes to worst, one can always artifically add motion blur or similar if the final result isn't satisfactory (or simply chop 9/10 frames out of course and run it at 24fps). Actually, maybe the artificial motion blur on 240fps would look even more 'film-like'.Recording video a higher frame rates has a huge advantage regarding motion blur. This is because not only is the hold time shorter but also the shutter time is shorter as well. So hold type blur is reduces and source blur (inherent to the signal) is also reduced.

Your question about which is less blurry cannot be answered unless you specify what signal is being displayed and if interpolation is used or not. It can get quite complicated.

Oh right, I forget to mention that in the 120fps case, the source is also shot at that speed, as well as being displayed at 120fps (so that no interpolation is necessary). Sames goes for the 60fps case (shot at 60, displayed at 60)

Couldn't you have low duty cycle and eliminate flicker by having a higher frame rate, but without interpolation. Say ABC -> AABBCC?

If you repeat the frames on a PDP panel, for example, you get the same motion handling with less flicker. That happens because you avoid SAH with a <100% duty cicle, while you reduce flicker with a higher display rate.

but repeating frames increases hold time due to "flicker fusion" - enough repeats bring you back to sample and hold. im sure best displays optomize flicker / blur / judder (and other factors) but still its a compromise at standard frame rates. i dont think any display can solve this because its not a display problem.

Yes, it'd be great to have stuff shot at say 75fps or more..

would 75hz work i wonder. 75hz is fine for my 21" crt but would it be ok for brighter bigger, wider displays. compare the theatre experience - if 72 works there it should work anywere (i dont remember seeing 72hz movie myself so you might be able to tell me). i can see raising framerates to 75hz but 120 or 240, man thats a lot of expense (apparently)

Recording video a higher frame rates has a huge advantage regarding motion blur. This is because not only is the hold time shorter but also the shutter time is shorter as well. So hold type blur is reduces and source blur (inherent to the signal) is also reduced.

good point xrox, but would you be willing to suffer soap - you hate soap :p

Oh right, I forget to mention that in the 120fps case, the source is also shot at that speed, as well as being displayed at 120fps (so that no interpolation is necessary). Sames goes for the 60fps case (shot at 60, displayed at 60)This would be an interesting test. Very interesting.........

Since both displays will have the exact same hold time:

a - 1/120=8.33ms
b - 1/60x0.5=8.33ms

This can be equated to comparing a 120Hz LCD with interpolation to a 120Hz LCD with BFI. Except the source frames in display "a" are shot at higher fps making them intrinsically clearer with motion.

I suspect that both displays will have very close degree of display induced blur with display "b" having a slight edge due to its blanking period. Display "a" will look kinda funny due to the higher intrinsic fps (similar to the AMP look).

However, because display "a" has a higher intrinsic fps source it should have much less source blur and be the winner.

Note: regarding blanking versus interpolating please study the following graphic. It shows that both methods improve blur perception but blanking is slightly better.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/blur.jpg

would 75hz work i wonder.
I think I recall hearing that for flicker, there's a power of 4 law involved where higher refresh rates get subjectively better, more quickly higher up (perhaps assuming a constant duty cycle - say 50%). Still, 100fps should be a safer bet :)

Since both displays will have the exact same hold time:

a - 1/120=8.33ms
b - 1/60x0.5=8.33ms

This can be equated to comparing a 120Hz LCD with interpolation to a 120Hz LCD with BFI.
Except that BFI changes the duty cycle, whereas temporal interpolation and frame doubling do not.

Except that BFI changes the duty cycle, whereas temporal interpolation and frame doubling do not.Hence, the 0.5 factor. His original question already specified this. I am equating 16.7ms refresh time with 50% duty cycle to a panel with 8.333ms refresh with BFI.

Ok, so OLED has, as I understand it, the fastest raw response rate of any display, right. Couldn't it utilise that extremely high response rate to emulate how plasma cells charge up and down and thereby avoid both flicker and blurring? LCD's can do 240hz updates now, and the electronics driving LCD's is the same active matrix that will drive OLED, so it should be possible, anyone?

Ok, so OLED has, as I understand it, the fastest raw response rate of any display, right. Couldn't it utilise that extremely high response rate to emulate how plasma cells charge up and down and thereby avoid both flicker and blurring? LCD's can do 240hz updates now, and the electronics driving LCD's is the same active matrix that will drive OLED, so it should be possible, anyone?
I take it you mean pulse width modulation. That's very easy to do with LEDs. The only problem is that pulsing organic LEDs makes them degrade faster.

My view is that increasing refresh rates very quickly runs into diminshing returns unless the source material itself happens to have greater temporal resolution. I'm sure it's quite possible to make a 2400Hz display using current technology, but aside from something to put on the spec sheets, there is little meaningful to gain from doing so. You'd be much better served by lobbying the film industry to start filming in 48Hz or something.

about that.. (Emulate a CRT to remove motion blur.)
I found this patent document that sounds promising, any news on progress?

Variable driving voltage to replace the "always on" with a triangle form.

~p.17 shows the method... (and p.8 for differences)
https://publications.european-patent-office.org/PublicationServer/getpdf.jsp?cc=EP&pn=1873746&ki=A1
02.01.2008(2006)

I didn't know Kodak developed OLED [over 30 years ago]. I was watching The Science Channel HD special, "CES 2009," and at the very end of the show they had a lengthy segment about the inner workings of OLED. :cool: It was very interesting.

1. Sorry for the dumb question, but can anyone hazzard a guess for me in regards to when the blue dye part of OLED, when they will get that to last just about as long as the red and green dyes?

Thank-you for your help. I feel inferior to your guys OLED knowledge.

P.S.

Might have more questions coming later.

1. [Blue dye > (my PS3 layer went out 4 months! after I bought it).]

2. Heard water/condesation is not good for OLED.

The blue doesnt need to last as long as the green or red, it just needs to last long enough, 50k hours or more.

1. Sorry for the dumb question, but can anyone hazzard a guess for me in regards to when the blue dye part of OLED, when they will get that to last just about as long as the red and green dyes?
Never. Blue OLED lifespans are increasing, but so are red and green ones.

Well, I guess if you extend the time axis indefinately, given the greater R&D budgets going to the blue OLED, that they would occlude eventually, but certainly not in the medium term.

But, as Human Bass says, for consumer electronics uses it only needs to last long enough to be commercially viable. Maybe 35k-40k hours. The industry certainly won't try too hard to make the displays last forever as they want to lock you into a cycle of buying new TVs much more regularly than you need to.

For uses outside of consumer electronics and lighting (OLED lasers, for example) the life spans will need to be expanded by orders of magnitude, so research will continue long after they've cracked the OLED television nut.

All the three OLED colors should decay at approximately the same rate or the display will show a color shift with time.

^^ Thank-u! Human Bass, Carled, and Mike Baker for your input. I can't wait to visit this thread more often and read-up on OLED.

All the three OLED colors should decay at approximately the same rate or the display will show a color shift with time.

Yep. That's the most important- age at the same rate. For the first 40,000 hours or so, anyway.

Yep. That's the most important- age at the same rate. For the first 40,000 hours or so, anyway.

Which is near impossible for devices that emit light. Even plasma doesn't age the same hense the chroma shift during break in. Some colors wear out faster, always will. Most of the time it will be blue that goes first. Blue is higher fequency light and needs more juice pumped through it to get the brightness to match the others. Because there is more juice needed more heat is generated and the more heat the faster it wil fade.

There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).

What will happen is over time the OLED display will shift towards the yellow. This isn't as big a problem as you think. There is circuitry that monitors the hours and brightness on the blue emmitters and dim the other colors according to the lifetime curve of the blue. What will happen is the set will just get dimmer over time like any CRT or plasma. Because the electronics may not predict exactly and you still may get color shift a simple menu with RGB sliders should be available. A quick tweak of the sliders and you are good to go for thousands of hours more.

When blue becomes the best it can, it will be time to make crappier red and green. To balance a stool, just cut off the two long legs if the short one can't be made longer.

When blue becomes the best it can, it will be time to make crappier red and green. To balance a stool, just cut off the two long legs if the short one can't be made longer.
Quick question. Because the saturation of green is so awful on CRT and especially LCD, why does an equal mix with the relatively good red and blue produce grey (when one might expect greyish magenta)? Am I right is saying the display automatically dulls the red and blue elements to compensate?

If that's the case, then you don't need to make the green and red elements worse, but instead just perform on the fly calcs which make them more dull sometimes whilst in use. But maybe that's what you mean anyway.

Quick question. Because the saturation of green is so awful on CRT and especially LCD, why does an equal mix with the relatively good red and blue produce grey (when one might expect greyish magenta)? Am I right is saying the display automatically dulls the red and blue elements to compensate?

If that's the case, then you don't need to make the green and red elements worse, but instead just perform on the fly calcs which make them more dull sometimes whilst in use. But maybe that's what you mean anyway.
Two things:

1. The colour points used in the HDTV standard (BT.709) are based on phosphor colour points, so any display, CRT/CCFL LCD/plasma or otherwise, calibrated to the standard will have equal colourometry.

2. The grey point selected by the standard (D65) is located in a place where it won't have a magenta or green cast.

Which is near impossible for devices that emit light. Even plasma doesn't age the same hence the chroma shift during break in. Some colors wear out faster, always will. Most of the time it will be blue that goes first. Blue is higher frequency light and needs more juice pumped through it to get the brightness to match the others. Because there is more juice needed more heat is generated and the more heat the faster it will fade.

There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).

What will happen is over time the OLED display will shift towards the yellow. This isn't as big a problem as you think. There is circuitry that monitors the hours and brightness on the blue emitters and dim the other colors according to the lifetime curve of the blue. What will happen is the set will just get dimmer over time like any CRT or plasma. Because the electronics may not predict exactly and you still may get color shift a simple menu with RGB sliders should be available. A quick tweak of the sliders and you are good to go for thousands of hours more.

Thank you. Nice post. Nice to know there is some adjustment. I suspect some sort of reading of the actual decay would be more accurate, but I suppose monitoring hours may work rather well, assuming good modeling. Yes, a bit of home calibrating should work quite well.

So no news on it then (#826), dang. :)

Eyes on with LG's near-production 15-inch OLED TV: come on summer (http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/eyes-on-with-lgs-near-production-15-inch-oled-tv-come-on-summe/)
7 January 2009


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/01/lg_oled_tv002.jpg

On display here at CES and planned for a production run sometime this summer, the image is absolutely stunning -- every bit as impressive as the Sony's XEL-1.

Horrors upon horrors, the nightmare scenario!!

I have seen the OLED by Sony, and the pics here are even worse.

What good is any flat panel technology if the engineers do not have the intelligence to realize that room reflections destroy the image?

These are not concept cars, has this world lost its mind???

Ridiculous.

Sounds like it's time for you to get in touch with Thomas Ricker (http://www.engadget.com/bloggers/thomas-ricker/). Ask him about attending CES 2010.

Then we can have some better-quality photos of this amazing new technology.

I don't think there is a problem with the photos, just the screen surface.

Geez, I never imagined that the gloss issue would arise in this technology, I had assumed that matte would be the way to go and that you have all the benefits of high CR and limited room reflections.

... makes me wonder whether the glossy finish is added for no real reason other than to make the thing look sexy ...

There have been some good advancements with the efficiency of the blue emitter and that will continue for some time. (there was a time when regular blue LEDs didn't exist at all. Now they exist and fitting they need more voltage than the other colors to work).
From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007

At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours

Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.

I don't think there is a problem with the photos, just the screen surface.

Geez, I never imagined that the gloss issue would arise in this technology, I had assumed that matte would be the way to go and that you have all the benefits of high CR and limited room reflections.

... makes me wonder whether the glossy finish is added for no real reason other than to make the thing look sexy ...

But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...

Can't win, either way. I prefer less reflections.

Does anyone here own the Sony OLED TV? Thanks. I can't! wait to get mind in the mail this week.

From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007

At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours

Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.

Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.

Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.

But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...

Can't win, either way. I prefer less reflections.

To some extent it is preference. Matte does scatter diffuse and point source room light into your viewing field, but I was assuming that organic molecules could be better absorbers of room light then lcd crystals. Based on those pictures that assumption seems invalid.

Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.

Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.
Yes but this was the last line in the table that showed the progression of development. I seriously doubt that between the conclusion of the research and publication that the blue lifetime has made a X6 jump to make it a feasible material for use in a large mass produced display.

Edit: To address another point here, when you say breakthroughs happen fast in the beginning. I just posted the the latest data from a table in the article, the last year shown in the table is 2007, but the table has data that goes all the way back to 2000. There was evidently more data from before that, that the authors deemed not relevant to current discussions of the subject. So this is not a new thing that just popped up with the little Sony set, people have been working on this for over a decade and this is where we sit.

Sony's 11" OLED now available in Europe for ~$4,900. I guess they aren't getting cheaper to make.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/01/28/sony_xel1_blighty/

Sony's 11" OLED now available in Europe for ~$4,900. I guess they aren't getting cheaper to make.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/01/28/sony_xel1_blighty/

They're small, so you'll probably want at least a couple...

But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...
You have a choice of seeing a reflection with a gloss surface or seeing a bright blob with a matte surface. For most people this is a personal preference, but I prefer matte.

With my old CRT I could watch my wife in the kitchen at night making dinner and it was very distracting. Now with a matte screen I just see a light blob area where the kitchen lights are and that I can ignore.

Yes but a year and a half is a long time when breakthroughs are happenning all of the time.

Look at how much other tech can improve like LCD or plasma in that time. Then consider breakthroughs happen pretty fast in the beginning when much research is going on.

It's superb news that they're making progress to improve blue materials and their lifespans.

However, I personally would like to know where we are right now. It's been a year or more since that journal entry was published so if possible, I (and perhaps many here) would like to know what's the current lifespan range of blue materials. I know they've improved beyond the 10k hours......but I'd like to know as to how much was improved.

P.S.
Personally IMHO, once they hit 48k-60k hours, then they've hit the sweet spot for blue materials.

With my old CRT I could watch my wife in the kitchen at night making dinner and it was very distracting. Now with a matte screen I just see a light blob area where the kitchen lights are and that I can ignore.What, exactly, does your wife do in the kitchen that is so distracting?

:p:p:p <insert knee slapping, laughing icon here>

From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007

At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours

Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.

I believe this data is quite outdated fortunetaly.

But don't matte coatings introduce their own issues. Some of them I've seen, anyway, have kind of an ugly, rough, look to them...

Ok...

Glossy:
- Reflects the light and kills your retina

Matte:
- Takes that reflection and difracts it, making the blacks look less black with ambient light, and softening the image


Glossy is much better where the ambient light is controlled and no reflections take place, since the image is crisper and the CR is higher.

Matte is much better where ambient light is heavy, or there's a lot of sunlight in front of the TV, it makes the TV actually watchable.


Sooo: Controlled ambient light => Glossy, Lots of windows and halogens => matte

I believe this data is quite outdated fortunetaly.
From Journal of the SID, from October-December 2008. The paper itself was published in that time frame and submited for peer review.

The paper what is happeneing in the industry and how it will apply to realistic uses for OLED displays in all applications. Again, yes the info stated may be outdated, but I do trust the source and I doubt that the X6 gain in the lifetime of the blue has been acheived in a year.

Also please note that the listed brightness is a much more realistic level than I have seen from any company that is touting it's own blue material lifetimes.

Glossy:
- Reflects the light and kills your retina

Matte:
- Takes that reflection and diffracts it, making the blacks look less black with ambient light, and softening the image

There is something missing here, absorption of room light by the panel. I had hoped that the organic molecules that emit would be good absorbers of radiation as well.

Horrors upon horrors, the nightmare scenario!!

I have seen the OLED by Sony, and the pics here are even worse.

What good is any flat panel technology if the engineers do not have the intelligence to realize that room reflections destroy the image?

These are not concept cars, has this world lost its mind???

Ridiculous.

LOL. Gloss is good.

I haven't seen any of your posts since you posted in the LCD forums about matte vs gloss over and over and over. So when I saw your post in this thread here we go again. ;)

I'm sorry I just couldn't resist. Don't take it personal, I just got a kick out of your post.

I wouldn't fret too much about this. Plasma screens have been glass for some time and newer screens still retain a semi-glossy look yet they reflections are much better than what they were years ago. It'll be years before we see OLED in normal screen sizes anyway and I'd bet it will be much better.

LOL. Gloss is good.

I haven't seen any of your posts since you posted in the LCD forums about matte vs gloss over and over and over. So when I saw your post in this thread here we go again.
Since Samsung came out with the 550 and 630 series, I have been mollified, hence the dimunition (but not extinction) of activity on this topic. I had heard reports of OLED screens being fully matte, and never expected this issue to arise in this technology. Then I viewed the shocking pictures above. But, yea, here we go again.

Since Samsung came out with the 550 and 630 series, I have been mollified, hence the dimunition (but not extinction) of activity on this topic. I had heard reports of OLED screens being fully matte, and never expected this issue to arise in this technology. Then I viewed the shocking pictures above. But, yea, here we go again.

Yeah I think that TVs trying to emulate mirrors is a very BAD IDEA.

Who the hell wants to see the room reflected in your TV? Who designs this crap? Don't they TEST these things?

DaveC19,

I for one enjoy the reflective look. It makes it look more 'shiny' and modern. Would you honestly buy a car that didn't have any shine to the paint coating? (the thought of it...). Also, CD cases would look cheap and tacky without some reflection.

Not just me - everyone I know prefers the expensive glossy look over the matte look any day, even at the cost of picture quality. ppl who come to visit think the TV's worth more etc. Also, sometimes I LIKE to see what's going on behind me. E.g. when someone enters a room etc., it gives me a chance to say hello. Hell, until 3D screens become the norm, a certain amount of reflection even adds a textured/gradient look to the screen, and makes it seem less 'one dimensional' looking.

Perhaps it's you who needs to reevaluate that there's room for glossy, reflective screens AND ones with slightly 'better' picture quality - let ppl decide which one to go for. I think even if they solved the problem of OLED absorbing more/all of the light for 'perfect' quality (which is subjective anyway), I'd still go for the glossy screen (say 50% reflective screen to make it half mirror-like would be best).

Mmmmmmmm, glossy..... <drools>


Btw, you may also be pleased to hear this is a fake post, and yes I was joking ;)

Yeah I think that TVs trying to emulate mirrors is a very BAD IDEA.

Who the hell wants to see the room reflected in your TV? Who designs this crap? Don't they TEST these things?

Both approaches have their downsides as reflected in the conversation above.

From the Journal of the SID and a paper published about the lifetimes of OLED. As of the last data that the authors were able to gather around 2007

At 1000cd/m2, Polymer-OEL materials
Phosphorescent Red Lifetime 67000 hours
Phosphorescent Green Lifetime 78000 hours
Phosphorescent Blue Lifetime 10000 hours

Even accounting for the last year and a half in development, there still is some ways to go on the blue. The flourescent small-molecule OEL materials are even worse when it comes to blue lifetimes.

You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.

Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper...

You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.

Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper...Actually it is quite a confusing disaster how OLED researchers report lifetime advances. Searching through the most recent papers (2008 and 2009) is just so confusing. The problem seems to be mostly due to measurement conditions. Numbers from 9,000 hours up to 100,000 hours can be found for blue emitters. In the past the grossly inflated lifetimes were suspect due to the low purity of the blue. But now it seems that measurement conditions are the issue.

The paper TNG refers to is one of only a few that tries to summarize multiple results from multiple sources. The data is good up to 2007 only according to the paper.

Actually it is quite a confusing disaster how OLED researchers report lifetime advances. Searching through the most recent papers (2008 and 2009) is just so confusing. The problem seems to be mostly due to measurement conditions. Numbers from 9,000 hours up to 100,000 hours can be found for blue emitters. In the past the grossly inflated lifetimes were suspect due to the low purity of the blue. But now it seems that measurement conditions are the issue.

The paper TNG refers to is one of only a few that tries to summarize multiple results from multiple sources. The data is good up to 2007 only according to the paper.

That seems logical; I haven't been scrutinizing that myself when reading either. I'll have to start; I wonder how many tech articles actually point out the testing procedures used though. This makes all of the info I've read useless without a baseline/testing procedures to go on... very frustrating.

Not much different than the audio industry I guess... Lots of numbers; but no clue on how they actually tested to come up with them... :( Thus making them worthless... (or simply marketing tools)

I'd like to take a moment to thank all the folks who've viewed and posted in this thread. It seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Each day I still go through the OLED news but lately, perhaps due to the economic malaise, relevant news has dried up.

Even if large (32"+) OLED TVs never make it to market, it has been a fun ride. Lately I've been a bit saddened that my hoped-for 32" OLED TV/monitor may never materialize, even with the better income that lies ahead in my future years.

It is sometimes hard to maintain that delicate balance between hard realism and soft dreamism that brings the best of both worlds together as one.

CES 2009 was, as noted in many news outlets, a disappointment as so many were hoping for those large OLED displays to finally materialize as consumer products, rather than just technology demonstrators.

The minus news continues with Sony losing money (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h6j4QPhCrMyQKq1refew7TlnwBww) and even LCD producers who already have large fabs cutting back on capital expenditures. Their suppliers are doing so as well, and even a cursory examination of display-news sites such as DigiTimes brings plenty of gloom.

Such an arid sales and investment environment that necessitates pruning of even tough old trees means certain death to baby seedlings. Perhaps in some future time, the rains will return and with them strange new seeds will once again sprout.

As a counterpoint to the above post, I was thinking about one of what seems, at least to me, to be the primary obstacles to large-area OLED displays.

That is, the defect rate. It seems that making low-defect or defect-free large-area OLED panels is at the moment expensive. Not because the emitters or other elements are costly, but the reject ratio.

My suggestion to the industry is to accept the defects and sell 'defective' large-area OLED panels. Personally, I'd rather have a dozen dead pixels on a 1366x768 32" OLED than have my (current) defect-free LCD with poor black level. All the pixels on my LCD have a kind of ugliness, a certain 'defect' if you will. They are collectively and uniformly dysfunctional, so the industry calls such a panel 'perfect'. Perhaps they are so obsessed with the 'collective' and 'uniform' in the formula that they missed out on the 'dysfunctional' qualifier.

Luckily, I don't think the average person would make that mistake, and that is the key point.

Using some yet-unwritten formula, could a better technology be just as 'equal' per price unit to a buyer, even with more defects? In other words, would I pay the same or a bit more for a display with a majority of far superior pixels, plus some 'bad' ones?

Rather than even argue the point, would any manufacturer dare to find out by selling a few to see how the end-user market values them? I think it would be an interesting test.

The nasty factor is clustered defects, which are really visible even from a typical seating distance. So if effort was made to subtly alter the production process - not to produce fewer defects (which is hard right now) - but to keep them dispersed (not visible from an average viewing distance), then many people would buy them for their other attributes, which are by now well-known and well-loved.

Being able to keep a majority of the throw-away panels would lower the cost easier than any other single change could, at the moment. It would probably mean 32" OLEDs next year or even this year.

By moving away from a reductionist, perfectionist way of looking at OLED production and sales, and moving toward judging the devices in a wholistic way compared to what is now available (LCD and PDP), the industry could make an impossible situation workable and keep the production machinery running - ensuring not only that the 'lights don't go out' on the production lines, but also bringing a superior technology to mass acceptance through not only incremental-size advancements, but also incremental-quality improvements.

The key point to favoring incremental-quality improvements over incremental-size advancements is that size increases mean high-cost investment in new fab lines, while quality improvements mean tinkering with existing lines, which costs much less.

I say make those large-area fabs and turn out non-perfect panels, then improve production quality over time. Making the case to business decision-makers takes more, though. That's where consumer sentiment might tip the scale in favor of such a plan, and that's where I leave you, readers - with a question whose results might, if favorable, be passed to those suits for careful consideration.

The question: if it meant you could buy an OLED TV today, what is the maximum number of defective pixels you'd be willing to tolerate on an OLED with the same size, resolution, and cost as your current display? State your current resolution and display size/type, as well as the number of defective pixels on your current unit (if any).

Here's my stats and what I'd tolerate in an OLED of the same price, size and resolution if I could buy it today:

Display: LCD
Size: 32"
Resolution: 1366x768
Defective Pixels: 0
Price: $1500 USD (at the time)

OLED Defective Pixels: 12 (no more than 2 adjacent)

So for me, at the same cost, size and resolution, I'd sacrifice twelve pixels for the better overall quality of OLED.

Display: LCD (computer monitor)
Size: 22"
Resolution: 1680x1050
Defective Pixels: 0
Price: $220

OLED Defective Pixels: 8 (none adjacent - I sit close)

Display: LCD
Size: 32"
Resolution: 1366x768
Defective Pixels: 0
Price: $450

OLED Defective Pixels: 12 (2 adjacent)

I would say good riddance on the spot if this were available. Replacing my computer monitor would have higher priority.

There are dead pixels (always off) and stuck pixels (always on). There are defective pixels (R + G + B) and defective subpixels (R or G or B). Dead subpixels are no issue for a TV application. Dead pixels will usually not be noticeable either, depending on resolution and viewing distance. Stuck pixels and subpixels will ruin any dark scene though.

I wouldn't be so gloomy. A year or two's delay, that's all.

Looks like OLED will get delayed further. I suspect we will see more of this in 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news/companies/kodak_forecast.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest

As a result of the economic environment, the company plans to cut costs, including investment in growth areas, such as Image Sensor Solutions, its Kodak Gallery online service, Electrophotographic Printing in GCG, and Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLED).

Let's just go ahead and declare that there will be a new iPhone in June.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Next-generation-iPhone-Launch-UAE,news-3426.html

And that the more substantial upgrade rumoured at in the article is in fact an OLED screen... :)

Well on the bright side:

They showed a Sony OLED Walkman (NWZ-X1000) with touch screen and capacities ranging from 16 GB to 32 GB. I'm definitely gonna check this out within the year and I hope to get one before Xmas :D

:)

Dead pixel thing is a great question, (and free market research for Sony etc. too :) )

For a 15" OLED screen @ 1024x768 for the same price as an LCD, and using for a laptop, I'd tolerate:

Pixel type: dead
Defective Pixels: 40 (non adjacent)

Pixel type: stuck
Defective Pixels: 10 (non adjacent)

I do quite a bit of graphics work, so I'd probably be more tolerant otherwise. I find it interesting that a white pixel on black is much more noticable than vice versa. Maybe it's because the eye is overwhelmed with the latter, but I bet LCD's crapness has something to do with it as well ;)

If someone has an OLED display, try out this test, and see if the black pixel on a white background is more noticable with OLED - be very interested to see.

There's just been an article posted at Slashdot which speaks about a relatively unheard of issue - something which OLED should immediately eliminate. It's known as 'input lagging'.

Apparently, it's used to reduce blurring on LCD (at least of the PVA/MVA type), and is also associated with the term 'overdrive'. By storing the last few frames, the LCD will somehow use this infomration to better present the frames that proceed.

But of course the lagging is a great source of irritance to people (myself included) who would find that fast reaction games play worse, and how generally such displays are more soupy (dragging windows around, moving cursors). I wonder if anyone here has noticed this effect.

Here's the article "The Dark Side of Overdrive":
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2009/02/06/the-dark-side-of-overdrive/1

There's just been an article posted at Slashdot which speaks about a relatively unheard of issue - something which OLED should immediately eliminate. It's known as 'input lagging'.

Apparently, it's used to reduce blurring on LCD (at least of the PVA/MVA type), and is also associated with the term 'overdrive'. By storing the last few frames, the LCD will somehow use this infomration to better present the frames that proceed.

But of course the lagging is a great source of irritance to people (myself included) who would find that fast reaction games play worse, and how generally such displays are more soupy (dragging windows around, moving cursors). I wonder if anyone here has noticed this effect.

Here's the article "The Dark Side of Overdrive":
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2009/02/06/the-dark-side-of-overdrive/1

There is a lot of discussion about input lag at this site and elsewhere. Input lag can be found across all of the LCD panel technologies and OLED will also suffer from it, unless manufacturers provide a mode with minimal video processing...

Does anyone here own the Sony OLED TV? Thanks. I can't! wait to get mind in the mail this week.

I got my OLED :cool: TV. Its obviously nice! I just wished it was 1920x1080. Instead of 980x540. Anyways...

I have not seen HD animated programming on my set yet, but tonight I have a recording set for South Park HD (2008). I saw some Sponge Bob in 4:3 (NICK HD) and it looked beautiful. And my TV was not even in VIVID mode.

There is a lot of discussion about input lag at this site and elsewhere. Input lag can be found across all of the LCD panel technologies and OLED will also suffer from it, unless manufacturers provide a mode with minimal video processing...

Where did you get the idea that overdrive is used on OLED HDTVs? Hence, how "will" the XEL-1 suffer from it? :confused:

Tele-TV, Congrats! Hope you find it as good as everyone has promised. I'm actually jealous ;)

Do you know if it's less flickery than a CRT? How's the saturation on it compared to CRT/LCD? If you can connect it to computer, then you could try the below URLs, and then compare that to LCD/CRT. I bet the green and cyan is wonderful in comparison.

Try this primary/secondary colour thing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/RGB.svg/600px-RGB.svg.png

Also try my own testcard on it:
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/index.html

Where did you get the idea that overdrive is used on OLED HDTVs? Hence, how "will" the XEL-1 suffer from it? :confused:

No, I haven't heard such a thing.

My response was towards the general issue of input lag. Video processing can require additional cycles, which can create the lag regardless of panel type. That's all I meant...

You're a little behind in your reading/research. Blue emitters today can last a lot longer. News changes so fast with OLED you have to read articles from the past 60 days to be current really.I really don't get my news off of the internet like most people do, I read the trade journals that I subscribe to, so I may be behind the times a little, however the info seemed relevant to the discussion here. The SID Journal has the best research papers from this area. Also please pay attention to what the brightness levels that are talked about in some companies claims of blue lifetimes. If the level is anything below 1000cd/m2 then it is not usable for a display of this type.

XROX is quite right when he says that it is confusing. The paper that I quoted from states that there are to many approaches used now by multiple companies to state the brightness level, lifetime, etc... This is a area where there are no standards like SEMI has put forth in the semiconductor field.

Another approach is to just use a white OLED bulb and use a color filter for the primary colors. So to make a blue OLED, you use a white bulb with a blue filter on it. I'm sure you'll find more about this in your reading/research when you dig a bit deeper... I am familiar with the idea of using a "White Light" approach to this and it may come to that.

I believe that is the approach Kodak took. And now they've slowed or suspended their OLED work.

Tele-TV, Congrats! Hope you find it as good as everyone has promised. I'm actually jealous ;)

Do you know if it's less flickery than a CRT? How's the saturation on it compared to CRT/LCD? If you can connect it to computer, then you could try the below URLs, and then compare that to LCD/CRT. I bet the green and cyan is wonderful in comparison.

Try this primary/secondary colour thing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/RGB.svg/600px-RGB.svg.png

Also try my own testcard on it:
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/index.html

Thanks twinbee. Do you have one too? I was hoping to share/experience the TV together with someone here. I'm not an expert like you guys. I still need to buy the official Sony OLED ($107) :eek: :rolleyes: remote because the auction guy said someone spilled water on the remote at his party any broke. The TV is working grreat/fine though.

Plus he didn't tell me it did not come with the manual. So I got to order that. My dream is an XBR8. I have the money right now, but with the economy, you know the story.

Flickering? or you talking about like when there somebody wearing a tie on the screen type thing and you see shimmiering/flickering? I have to check on that. I'm off tomorrow. I'm going to try your tests. I'll be checking in this thread frequently. You took the time to ask me how I like it. :)

The color saturation is unbelievable. The great Sony reds and green. The black level is insane!

I'll post my settings later.

I'LL BE STARTING THE XEL1 OWNER'S THREAD SO I DON'T CLOG UP THIS THREAD.

PS - My other TV is a 34" Philips Matchline/Pixel Plus WideScreen from 2003.

Back when CES was going on and Sony had there press conference, I called my brother from work to ask if they released any pricing on the 27" OLED. And there was a misunderstanding and he said its $2,500 for the 27". He didn't realize the price was for the 11" OLED. So I was thinking no way I would ever pay that because I got my 34" HD tubef or that price.

Anyways...

Would anyone be willing to pay $2,500 for a 27" Sony OLED if they came out with one now? I know I would.

I would probably got no interst financing on that and paid cash for an XBR8. I'll always worry if I play games on my XBR8 when I get one hopefully soon, that I will somehow f* it up.

I'll stop talking now. ;)

Would anyone be willing to pay $2,500 for a 27" Sony OLED if they came out with one now? I know I would.
A lot of professionals and pro gamers would probably love one for a computer monitor. CRT accuracy + LCD form factor. Probably still too small for most people to be happy with for HT use, though.

I'll always worry if I play games on my XBR8 when I get one hopefully soon, that I will somehow f* it up.

How? I can't see any obvious failure mode for an XBR8 getting damaged from gaming.

Would love one for computer use...

A lot of professionals and pro gamers would probably love one for a computer monitor. CRT accuracy + LCD form factor. Probably still too small for most people to be happy with for HT use, though.

How? I can't see any obvious failure mode for an XBR8 getting damaged from gaming.

That's cool that OLED has CRT accuracy. I didn't know that. Do you mean in regards into gaming lag as well, Carled?

I know about the XBR8. I'm just a paranoid wierdo. :D Sometimes I read on a RARE occasion, on here, that someone will think their IR (image retention) will not go away. In fact I think there was someone in the LCD forum that posted not that long ago. A couple weeks ago.

Would love one for computer use...

Thanks S. Hiller. Really. I'm going to hook up my laptop to my OLED tonight, well if there is no cautionary thing I need to worry about.

Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?

I'm SO! glad I got my laptopm with an HDMI port and did not choose the silly route of not getting it because I didn't really care for the color. I actually like the color of my laptop now.

That's cool that OLED has CRT accuracy. I didn't know that. Do you mean in regards into gaming lag as well, Carled?
Well, potential accuracy. How the design is executed, how the set is calibrated, what the usage environment is like are all things that will effect how it performs in reality.

I know about the XBR8. I'm just a paranoid wierdo. :D Sometimes I read on a RARE occasion, on here, that someone will think their IR (image retention) will not go away. In fact I think there was someone in the LCD forum that posted not that long ago. A couple weeks ago.
I think you're about as likely to win the lottery as you are to have an LCD having an entire screen of perminant image retention. Hopefully the two will cancel each other out.

Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?
In terms of potential harm, no.

For optimum image sharpness, use a program like Powerstrip to set the output resolution to 960x540. Hopefully your Sony can accept its native resolution.

Thanks S. Hiller. Really. I'm going to hook up my laptop to my OLED tonight, well if there is no cautionary thing I need to worry about.

Is there any cautionary thing I need to worry about guys?

Like every other self emitting pixel display, the XEL-1 is prone to burn-in with static images. And from the data I've read suggesting a true lifetime of 17,000 hours to half brightness (in flicker mode)n I would be a little carefull.

^^ Thanks for the reminder about static images. Damn! Only appx. 17,000 hours to half brightness. :mad: That seems so little compared to like LCD's [and Plasmas] which are around 60,000. I should have did my research. And I should stop leaving the TV on for no reason.

I don't regret buying it. I just read a little snipped from an article that Sony was or is still quoting appx. 30,000 hours to half brightness. Its some research firm that did a test.

^^ Thanks for the reminder about static images. Damn! Only appx. 17,000 hours to half brightness. :mad: That seems so little compared to like LCD's [and Plasmas] which are around 60,000. I should have did my research. And I should stop leaving the TV on for no reason.

I don't regret buying it. I just read a little snipped from an article that Sony was or is still quoting appx. 30,000 hours to half brightness. Its some research firm that did a test.
Sony flimflamming their specifications? Surely not!

OLEDs will have much lower lifespans than LCD and plasma for many years yet.

Yes...FWIW...definitely use a screensaver...

It all depends on measurement conditions. 30,000 hours was obtained using very low APL and low brightness settings. For instance, a full white screen would have only a 5000 hour lifetime on the XEL-1 while a typical video image yields ~17000 hours.


http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=23197

http://www.oled-info.com/sony/displaysearch_sony_s_oled_lifespan_rated_at_17_000_hours

Thanks twinbee. Do you have one too?Heh, wish I did! I just hope the LCDs don't get good enough, quick enough, to prevent the OLEDs from trying to make it in the marketplace.

Flickering? or you talking about like when there somebody wearing a tie on the screen type thing and you see shimmiering/flickering?Well the effect I'm thinking of is possibly best seen when you're not viewing the screen directly. Make sure a bright scene is on the screen, and then view the TV out of the corner of your eye without directly looking at it (try it with a CRT first if poss). Some people can't see it, but others are irritated by it - plus it gives them headaches.

Look forward to your findings! Maybe take a photo of that 6-colour circle thing next to a CRT/LCD with the same image. The camera should compensate, and we may get to see the relative difference between the saturation of a CRT/LCD and of the OLED! :D

Here's one such comparison, but it's only a phone:
http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/2008/08/oled-vs-lcd-screens-does-it-make-a-difference.html

.


I think you're about as likely to win the lottery as you are to have an LCD having an entire screen of perminant image retention. Hopefully the two will cancel each other out.


.

Well, we had an LCD at work develop permanent image retention after 6 months. It was dispaying an instrument set-up screen at a moderate light level. So it can happen.

Heh, wish I did! I just hope the LCDs don't get good enough, quick enough, to prevent the OLEDs from trying to make it in the marketplace.

Well the effect I'm thinking of is possibly best seen when you're not viewing the screen directly. Make sure a bright scene is on the screen, and then view the TV out of the corner of your eye without directly looking at it (try it with a CRT first if poss). Some people can't see it, but others are irritated by it - plus it gives them headaches.

Look forward to your findings! Maybe take a photo of that 6-colour circle thing next to a CRT/LCD with the same image. The camera should compensate, and we may get to see the relative difference between the saturation of a CRT/LCD and of the OLED! :D

Here's one such comparison, but it's only a phone:
http://www.symbian-guru.com/welcome/2008/08/oled-vs-lcd-screens-does-it-make-a-difference.html

Okay will do. I swear! (by this Saturday). I got my OLED right next to my "cheapy" Philips HD Tube. I got at least 2 digital cameras to choose from. I just will need to find out hot to post pics to AVS. I'm glad to help out a fellow member with my findings.

When you guys started talking about half brightness, I sturned to the option to make the Signal Luminance brighter, to its lowest setting from high. Gamma from high to low. I will do it right and the get the actual option names. Thanks for your understanding.

Black corrector I have on High. Noise reduction (non mpeg), its either low or on auto (i'll double check). I know with the XBR8 with too much processing on, picture gets noisy. I have cinemotion on?, low?. I just threw on Ratatouille for a few seconds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/HDR_example_-_exposure.jpeg/600px-HDR_example_-_exposure.jpeg
Three exposures of the same image.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Ball3_1_2.jpg/200px-Ball3_1_2.jpg
The end result (image after HDR).

Use all your exposures (lowest to highest) at each camera position.

By using multiple exposures at stepped intervals, and keeping eV set to manual, you will be able to capture a dynamic range far in excess of both your camera and a human eye.

Only such a high dynamic range photoset will have a chance of capturing OLED's true characteristic.

Please read: Wikipedia: High Dynamic Range Imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging)

Of course you'll need to keep static content on the display(s) while taking the exposure set.

OLED Q&A with Dr. Udo Heider - VP of OLED unit at Merck (http://www.oled-info.com/oled-udo-heider-vp-oled-unit-merck)
17 February 2008

Merck is a global pharmaceutical and chemical company based in Germany. The company designs, develops and manufactures a wide range of specialised materials including high performance light emitting materials for OLEDs. The OLED business belongs to Mercks' Liquid-Crystal (LC) unit.

I managed to conduct an interview with Dr. Udo Heider, the VP of the LC business unit at Merck (it's called the LC/OLED unit) about their OLED program.

Q: Hello Dr. Heider, and thank you for this interview. Can you describe your range of OLED products in more detail? Are you just into OLED materials, or other IPs as well?

First of all Merck's business is materials.

Merck is approaching the OLED market with both a short-term and a long-term perspective.

The current OLED market is centered around small-molecule evaporable materials. Here the electron and hole transport materials are the basis for long lifetime and high-efficiency (product) device performance and Merck considers these materials as the essential building blocks in our development and commercial portfolio. For the emitting layers, Merck has a leading market position in blue singlet materials and a strong focus on the strategic development of the highly efficient emitting materials for the next generation of OLED products.

For the long term, OLED device manufacturers are indicating a strong need for wet-processable, i.e. ink-jet OLED materials. In cooperation with key customers Merck is developing the materials that will give its customers the potential to significantly reduce factory process and equipment costs.

Q: What are the advantages of your OLED materials? Can you give us some technical details? (efficiency, lifetime, etc.)

As indicated in the above question, regarding the commercial materials Merck believes that the OLED market urgently needs lifetime and efficiency to be competitive with incumbent technologies. Commercialized Merck materials fulfill those requirements for lifetime and efficiency needed for device application.

Q: You have just announced that you will buy OLED-T's IP assets... Can you give us more info on this? How will OLED-T's material complement your own portfolio?

OLED-T based its long-term development on the close interaction with OLED customers: It has an interesting IP and material portfolio that perfectly complements Merck's IP and material product range in this field.
This deal will enable Merck to broaden its range of products on offer as well as its IP base for ongoing material developments.

Q: OLED-T has developed phosphorescent OLEDs. Some say that Universal Display owns the basic phosphorescent-OLED patents. So if someone wants to use these materials, does he need to license from UDC as well?

Whether the OLED-T phosphorescent patents will yield phosphorescent materials that can be commercialized is currently under investigation at Merck. Therefore the question on IP dependence and/or the need for a license from another company cannot be answered at this point in time.

Q: Can you name some companies that are already using your materials or IPs? Are there any products on the market that have OLEDs that are "Merck Inside"?

Basically all Merck commercial OLED activities are covered by NDAs, therefore it is not possible to disclose details and company names here.

Merck can confirm that it considers having control of marketing and sales of OLED materials as very important to understand the customers and market requirements. These are absolutely essential for us, to have the development focus exactly on those points that will enable the OLED market to grow and prosper in future.

So, Merck is participating actively with its materials in the OLED market but cannot comment further.

Q: We are taking a special interest in OLED for lighting - which you are working on. Any updates in this regard?

Merck also considers the lighting market as an additional feature and benefit that OLEDs bring to the table. Merck is both addressing this market with evaporable small-molecule materials as well as in its strategic soluble-material developments.

Here again, Merck is actively involved with materials for this developing market.

Q: Your CEO recently said that "OLEDs will not replace LCDs till 2030". Do you guys still hold this view? If so, why invest in OLED materials now?

Merck is a material supplier: Our focus is on developing materials that have the ability to enable OLEDs to be used in different products. The product-development roadmaps and timelines are in the hands of our customers.

As history shows, it can take a very long time for a new technology to fully replace an incumbent technology, i.e. there is still a market for CRT TVs. On the other hand you can see the first small OLED–TVs like the SONY XEL-1 already on the market.

Q: What do you think are the main challenges still ahead for the OLED industry?

For any new technology to replace an incumbent technology some elementary points have to be addressed.

A new technology has to bring key values to the end customer as well as to the device manufacturer. While the key values for the end customer of OLEDs are sufficiently clear to the broad community, the manufacturing yield and processes will drive the ultimate cost of the OLED product. Merck is addressing these needs from the material perspective.

Q: Where do you see Merck's OLED business five years from now?

The business is growing and most likely will continue to do so.
We will be among the top players in OLED materials.

Q: It seems like OLED prototypes were very strong in CES, but no new OLED TVs. I wonder what you guys think of that as well.

A host of very interesting OLED displays for portable media applications were promoted at CES, demonstrating the striking key features of OLEDs. This shows that OLEDs are continuing to find their way into products. To specifically comment on why OLED TVs were not so prominent at the CES would be difficult for Merck to say as we are not a device manufacturer. As you of course know, in order to successfully launch new technology products, timing and investment are the key, but it also necessary that the technology is ready to be supplied in quantities (at a reasonable cost value), with the quality of material, components, process and process technology also playing essential roles. Merck, as a material supplier, sees its role as working in close cooperation with key customers to deliver continuous material improvements that enable our customers to achieve their product roadmap targets.

Dr. Heider - thank you again for this interview. I wish you and Merck OLED unit great success in the coming years...

Okay will do. I swear! (by this Saturday). I got my OLED right next to my "cheapy" Philips HD Tube. I got at least 2 digital cameras to choose from. I just will need to find out hot to post pics to AVS. I'm glad to help out a fellow member with my findings.
Great - look forward to the results!

I updated my 'testcard', and it's now at the native resolution of the Sony XEL-1 ;) Also added 0-255 greyscale (each of the 256 greys is 3 pixels wide). Dunno how good it really is - I'm sure somehow here may find think of improvements/faults to it. Maybe there's a better "testcard" out there?
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff

I got my OLED :cool: TV. Its obviously nice! I just wished it was 1920x1080. Instead of 980x540. Anyways...

I have not seen HD animated programming on my set yet, but tonight I have a recording set for South Park HD (2008). I saw some Sponge Bob in 4:3 (NICK HD) and it looked beautiful. And my TV was not even in VIVID mode.

Sounds nice. It is cool for a first attempt but I think Sony blew it in a number of ways. It is small yes but that is not the main thing to me. The resolution is weird and means everything must be scaled. Scaling ruins sharpness and for a set trying to show off sharpness it doesn't make sense to me. They should have at LEAST tried for 720P if they couldn't muster a full 1080.

The inputs are too limited. No VGA for PCs? Why?

Other than that the PQ from what I saw was stunning. Their next set should be interesting. I dream of a 32" at least 720P set with PC input. My Xbox 360 connected via VGA to it would be amazing. I would pay $ 4000 for one even in this terrible economy.

Forget the OLED TVs for now. Bring on the PC monitors where consumers will accept the smaller size and love the increased PQ.

New Samsung TL320 Camera Boasts Three-Inch AMOLED for Enhanced Viewing and Energy Efficiency (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090223005300&newsLang=en)
http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=173488&vid=4
The new TL320 goes above and beyond traditional compact point-and-shoot digital cameras, offering an impressive list of features that set the camera apart from the competition. The TL320 features a Schneider lens, renowned for quality and trusted by professionals worldwide, and offers consumers a more versatile 24mm ultra-wide angle focal length paired with a powerful 5x optical zoom.

Utilizing the same advanced technologies found in its revolutionary AMOLED televisions, Samsung was able to incorporate a three-inch, 460,000-dot HVGA AMOLED screen in the new TL320, the largest AMOLED screen on a digital camera to date. In comparison to a traditional TFT-LCD screen, the TL320’s AMOLED consumes less power and offers a higher contrast ratio of 10,000:1, producing darker black levels, more vibrant colors, and a brighter display which can easily be viewed outdoors and even in direct sunlight. Additionally, unlike a TFT-LCD, the TL320’s AMOLED screen has the ability to display images that can be reviewed at any angle, while fully maintaining the same color gamut.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090223/166150/

Eiji Shikoh, an assistant professor at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, developed an OLED device that emits circularly polarized light in the visible light range.

It is a basic technology to enable 3D representation on OLED and electronic paper displays. To produce the circularly polarized light in the visible light range, the spin state during the light emission process is controlled by injecting a spin-polarized carrier from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.

For the future, Shikoh intends to increase the degree of circular polarization so that two components, the right and left circularly polarized light, may be clearly differentiated. Through this method, he aims to realize 3D display by producing parallax images that have different information in each component.

In general, OLED devices use a nonmagnetic material such as aluminum (Al) for their negative electrodes. But the new technology uses a ferromagnetic material such as iron (Fe) for the negative electrode in order to inject spin-polarized electrons from the ferromagnetic negative electrode into the emission layer.

As a result, light emission with a circular polarization degree of about 0.5% was observed when a magnetic field intensity of 3,000Oe is applied at room temperature, Shikoh said.

It has been known that GaAs-based inorganic LEDs produce circularly polarized light by the spin injection into the emission layer. However, those LEDs cannot be used for displays, etc because they emit light in the infrared range. Moreover, the base material has to be changed in order to precisely control the colors of light emitted by inorganic light emitting devices.

With organic molecules, it is possible to precisely control the emission color by changing the functional group, Shikoh said.

Samsung Mobile Display has their new website up. Some specs are available on their various OLED displays....plus this little snippet from their FAQ.

http://samsungsmd.com/kor/main.html

Q When will AM OLED TV panels be commercially available?

A Televisions adopting AM OLED were put out in the market in 2008 by a Japanese company. Samsung Mobile Display is planning to release a small number of them in 2009, and is planning a full-scale release in 2010.

Makes me wonder if OLED will find its way into PC displays in the near future. I know that there are LED-backlit LCD PC monitors, but whether or not OLED will be the next thing for the higher-end displays for laptops and desktop monitors, I'm wondering if they'll be doing that this year at all.

EDIT: Oops, Neo1022 beat me to that one. Sorry about that one. Maybe Dell's next UltraSharp line may start doing this?

Asus is considering putting an OLED into a netbook.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/03/03/asus_cebit_keyboard/

Slacker

Videos on OLED were scant even a few months ago. Now they're cropping up like rabbits. Despite this, there are no vids which actually put *side by side* the picture quality next to a lesser LCD/plasma TV.

Apart from one.

A bonus if you can understand German, but otherwise, it's quite awesome to see the difference. Especially at 2:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu1-pO54FMQ
Also...
http://webtv.comon.dk/index.php/video/id=862 (same vid, but better quality)

Note the increased gamut and ace contrast ratio of course. I'm not sure what LCD/plasma they're using, but I'm guessing it's fairly typical... (say 1000~2000 : 1 contrast?)

Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100% ;) There's even a use for which nobody could have imagined, but is shown at the very end of the vid. That's almost worth the $2500 alone. =)

Note that PC Magazine has some of the lowest contrast ratio numbers I have seen since they test the average contrast ratio of a calibrated display and that contrast ratio tests based only on dynamic contrast ratio would give higher contrast ratio numbers. In the PC Magazine reviews the Panasonic TH-46PZ85U (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2327036,00.asp) had a contrast ratio of 1,408:1, the Samsung LN52A750 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2321785,00.asp) had a contrast ratio of 3,725:1, the Pioneer KURO PDP-5020FD (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330711,00.asp) had a contrast ratio of 8,809:1, and the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2334128,00.asp) had a contrast ratio of 23,132:1.


Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100%That would explain why the Sony XEL-1 OLED Digital TV was able to get a perfect motion resolution score. The HD Guru review (http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally-a-critical-review/242/) said that "this production sample had superb motion resolution. Measurements using my FPD test disc indicated that the set could resolve all 540 lines (per picture height) in the moving Monoscope Pattern test."

In those videos I think its pretty clear the sony OLED works in pulsed mode, it shows a plasma grade ammount of flicker. Everything we've heard about SAH and OLED is just BS.

I'm much more optimistic about OLED being "the next thing" after seeing this video. Once they manage to get long-lasting emmitters and production of big panel sizes, I really see OLED as the future! It's like plasma, but much more efficent and without phosphor trailing.

In those videos I think its pretty clear the sony OLED works in pulsed mode, it shows a plasma grade ammount of flicker. Everything we've heard about SAH and OLED is just BS.

I'm much more optimistic about OLED being "the next thing" after seeing this video. Once they manage to get long-lasting emmitters and production of big panel sizes, I really see OLED as the future! It's like plasma, but much more efficent and without phosphor trailing.I've already posted numerous times that the XEL-1 has a less than 100% duty cycle. This is not news?

And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS? Please explain :)

A bonus if you can understand German, but otherwise, it's quite awesome to see the difference. Especially at 2:15.

I understand German, but he has a bit of a Danish accent ;).

understand German, but he has a bit of a Danish accent
Haha, late night last night - I thought it didn't seem *quite* German...

And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS?
I think I recall that one or two mentioned how they experienced blur with the Sony XEL. I have a sneaking suspicion that the pre-production model at trade shows was like this (but I could be wrong).

I've already posted numerous times that the XEL-1 has a less than 100% duty cycle. This is not news?It is one thing to read posts about it and another to see a video that shows it. As such I would personally consider a video that shows it to be news.


And what are you talking about when you say SAH and OLED is just BS? Please explainI think he is referring to posts such as this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15554324&postcount=47), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15560075&postcount=50), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14674797&postcount=657), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14219233&postcount=56), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14572819&postcount=618), and others like them. In other words some people would not have predicted that the first OLED TV on the market would have perfect motion resolution. That is very impressive if you think about it since the only other display that HD Guru has reviewed that had perfect motion resolution was the Samsung LN-46A950 (http://hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-the-hdtv-resolution-you-expected-125-2008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287) and it used both a sequential LED backlight and motion interpolation.

It is one thing to read posts about it and another to see a video that shows it. As such I would personally consider a video that shows it to be news.


I think he is referring to posts such as this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15554324&postcount=47), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15560075&postcount=50), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14674797&postcount=657), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14219233&postcount=56), this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14572819&postcount=618), and others like them. In other words some people would not have predicted that the first OLED TV on the market would have perfect motion resolution. That is very impressive if you think about it since the only other display that HD Guru has reviewed that had perfect motion resolution was the Samsung LN-46A950 (http://hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-the-hdtv-resolution-you-expected-125-2008-model-test-results-hd-guru-exclusive/287) and it used both a sequential LED backlight and motion interpolation.IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers. If it used a less than 100% duty cycle to gain motion resolution it would take a hit in an already short lifetime. Seems that prediciton is correct.

When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.

Also notice the slight flicker on the OLED at that point which helps prove that the sample and hold duty cycle is not quite 100% ;) There's even a use for which nobody could have imagined, but is shown at the very end of the vid. That's almost worth the $2500 alone. =)

I have seen this set in person and it doesn't flicker anywhere near as bad as this video would suggest. Most of the time you don't notice any, it mostly shows up with bright whites. You are mostly seeing the camera and TV not syncing exactly causing this. It is like when people try to take a video of a CRT, it flickers like mad.

You are mostly seeing the camera and TV not syncing exactly causing this.
Oh I know, yes. Just like with the CRTs. Perhaps the effect can't be seen in most vids showcasing OLED because of the cheaper video camera equipment others use to film - which 'smears' out the flicker so it's not noticable.

Any idea if the OLED flickers less than an equivalent refresh rate CRT when seeing it in person?

IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers.Which post(s) that I linked to are you referring to or are you referring to a past prediction that you made?


When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.Those calculated lifetime numbers are from DisplaySearch (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6558309.html) and Sony has said that they are wrong.

Which post(s) that I linked to are you referring to or are you referring to a past prediction that you made?Not referring to a post. I'm just stating where the SAH-OLED connection comes from scientifically speaking. I went through this stuff years ago in this very thread.


Those URL="http://www.twice.com/article/CA6558309.html"]calculated lifetime numbers are from DisplaySearch[/URL] and Sony has said that they are wrong.I would love to know how Sony came up with that 30K number. At least display search documented the testing procedure and results. Based on historical marketing do you honestly want to believe Sony?

IMO Sony arrived at the 30K number through either a 100% duty cycle or very low APL. I notice that the XEL-1 has an auto-dimming feature. Maybe they used this to reach 30K?

IMO the prediciton was that OLED would require 100% duty cycles in order to get respectable lifetime numbers. If it used a less than 100% duty cycle to gain motion resolution it would take a hit in an already short lifetime. Seems that prediciton is correct.

When the XEL-1 came out touting 30K hours I was really suspect and assumed they must have used a long duty cycle. Turns out the thing flickers and has a short lifetime (5000 hours white and 17000 hours RGB) and burns in quickly.

I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about people repeating like parrots that OLED would suffer SAH forever, and that the XEL-1 showed blur due to SAH, which is even worse in my opinion since it is not a wrong prediction, but a fanboyish lie.

Predictions use to be wrong for the TV market 99% of the time, facts are always valid. Fact is XEL-1 has perfect motion resolution. Fact is XEL-1 degrades faster than plasma. Everything else is just playing nostradamus.

I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about people repeating like parrots that OLED would suffer SAH foreverWell I hope I never said that because that would be wrong. What I have said is that in order to maximize lifetime OLED will have to use SAH until they make longer lived more efficient materials. Which is correct based on facts.

....., and that the XEL-1 showed blur due to SAH, which is even worse in my opinion since it is not a wrong prediction, but a fanboyish lie. LOL, fanboy of what? You sound a little worked up over this? Are you ok?

Predictions use to be wrong for the TV market 99% of the time, facts are always valid. Fact is XEL-1 has perfect motion resolution. Fact is XEL-1 degrades faster than plasma. Everything else is just playing nostradamus.LOL, not only was the prediction correct (really not a "prediction", bad word on my part) but you just agreed with it by stating the XEL-1 has great motion resolution but poor lifetime. Thank you :)

I daresay this is all a short term argument. It's "more than good enough" right now, if they could produce them. The advancements clearly seem to be trending toward a high quality display, with adequate lifespan, by the time they can produce 40" plus sizes in quantity. 5 years? Think how perfected the technology may be in 10 years.

I would love to know how Sony came up with that 30K number. At least display search documented the testing procedure and results. Based on historical marketing do you honestly want to believe Sony?

IMO Sony arrived at the 30K number through either a 100% duty cycle or very low APL. I notice that the XEL-1 has an auto-dimming feature. Maybe they used this to reach 30K?I don't know how CE companies get lifetime numbers for displays. Since DisplaySearch based their lifetime numbers on calculations, and might have used different picture setting than Sony, I simply thought it was fair to mention both sides of the story.


What I have said is that in order to maximize lifetime OLED will have to use SAH until they make longer lived more efficient materials.What kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has perfect motion resolution and how much does that affect the lifetime?

I don't know how CE companies get lifetime numbers for displays. Since DisplaySearch based their lifetime numbers on calculations, and might have used different picture setting than Sony, I simply thought it was fair to mention both sides of the story.When you say "calculated" do you mean accelerated? If so, I think every all OLED materials or panels use accelerated measurements. When my company measured OLED material lifetimes they could do it in one day if I remember correctly.

Problem is that to compare results you need to match measurement parameters exactly. No one seems to do this. It is quite a mess reading through research papers on lifetimes. I read Display Search's method and it seems pretty good to me.


What kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has perfect motion resolution and how much does that affect the lifetime?Who knows? Motion resolution measurement is a total disaster. I can't even begin to tell you what a mess it is. There seems to be hundreds of different ways to measure it and none of them can be compared. And, there is no such thing as perfect motion resolution since all displays have a hold time, even CRT.

When you say "calculated" do you mean accelerated?In the twice article (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6558309.html) they refer to it as "a calculated panel lifespan".


Who knows? Motion resolution measurement is a total disaster. I can't even begin to tell you what a mess it is. There seems to be hundreds of different ways to measure it and none of them can be compared.There is the FPD benchmark test (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014030) which was made by a few Plasma companies (Hitachi, Panasonic, and Pioneer) and is the motion resolution test used by several reviewers including HD Guru.


And, there is no such thing as perfect motion resolution since all displays have a hold time, even CRT.True, though it is possible to get a perfect motion resolution score on the FPD benchmark. As such what kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has a perfect motion resolution score on the FDP benchmark and how much does that affect the lifetime?

In the twice article (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6558309.html) they refer to it as "a calculated panel lifespan".Dsiplay Search's method looks to be extrapolated.......
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=23197
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05/13/displaysearch_sony_oled/

And even HDGuru suggests what I have suggested. Essentially that Sony measures lifetime at lower average pixel levels. The XEL-1 not only has an ABL circuit but also an auto dimming circuit it seems.

http://hdguru.com/sony-xel-1-finally-a-critical-review/242/


There is the FPD benchmark test (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014030) which was made by a few Plasma companies (Hitachi, Panasonic, and Pioneer) and is the motion resolution test used by several reviewers including HD Guru.This test is almost useless IMO. The Adavnced PDP Development Corporation has the most accurate method to measure motion resolution that I've read about yet these reviewers will not adopt it because it is too expensive. Standard moving test patterns must be measured using a tracking camera with standard parameters such as distance, speed...etc.

True, though it is possible to get a perfect motion resolution score on the FPD benchmark. As such what kind of duty cycle do you need with an OLED display to make it so it has a perfect motion resolution score on the FDP benchmark and how much does that affect the lifetime?Even with the APDC method you can get a perfect score as long as the test pattern velocity is slow enough. This is why there needs to be standards.

Richard you are a smart guy who understands display measurement so think about the following: how can you measure the motion resolution of an 11" screen and compare it to the motion resolution of a 50" or 60" screen using the same test. APDC figured it out, HD Guru did not :)

This test is almost useless IMO.The FPD benchmark test is somewhat subjective since it is based on human perception, which varies from individual to individual, but it the closest thing we have to a standard motion resolution test used by third party reviewers. It is also a motion resolution test developed and used by some of the largest CE companies in the world. Panasonic has used the FPD benchmark test (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=322752&modelNo=Content01072009012646554&surfModel=Content01072009012646554), which is the same test used by HD Guru (http://hdguru.com/ces-2009-panasonics-new-plasma-and-lcd-model-series/354/), to promote their new Plasma displays coming out this year.


Richard you are a smart guy who understands display measurement so think about the following: how can you measure the motion resolution of an 11" screen and compare it to the motion resolution of a 50" or 60" screen using the same test.Well excluding other potential variables you could watch all the displays with the same viewing angle. That way the movement across your field of view for the test is the same regardless of whether it is 11" display or a 110" display.


APDC figured it out, HD Guru did notDo you know what the FPD benchmark has in terms of instructions for how to measure the motion resolution of a display?

The FPD benchmark test is somewhat subjective since it is based on human perception, which varies from individual to individual, but it the closest thing we have to a standard motion resolution test used by third party reviewers. It is also a motion resolution test developed and used by some of the largest CE companies in the world. Panasonic has used the FPD benchmark test (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=322752&modelNo=Content01072009012646554&surfModel=Content01072009012646554), which is the same test used by HD Guru (http://hdguru.com/ces-2009-panasonics-new-plasma-and-lcd-model-series/354/), to promote their new Plasma displays coming out this year.I would have thought that Panasonic used the APDC method since they are part of APDC ;)


Well excluding other potential variables you could watch all the displays with the same viewing angle. That way the movement across your field of view for the test is the same regardless of whether it is 11" display or a 110" display. You cannot measure something accurately by "watching it". You need a tracking camera with standardized parameters. To compare different sized screens the paramaters have to be normalized (velocity of test pattern....etc)


Do you know what the FPD benchmark has in terms of instructions for how to measure the motion resolution of a display?From what I read, the FPD benchmark disc was made by APDC and is the test patterns used in their method involving the tracking camera system. Using just your naked eye to read the pattern would eliminate all the standard parameters. Seems like a poor method IMO.

I would have thought that Panasonic used the APDC method since they are part of APDCPanasonic was one of the companies that made the APDC which created the FPD benchmark (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014030) and from what I read (http://hdguru.com/ces-2009-panasonics-new-plasma-and-lcd-model-series/354/) they used the same test material in their demonstrations that HD Guru uses. As such it does sound like Panasonic used the FPD benchmark in their demonstration though I do not know if they used a tracking camera system with it.


You cannot measure something accurately by "watching it".The results of the FPD benchmark do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. As such I would disagree with your opinion that without a tracking camera system the results of the FPD benchmark are "almost useless".


From what I read, the FPD benchmark disc was made by APDC and is the test patterns used in their method involving the tracking camera system. Using just your naked eye to read the pattern would eliminate all the standard parameters. Seems like a poor method IMO.xrox, where did you read that the FPD benchmark was designed only to be used with a tracking camera system? Also does the APDC provide instructions for using the FPD benchmark without the use of a tracking camera system? It just think you should know that before you state that HD Guru and other reviewers are incorrectly using the FPD benchmark. Also note that the FPD benchmark was mailed out in in the Japanese AV Review magazine (http://www.phileweb.com/editor/av-review/157/index.html) as a "necessary item for the AV fan".

Panasonic was one of the companies that made the APDC which created the FPD benchmark and from what I read they used the same test material in their demonstrations that HD Guru uses. As such it does sound like Panasonic used the FPD benchmark in their demonstration though I do not know if they used a tracking camera system with it.I actually have the journals by APDC and Panasonic and many other researchers on motion resolution measurements. Panasonic has used both the visual (subjective) test ( http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=DTPSDS&ONLINE=YES&smode=strresults&sort=chron&maxdisp=25&threshold=0&pjournals=&pyears=&possible1=motion+and+resolution&possible1zone=article&OUTLOG=NO&viewabs=DTPSDS&key=DISPLAY&docID=5&page=1&chapter=0) and the APDC pursuit camera (objective) test. ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Jan_10/ai_n27109677) This photo shows Panasonic measuring a 65” Vierra using the APDC method with a pursuit camera.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/camera.jpg


The results of the FPD benchmark do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. As such I would disagree with your opinion that without a tracking camera system the results of the FPD benchmark are "almost useless".Well then we disagree. Note that I also disagree with Panasonic conclusion that the visual motion resolution test is accurate and robust. Poor science IMO. To get at least some accuracy in the visual test there needs to be a standard viewing distance in an attempt to equalize perceived scroll speed since the SAH effect depends on retinal velocity. Also, there needs to be numerous viewers and the data needs to be averaged. For instance each measurement should be taken at 1H distance (H=height of screen) to ensure perceived scroll speed normalization. There is a paper on this very topic. IMO the APDC method is far more robust and eliminates subjectivity making it possible to compare results from various sources and various screen sizes and resolutions. It essentially mimics human visual system perception without the subjective variations. Far better test IMO.

xrox, where did you read that the FPD benchmark was designed only to be used with a tracking camera system? Also does the APDC provide instructions for using the FPD benchmark without the use of a tracking camera system? It just think you should know that before you state that HD Guru and other reviewers are incorrectly using the FPD benchmark. Also note that the FPD benchmark was mailed out in in the Japanese AV Review magazine as a "necessary item for the AV fan".I don’t recall that I said as such. What I said is using your naked eye is a poor method IMO. Actually further reading seems to suggest that the FPD patterns on the benchmark disk were produced by ITE (electronics industry association) and not APDC. The scroll burst patterns are used by APDC along with the pursuit camera. For an interesting read check out the following presentation that goes over MPRT and motion resolution.

http://www.semi.org/cms/groups/public/documents/web_content/ctr_026932.pdf

Cheers

The 32" OLED TV: a possible new downturn victim (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/03/the-32-oled-tv-a-possible-new-downturn-victim.ars)

"For a more realistic sense of where OLED is, you have to look to Samsung's forthcoming 14.1" OLED, which the company plans to introduce in the second half of this year for laptops and TVs. There is no pricing information yet on the Samsung panel, but the fact that the display maker intends it for the laptop market strongly suggests that its price will be more or less on the high side of what you'd pay for a premium LED-backlit LCD. It could be that by the end of this year (and this is my own inference, not Young's), an OLED screen is the display equivalent of what an SSD was at the start of this year—a luxury that some users will pay a sizable, but not exorbitant, premium to obtain.

But the 14.1" panel size represents something of a brick wall, and to get over it will require a combination of innovation and capital expenditures on brand-new plants. It's via this latter factor—the capital expenditures required for plants that can build larger panels—that the downturn could throw up a serious roadblock to the march of display progress.

It would be nice if existing display manufacturing facilities could be easily and cheaply converted to OLED fabrication, but they can't. Young and I discussed a few major reasons why this is the case, but choice of backplane material stood out as a particularly important issue.

Right now, Young told me, amorphous silicon is the "backplane of choice" for display fabrication. About 95 percent of all LCD fabs are equipped for amorphous silicon, but the problem with amorphous silicon is that it's very susceptible to heat. The circuit design for driving pixels on OLEDs is such that one critical transistor with a very high duty cycle bears the burden of switching the voltage that dictates the pixel's grayscale, and as the display is kept on and heat builds up in the backplane material, that transistor's threshold voltage starts to slip, which means that the color would start to shift.

For OLED displays, polysilicon's higher electron mobility and superior thermal properties under load make it more ideal than amorphous silicon for OLED display backplanes. But right now, there are very few polysilicon fabs, and none that can produce panels beyond a relatively small size.

"So the question is what do you do here," Young told me. "Do you take polysilicon and make it bigger, which means you have to have some new fab equipment that's never been built before, or do you figure out how to work with amorphous silicon?"

Right now, researchers from different companies are actively pursuing the latter option, while other groups are contemplating the former.

Building a new generation of polysilicon fabs around new and untested equipment is not only a gamble, but a capital-intensive one that presumes the existence of sufficient consumer demand to make the fabs pay for themselves. Given the demand destruction that all corners of the PC and consumer electronics markets—including displays—have suffered in the global downturn, there isn't much appetite for ambitious new manufacturing capacity build-outs anywhere at the moment.

"The downturn is likely to delay the kind of things [we talked about] here," Young told me. "This is all new capital investment. It's likely that companies that have excess display capacity will be conservative about making new investments; they're already doing that. Most of the 2009 fabs that were supposed to be fairly significant have either been cancelled or pushed out."

When I asked him specifically about Samsung's planned 32" OLED TV, he replied, "How soon Samsung will do their next generation will be affected by the downturn."

Well then we disagree. Note that I also disagree with Panasonic conclusion that the visual motion resolution test is accurate and robust.I understand your position. I simply believe that it is better to have a subjective motion resolution test than having no motion resolution test at all. For third party reviewers that looks to be the current choice since I have yet to hear of any who have bought the equipment needed for the APDC method.


What I said is using your naked eye is a poor method IMO.I agree that viewing the FPD benchmark would not be as accurate as the APDC method but if detailed instructions are included it could reduce the number of subjective variables. That is why I am curious to know what, if any, instructions are included with the FPD benchmark.

OLED market set to skyrocket in 2011, says DisplaySearch (http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/03/15/oled-market-set-to-skyrocket-in-2011-says-displaysearch/)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadgethd.com/media/2009/03/3-14-09-oled-tv-proto.jpg

You've seen the prototypes tucked away in trade show corners, and you've seen the demise of existing generation technologies -- it doesn't take an industry expert to realize that the door is wide open for OLED to walk through. According to a new report from -- who else? -- industry experts, the OLED lighting market is set to boom in 2011, with OLED revenues expected to surpass PMOLED displays in the 2013 / 2014 time frame. Specifically in the OLED TV market, manufacturers are scrambling to assemble large-screen OLED TVs that are even close to affordable, and estimates we've personally heard put those on the market just after the next decade begins. Clearly, the biggest hindrance from OLED domination right now is the prohibitive pricing, but once those XEL-1s are given away inside King Size cereal boxes, we'll really be onto something.

Chris

Xrox...

Break this video down for us regarding PMOLED...

http://www.oled-display.net/what-is-pmoled

Chris

OLED market set to skyrocket in 2011, says DisplaySearch (http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/03/15/oled-market-set-to-skyrocket-in-2011-says-displaysearch/)

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadgethd.com/media/2009/03/3-14-09-oled-tv-proto.jpg


That article title is misleading as the original article that it references is only referring to OLED lighting. The article makes no mention of OLED TVs. The blogger is just adding his own comments.

Xrox...

Break this video down for us regarding PMOLED...

http://www.oled-display.net/what-is-pmoled

ChrisThat video does not describe PMOLED (passive matrix OLED) but rather P-OLED (polymer OLED). The field of polymer OLEDs has developed rapidly in the last two years or so thanks to lifetime improvements. Polymer OLED has the obvious manufacturing advantage of being solution processable. Therefore it can be solution coated or printed into pixels for displays or panels for lighting in a mass manufacturing type environment.

PMOLED (passive matrix) describes a method for driving the pixels where there is no TFT behind the pixels but rather just a cathode and an anode that energize the pixels row by row or multiple rows at a time (TMA). The advantage of PMOLED is that it is cheaper and easier to manufacture and provides excellent motion rendering. Disadvantage is it required high current and power which greatly limits the lifetime of the EL material.

Samsung: AMOLED laptop displays in 2009, flexibles in 2010 (http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-amoled-laptop-displays-in-2009-flexibles-in-2010-2635785/#entrycontent)
26 February 2009


http://www.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/samsung_amoled_notebook_concept-480x403.jpg


Samsung has publicly declared its goal of doubling AMOLED production in 2009, with a further doubling in 2010. According to Daniel Lamberti, brand manager at Samsung Mobile, AMOLED will reach economy of scale sometime this year, with TVs, laptops and monitors all commercially viable.

Come 2010, and we’ll see flexible Samsung AMOLED displays become commercially viable too. Samsung SDI currently has a manufacturing capacity of two million units per year; by the end of 2010, that should have reached eight million.

Predicted sales of OLED-based panels are expected to jump by two-thirds in 2009; three of Samsung’s headline cellphones at Mobile World Congress this year used AMOLED displays. According to Lamberti, manufacturing costs are now the limiting factor in AMOLED, but that will be addressed before the year is out.

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

CMEL and UDC renew their material supply agreement (http://www.oled-info.com/cmel-and-udc-renew-their-material-supply-agreement)
18 March 2009


http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/CMEL_76_Module.jpg

CMEL 7.6" AMOLED module

UDC (http://www.oled-info.com/universal_display_udc) has announced today that CMEL (http://www.oled-info.com/oled_panel_makers/chi_mei_el_cmel) has renewed their 'commercial supply' agreement. UDC are providing CMEL with materials to use in their AMOLED displays. The new agreement will run through 31th of December 2009.

CMEL are making AMOLED displays, and are currently shipping the largest display available (beside Sony's XEL-1 11" TV (http://www.oled-info.com/sony-xel-1)) - a 7.6" OLED panel (http://www.oled-info.com/more-info-cmels-76-amoled-and-picture), as used in Kodak's digital photo frame (http://www.oled-info.com/kodak-wireless-oled-picture-frame-0).

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

NEW Apple OLED Notebook & iPhone Confirmed By LG (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home_Office/Industry/W5M8X6Q2)
19 March 2009

Apple is set to launch new OLED notebooks and flat panel monitors along with a new OLED iPhone claim sources at LG in Korea.

It's also believed that a new iPhone and iPod Touch due later this year will include an OLED screen made by LG who last year scored a multibillion dollar deal to manufacture display screens for Apple.

One source that SmartHouse has spoken to claims that Apple already have working prototype of a new Netbook which will be manufactured in Taiwan with the OLED screen supplied by LG.

LG have also said that they intend to increase their R&D investment by 25% with significant investments going into OLED solar and new battery technology. The Company has told ChannelNews that they will invest over $3B into R&D over the next 18 months and that recently Apple paid the Company over $500M US dollars up front to work on new monitor and display technology.

Sources in Taiwan told ChannelNews last month that Apple were looking at an OLED based notebook that will also incorporate new touch screen technology. Now sources in Korea are saying that this information is correct and that one area where LG has been testing OLED panels is in the area of touch sensitivity and "leave behind finger marks".

The sources claim that in recent testing OLED screens used on a notebook attracted "body oils and sweat" when a finger was constantly used on a screen. LG believe that by adding a layer in the manufacturing process that they can eliminate "finger marking".

Smarthouse was also told that Apple is looking at a wafer thin OLED screen made by LG that will link with a wireless content device similar to the current Apple TV box.

LG pick Kodak OLED tech for future devices (http://www.slashgear.com/lg-pick-kodak-oled-tech-for-future-devices-1938193/)
19 March 2009


http://www.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kodak_lg_oled_partnership.jpg


LG and Kodak have signed a deal (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/03/the-oled-dance.html) that will see the latter’s OLED technology used in upcoming LG products, including TVs, cellphone displays and digital photo frames. The first LG devices using Kodak OLED systems are expected to reach the market by the end of 2009, according to Andrew Sculley, GM and VP of Kodak’s Display Group.

Update: Kodak have clarified that the deal was in fact signed in 2008, and that the claim of commercial products “by the end of the year” is unconfirmed.

Full details of the deal have not been revealed, and nor are we certain of which exact technologies have been licensed. Kodak already sells one OLED product, its Wireless OLED Picture Frame (http://www.slashgear.com/kodak-oled-wireless-photo-frame-worlds-first-for-999-1716529/), a 7.6-inch panel which retails for a massive $999. The panel itself is believed to be sourced from Chi Mei EL (http://www.slashgear.com/kodak-orders-oled-panels-for-digital-photo-frames-2214443/).

Kodak has discussed producing OLED panels larger than 20-inches, mass-scale production of which has up until now proved financially unfeasible. The first LG/Kodak products are likely to be digital picture frames and small TVs to take on the Sony XEL-1 (http://www.slashgear.com/?s=sony+xel-1+OLED).

Cool updates :)


NEW Apple OLED Notebook & iPhone Confirmed By LG (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home_Office/Industry/W5M8X6Q2)
19 March 2009

Apple is set to launch new OLED notebooks and flat panel monitors along with a new OLED iPhone claim sources at LG in Korea.

It's also believed that a new iPhone and iPod Touch due later this year will include an OLED screen made by LG who last year scored a multibillion dollar deal to manufacture display screens for Apple.

One source that SmartHouse has spoken to claims that Apple already have working prototype of a new Netbook which will be manufactured in Taiwan with the OLED screen supplied by LG.

LG have also said that they intend to increase their R&D investment by 25% with significant investments going into OLED solar and new battery technology. The Company has told ChannelNews that they will invest over $3B into R&D over the next 18 months and that recently Apple paid the Company over $500M US dollars up front to work on new monitor and display technology.

Sources in Taiwan told ChannelNews last month that Apple were looking at an OLED based notebook that will also incorporate new touch screen technology. Now sources in Korea are saying that this information is correct and that one area where LG has been testing OLED panels is in the area of touch sensitivity and "leave behind finger marks".

The sources claim that in recent testing OLED screens used on a notebook attracted "body oils and sweat" when a finger was constantly used on a screen. LG believe that by adding a layer in the manufacturing process that they can eliminate "finger marking".

Smarthouse was also told that Apple is looking at a wafer thin OLED screen made by LG that will link with a wireless content device similar to the current Apple TV box.

Oh so this is something like what Sony did with their X1000 series Walkman.

Btw, how does an OLED touch screen work anyway? (in a technical sense....)

Sony: 'Our focus is not on OLED' (http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/sony-our-focus-is-not-on-oled-587921)
26 March 2009

TechRadar spoke to Darren Ambridge, Sony's Group Product Manager for TVs, this week and we were interested in how the company's first OLED TV, the XEL-1 was faring in the UK.

"I'm not going to lie to you and say that it is flying off the shelves, but we never saw the XEL-1 as a mass-market product. We really made it just to prove that we could make it," he told us.

The XEL-1 launched in the UK back in January for a street price of £3,500, which puts the 11-inch telly firmly out of reach price-wise for your average consumer.

And considering you can purchase the TV for around $2,500 in the US, it's easy to see why UK TV buying public, no matter the size of their wallets, weren't flocking to buy the television.

Focused on big-screen tech

Ambridge wasn't discarding OLED screens altogether, but did explain that we probably won't be seeing another OLED TV anytime soon.

"Sony is focused more on big-screen technology at the moment," he explained.

"OLED tech is certainly still important and you can see some stunning OLED screens in our upcoming Walkman [NWZ-X1000] series of media players."

To read more about Sony's HDTV range and the full interview with Darren Ambridge, click here (http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/interview-sony-group-product-manager-darren-ambridge-587864).

Cool updates :)



Oh so this is something like what Sony did with their X1000 series Walkman.

Btw, how does an OLED touch screen work anyway? (in a technical sense....)

A touch sensitive membrane overlayed over the OLED screen? This is how most all others work.

Japanese Researchers Double Green Phosphorescent OLED Efficiency (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090403/168292/)
3 April 2009


http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090403/168292/090402OLED.jpg

The high-efficiency, green light-emitting OLED device developed by
the Mikami Lab at the Kanazawa Institute of Technology

A Japanese research group succeeded in making an OLED device using a green light-emitting phosphor material and achieving a very high light-emitting efficiency of 210lm/W.

The research group, which is led by professor Akiyoshi Mikami of the Advanced Optical Electro Magnetic Field Science Lab, the Kanazawa Institute of Technology, boosted the light-extraction efficiency to 56.9%, more than twice that of existing OLED devices. The group made this announcement at the JSAP (Japan Society of Applied Physics) 56th Spring Meeting, 2009, which took place at Tsukuba University in Japan, from March 30 to April 2, 2009.

It has been regarded as a big challenge for OLED devices to enhance their low light-extraction efficiency of slightly less than 30%. Using the new technology, it is possible that the light-emitting efficiencies of OLED displays and lamps will sharply increase.

The OLED device developed by the research group has the bottom emission type structure, which extracts light through a substrate made with transparent electrodes. In addition, a 0.7mm-thick glass plate with a refraction index as high as 2.03 is bonded to the substrate. The surface of this glass plate is processed to have a structure of about 0.3mm-pitch optical lens array.

The material for the device's light-emitting layer is a host material called "CBP" added with an iridium complex, "Ir(ppy)3." Its light emission peak lies in the range of wavelengths between 500 and 550nm, which corresponds to green color.

When emitting light at a luminance of 10cd/m2, it has a light-emitting efficiency of 210lm/W and a light-extraction efficiency of 56.9%. On the other hand, when emitting light without the high-refractive glass plate, its light-emitting efficiency is only 94.3lm/W. This means the glass plate boosted the light-extraction efficiency by 2.3 times.

Developed through detailed theoretical analysis

The research group made the achievement by developing "FROLED," software that theoretically calculates optical behaviors, and by "conducting a detailed analysis on light-extraction efficiency for the first time in Japan," Mikami said.

The glass plate results in higher light-extraction efficiency because "the high-refractive glass plate strongly attracts the optical energy, which usually remains inside the thin film and the substrate of an OLED at a ratio of about 1:1, to the side of the substrate," Mikami said. And the lens array structure formed on the surface of the glass plate enables to extract light that is otherwise trapped in the substrate and the glass plate, he said.

"The light-extraction efficiency is theoretically calculated to be 75%, which is three times higher than before," Mikami said. "We might be able to realize it by improving the device manufacturing technology."

Finally Sony shows a new OLED "prototype". Looks great! :) No price or release date yet.

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-show-21-inch-oled-tv-the-xel-2-at-japan-display-2009

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwqp-xHhqBM

JP Link:
http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20090415_125433.html

http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/img/avw/docs/125/433/disp03.jpg

No price or release date yet.

Sony has announced it will release a new OLED TV by May 2009. LG will release a 32" mass production OLED TV next year.

http://www.digitimes.com.tw/report/20090410-098/image006.png (http://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-oled-tv-2010-flexible-amoled-too)

^^
That's cool news and updates.

Thankfully, at least (though very slowly), OLED is starting to take shape and hopefully, it improves on previous and current gen OLED tech (esp. in fixing its flaws). It's starting to take off finally.

Oh SED, where art thou now? :D ;)

Little early to be crowing, no?

Thankfully, at least (though very slowly), OLED is starting to take shape
OLED has taken a while to gather momentum, but I have this feeling that if the state of OLED technology was just a couple of years behind what it is now, it would have taken *much* longer to 'arrive' in the end, due to advancements in white LED backlighting for LCDs etc.

I'm happy now :D

Exciting rumors! (from oled-info (http://www.oled-info.com/sony-believed-be-unveiling-their-2nd-generation-xel-2-oled-tv-ifa-2009), gizmodo (http://i.gizmodo.com/5218423/rumor-undoubtedly-expensive-2nd-generation-sony-oled-tv-unveiled-this-september), and Korean Times (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/04/123_43451.html))

There are rumors (from Industry insiders...) that Sony will be unveiling their 2nd generation OLED TVs at IFA 2009 - on the 4th of September.

http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Sony_27_inch_CES_2008_Gizmodo.jpg
Sony 27 OLED prototype (2008)

The XEL-2 (that's what we'll call it until Sony gives us an official name) might be a 27" model, as promised by Sony a year ago, or it might be the 21" displays shown just last week. We'll have to wait and see!

If it's 21-inch, don't even bother.

I can't wait to see the pricing on these from $ony.... probably double or more the price of a 55" xbr8.


We will have to wait probably 5 or more years for this tech to reach any decent size or price point that the average consumer can afford.

It is encouraging that some new tech is being developed..... I remember first gen plasma t.v.'s that cost $10k-$20k about 10 years ago.... and most people would not use them as a door stop today. Today a sub $1k 720p plasma will blow them away:D

I can't wait to see the pricing on these from $ony.... probably double or more the price of a 55" xbr8.


We will have to wait probably 5 or more years for this tech to reach any decent size or price point that the average consumer can afford.

It is encouraging that some new tech is being developed..... I remember first gen plasma t.v.'s that cost $10k-$20k about 10 years ago.... and most people would not use them as a door stop today. Today a sub $1k 720p plasma will blow them away:D

I say quadruple.

Pricing on the upcoming 2G XEL-1 is the proverbial million dollar question here. The price will depend on whether Sony believes that the panel is mass-marketable enough, which in turn, will depend (at least in the US) on the economic climate.

Personally, I think Sony made a huge error in their XBR8 pricing and has undoubtedly left the door open for Samsung to eventually overtake them with their current/future LEDs. Yes, the XBR8 is better than the 950, but was it $3000 better? This spells a doom strategy in pricing, go ask Pioneer :(

I would like to believe Sony would not make this same mistake twice with their follow-up OLED if they release a 27" panel, because if they do, I guarantee that LG would be more than happy to capitalize on their mistake. Of course, the question is moot with a 21" since it will still be a mostly nonviable size for most interested in a flat panel.

I would like to see the price be <$3000, with a market price of around $2500, but I'm guess around $4000-5000. Sony has worked cost cutting deals to their advantage such as with the original release of the PSP which was expected to be hundreds of dollars more than its launch price, but did not follow this strategy with the PS3. It will be interesting to see what Sony's next move is. My suggestion is they better act fast (meaning low) because if not, you can bet Samsung or LG will...

This technology is great! I believe someday it will be the norm and LCD technology will be wain. We have worked with OLED's before to take advantage of the superior viewing angle over LCD (at the time). But we need a larger size. Now, however, the size is not an issue for us. It lighter, requires less power, etc. and has much more usage than LCD. We've seen a prototype of a flexible OLED panel. It looked extremely sharp and the material looked like a sheet of mylar.

You should expect premium prices for OLED TVs until several brands are able to compete in the >32" range. Once that size is achieved by diferent manufacturers, we can expect the technology to get mainstream. Until then, which is IMO far away, we can expect mainstream OLED smartphones first, and mainstream laptop screens later. But not TVs in the short term.

LG: OLED displays in two months, OLED TVs by the end of the year, will cost twice as much as LCDs
04/20/2009 LG OLED TV
http://www.oled-info.com/lg-oled-displays-two-months-oled-tvs-end-year-will-cost-twice-much-lcds

LG says that they will launch OLED products in two months. This might be the 15" OLED monitors/laptop-displays.

LG also plans to release OLED TVs by the end of 2009. Interestingly they say that an OLED TV will cost 2.1 times the cost of an LCD TV (while LED-based LCDs costs 1.6 the times of normal LCDs). Maybe LG has already decided on the price of those new televisions?

http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/lg_oled_ces_2009_front_2.jpg

LG 15 OLED at CES 2009

There were rumors before of 32" OLEDs by 2010. So are they planning to release these TVs sooner? Will LG release the first large-size commercial OLED TV?

Via the Hindu Business Line (and OLED-Info.com)

There were rumors before of 32" OLEDs by 2010. So are they planning to release these TVs sooner? Will LG release the first large-size commercial OLED TV?

15" trial product 2009
32" mass market 2010.

2x cost would be a bargain. :)

15" trial product 2009
32" mass market 2010.

2x cost would be a bargain. :)

Affordable (< $3000) 46" in 2012-2013?

I'm so happy with my new LCD right now! :D

bye
Benny42

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/OLED_TV/S5K3G4D9

LG Set To Steal Sony's OLED Advantage
By David Richards | Wednesday | 22/04/2009


LG is set to steal Sony’s OLED advantage with Company insiders in Korea telling SmartHouse that the Korean Company will have a 15" for sale by Xmas and a 32" in mid 2010.
It is tipped that the company is working towards delivering their 32" OLED TV by June 2010 at a price of around $3,999 and their 15" by Xmas.

A senior executive at LG Display who has been closely involved in the development of display technology for Apple said "The early models will be double, if not triple, the price of an LCD panel however, over time they will fall".

The new 15" LG OLED display panel is tipped to be shown for the first time in a brand new Apple notebook in June and later in the year it will appear as a standalone TV/monitor. Recently LG Display snared a multi billion dollar dislay contract with Apple with $500US being paid upfront.

Currently Sony Australia is selling an 11" OLED TV for $6,999. The exact same TV is selling in Best Buy in the US for US$2,499 (A$3,519).

Warren Kim, Marketing Manager for LG Display in Australia, said "There is a market for everything. We will have to look at the pricing. One big issue in bringing OLED into the market is education. Currently we have plasma, LCD and educating consumers on the different display options is difficult".

Also set to roll out OLED display screens this year are Samsung who earlier this month launched a new range of LED TV's which Sony are arguing are simply backlight LCD TV's.

Currently LG are selling an HD 32inch LCD TV for $1,499.

It is tipped that the company is working towards delivering their 32" OLED TV by June 2010 at a price of around $3,999

This is great news. That would be 2 900 in USD?

Does anyone else think OLED will fail and Plasma production will come to an end leaving us stuck with LCD? :(

The ultimate horror story nightmare would be ONLY LCD!

Not TV related, but still an OLED technology advancement: Philips introduces its Lumiblade OLED lighting technology (http://www.lighting.philips.com/in_en/global_sites/led_lighting/information/oled_lumiblade.php?main=gb_en&parent=1&id=in_en_led_lighting&lang=en).

http://www.newscenter.philips.com/shared/assets/newscenter/2009_pressreleases/Euroluce/Oled_Chandelier_small.jpg http://www.newscenter.philips.com/shared/assets/newscenter/2009_pressreleases/Euroluce/Oled_Tabletop_small.jpg

Lumiblade – the cutting edge of light

Lumiblade is an all-in-one lighting system complete with built-in reflectors and diffusers. Add in a potential lifetime of several 10,000s of hours, an excellent energy efficiency and it’s clear why many see Lumiblade as a fit-and-forget solution that’s good for the lifetime of an object or interior design.

Energy efficient

Lumiblade has the potential of reaching energy efficiencies of up to 140 lum/W, 15 times higher than conventional light bulbs. That makes it an energy-efficient light source for today’s regulations and budgets. Long term, Lumiblade is a good alternative to fluorescent lighting.

However, today’s performance is still limited and allows for small, decorative purposes only. Philips offers today already a range of components to experiment with

Product performance (2009)

* up to 20 lm/W in different shades of white and RGB
* 1,000 cd/m² brightness
* 10,000 hours lifetime (at 50% initial brightness)
* 1.8 mm thin
* <50 cm surface

As a rule of thumb: we expect the efficieny to double every 2-3 years.

Incandescent 100W bulbs get 16 Lu/W. There's not much to be said for Philips' technology othe than it will be expensive and niche - and of course not saleable in North America, where it doesn't meet EPACT standards for efficiency.

And fluorescent lamps are about 60 lm/W, so they have quite a way to go. If they can reach their projected 140 lm/W, they have a winner though.

Don't forget the EPACT minimum CRI of 75 as well. No general-purpose lighting can be sold in USA or Canada that doesn't meet both efficiency and CRI minimums. Which is why you can no longer buy the old 40W cool-white and warm-white fluorescent tubes anymore.

No general-purpose lighting can be sold in USA or Canada that doesn't meet both efficiency and CRI minimums.
And that's why I hate 'knee-jerk' laws like this, because they don't give leeway to new/niche technologies, or to techs which can eventually grow to much better efficiencies.

The free market can naturally pick the cheaper/better techs without law having to enforce things :rolleyes:

OLED microdisplay with superhigh resolution

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1240467762


"Offering better comfort to users of point-and-shoot digital cameras, and new designs for video glasses with the highest resolution ever, Microoled and the CEA-Leti have targeted these and many other potential applications with the announcement of the yet most efficient silicon-based OLED microdisplay out there.

Microoled and CEA-Leti announce the OLED microdisplay with the finest pixel pitch (more than 1.7 million sub-pixels, 2 to 4 times more than the other emissive technologies) and the lowest power consumption reported to date (4 times more efficient).
This very compact 0.38” WVGA microdisplay from Microoled is based on the OLED technology licensed from Thomson and CEA, and integrates technologies developed by Microoled and CEA-Leti. This display is targeted for camcorder and digital still camera eye-pieces as well as for video or interactive eyeglasses.


The small OLED panel has a stunning resolution of 873x500 pixels on a 0.38” surface."

LG also plan to announce 15-inch and 32-inch OLED panels soon: http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1240817166

Any conjecture on when we'll see a 50" OLED, or bigger, for less than $10K?

My old panny 50" plasma needs an upgrade. I just got a new 42" panny for the family room and it looks great -- far better CR than my old 50 incher.

But, I want a much bigger screen for the HT if I'm going to upgrade, which has me thinking about PJ (JVC or Sony LCOS). However, if 65" or bigger OLEDs are 3 to 5 years away, I'll wait.

Any conjecture on when we'll see a 50" OLED, or bigger, for less than $10K?
...
However, if 65" or bigger OLEDs are 3 to 5 years away, I'll wait.

Based off of recent information (like the post below), it's unlikely we will see an OLED display larger than 37" in the next 24 months. But we should see OLED monitors suitable as CRT/LCD computer monitor replacements in the next 24 months! ;)

Submitted by admin on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 06:52.
37-inch | Oled-TV | panasonic | pioneer | toshiba
http://www.oled-display.net/panasonic-and-toshiba-want-to-introduce-37-inch-oled-tv-in-18-months

http://www.oled-display.net/images/toshiba-oled-tv-prototype.jpg

There are new rumors that Panasonic want to introduce a 37 inch OLED Television device within 18 months to 2 years.

This information comes from the Senior Panasonic executive which were in Australia. He said that Panasonic is currently researching HD OLED Televisions.

Thats a surprise because at the Ces-2009 Panasonic they hat not talked about an Oled-Tv, one of the reason are the production costs and the lifespan so the main message from Panasonic for a few months.

Now Panasonic want with the help from Pioneer engineers which are changing to Panasonic they are able to deliver new technology that expanded the lifespan Oled screen from 30,000 hours to 50,000 hours.

Toshiba are announcing that they are working with Panasonic to move the OLED technology forward.

The first OLED TV from Panasonic are tipped to be a 37 inch panel. This organic light emitting diode panel will be produced at the new IPS Alpha factory.via Smarthouse (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/OLED_TV/K4L7F4P5)

It all looks like the point of no return. OLED: here... we... come!

Hell yeah!

A 37" oled from panny would be a nice bedroom-wall-tv :p

I wonder how much OLED is in the public consciousness.

When big-screen OLEDs appear in showrooms, I guess people will see the benefits.

There are rumors of an iPhone with an OLED screen. Such a high-profile product may help raise awareness of the technology.

Yes, there are LCoS FPTVs still available. Sadly, the LCoS RPTVs are gone.

Some bad news about Sony's plans:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/999/1051999/sony-loses-oled-tellies

Some bad news about Sony's plans:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/999/1051999/sony-loses-oled-tellies

You mean bad speculation?

Sony denies abandoning OLED TV market (http://blogs.zdnet.com/home-theater/?p=777)


My post from Thursday night about the state of OLED TV development struck a nerve, as it detailed a report that suggested Sony had lost interest in building bigger sets than its 11-inch XEL-1 (including a quote from Sony spokesman that the company only built the XEL-1 as essentially a proof of concept). A U.S. Sony Electronics spokesperson contacted me and vehemently denied that the company was abandoning development of OLED TVs and that it was “fully committed” to the technology. He pointed to Sony’s recent 22-billion-yen investment in increasing production capacity for larger OLED screens and its showcasing of bigger sets at this year’s CES as proof of the electronics giant’s commitment to OLED. There’s still no official word on when Sony will release a larger follow-up to the XEL-1, but it does appear that there will be a follow-up after all.

Sharpbandaid:

I'm glad to hear it. I've been looking forward to seeing a mid-sized Sony OLED screen.

Panasonic teams up with Sumitomo for OLED TVs

TOKYO, May 8 (Reuters) - Japan's Panasonic Corp (6752.T) said it was developing advanced display panels based on organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology with Sumitomo Chemical Co (4005.T), in a bid to stay in the race in the next-generation TV market.

The Nikkei business daily said Panasonic and Sumitomo Chemical were aiming to set up a joint venture to develop and manufacture 40-inch or bigger OLED panels by 2010.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUST14339520090508

Panasonic 37" OLED TV = win

40-inch OEL screens on way (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42362/135/)
8 May 2009

Sumitomo and Panasonic are to join forces to make a 40-inch OEL (organic electroluminescent) panel by 2010.

According to nikkei.net, the two firms will start production lines at Panasonic's LCD plant in Japan.

That, according to the report, is only the start of a further series of product releases including a 40-inch OEL TV that will only consume 40 watts, be three millimetres thick, and 20 times brighter than plasma based TVs.

Sumitomo owns UK firm Cambridge Display Technology which had expertise in developing polymer organic LEDs.

If the joint venture is successful, Panasonic will make LCD, OEL and plasma flat panels, and even though Samsung has already released an 11-inch OEL TV some time ago, that technology won't scale, it appears.

You can find the nikkei.net report here (http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/e/ac/tnks/Nni20090507D07JFF05.htm) (subscription needed)

Has anyone announced a 19" or 20" OLED? The LCD models in this size are totally inaccurate.

40" consuming only 40 watts?! Thats nice!

40-inch OEL screens on way (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42362/135/)
8 May 2009

Sumitomo and Panasonic are to join forces to make a 40-inch OEL (organic electroluminescent) panel by 2010.

According to nikkei.net, the two firms will start production lines at Panasonic's LCD plant in Japan.

That, according to the report, is only the start of a further series of product releases including a 40-inch OEL TV that will only consume 40 watts, be three millimetres thick, and 20 times brighter than plasma based TVs.

Sumitomo owns UK firm Cambridge Display Technology which had expertise in developing polymer organic LEDs.

If the joint venture is successful, Panasonic will make LCD, OEL and plasma flat panels, and even though Samsung has already released an 11-inch OEL TV some time ago, that technology won't scale, it appears.

You can find the nikkei.net report here (http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/e/ac/tnks/Nni20090507D07JFF05.htm) (subscription needed)

Wow interesting stuff.

However, I read that this is an OEL TV and it does look like it is different from the OLED TV that we are talking about.

So if I may ask: What is OEL TV and what are the differences and/or similarities between OLED TVs???

Different word for the same thing. OEL = Organic ElectroLuminescent

If 40" is doable in 2010 then 50" can't be that far behind. Just keep in mind OLED is new technology and look how long it took plasma and LCD to get it right (~10 years?). OLED probably won't take 10 years to perfect, but early adopters should beware that the first models are sure to have issues, especially about short life-span of some colors. So if you want an affordable and reliable FP 50" or bigger for the next 5 years, I think plasma is still the way to go, especially at today's prices.

I wonder how much harder it is to produce bigger OLED panels compared to smaller ones. Is the cost of the manufacturing equipment something like linear to the (area) size, and do different techniques have to be used for the larger TVs? I'm guessing the amount of materials used would be linear to cost in any case...

If 40" is doable in 2010 then 50" can't be that far behind.. Probably a couple of years, if that.

OLED probably won't take 10 years to perfect, but early adopters should beware that the first models are sure to have issues, especially about short life-span of some colors.. Remember that OLED has been around for a long time and the blue lifespan issue has taken at least 7 years to get to a usable state. Isochroma started this thread 3 years ago and despite all of the prototypes out there we still have seen only one OLED TV on the market.

So if you want an affordable and reliable FP 50" or bigger for the next 5 years, I think plasma is still the way to go, especially at today's prices.Agreed

Different word for the same thing. OEL = Organic ElectroLuminescent

Oh I see. They are the same then (OLED = OEL).

Well if that case, if Panasonic can get their 40 inch OEL/OLED TV by year 2010 (or even after year 2010; I'm a patient guy hehe), then that would be awesome.

40 inch TV that only consumes 40 watts. ONE WATT PER INCH

I like that very much haha :D :)

Sony: OLED is 'the next display technology' (http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/sony-oled-is-the-next-display-technology--597490)
8 May 2009

Company still committed to next-gen screen tech

Sony is still completely committed to producing OLED screens, according to the company.

In a statement released to TechRadar, Sony mentioned it is to "steadily cultivate" its investment into OLED as it sees it as being "the next display technology".

Sony wanted to cement its stance on OLED, after an interview with us last month muddied the waters of what the company was doing with the technology.

OLED shows the best promise

Although Sony mentioned (http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/interview-sony-on-the-future-of-its-tvs-587864) at a recent 2009 TV line-up showcase that its focus was on "big-screen technology" like LCD, it seems that OLED is still very much part of its TV business plans.

"The OLED TV market will not surpass the LCD TV market within the next few years," the statement explained.

"Rather, we think it is necessary to steadily cultivate OLED so that we can deliver new lifestyle ideas and applications that make full use of OLED technology.

"BRAVIA LCD TVs will continue to be the core part of our TV business, while OLED shows the best promise as the next display technology. Our plans for OLED are still unchanged as of now."

Bigger OLED?

And to prove Sony is true to its word, there's been much rumour and speculation that the company is to unveil a bigger OLED screen at this year's IFA trade show in Berlin.

So far Sony is the first and only manufacturer to release an OLED TV – the 11-inch XEL-1.

The Korean Times (http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sony-s-next-oled-tv-coming-at-ifa-2009--593270), however, has noted that its potential successor, the XEL-2, will be above 21-inches in size. If this is true, then it will be interesting to see what sort of price point the company will go for, as the XEL-1 is retailing for a whopping £3,500

Oh I see. They are the same then (OLED = OEL).

Well if that case, if Panasonic can get their 40 inch OEL/OLED TV by year 2010 (or even after year 2010; I'm a patient guy hehe), then that would be awesome.

40 inch TV that only consumes 40 watts. ONE WATT PER INCH

I like that very much haha :D :)

But does it have clouding or flashlighting? :P

Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech. After that, we will be going into holographic/3D TVs of some sort. Once they get OLEDs to have a lifespan that is equivalent to today's LED LCDs, then there is really nothing better than that. Contrast ratios and colors will be the best possible and will be aesthetically pleasing as well due to their thin size.

But does it have clouding or flashlighting? :P

Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech. After that, we will be going into holographic/3D TVs of some sort. Once they get OLEDs to have a lifespan that is equivalent to today's LED LCDs, then there is really nothing better than that. Contrast ratios and colors will be the best possible and will be aesthetically pleasing as well due to their thin size.

Well, after OLED begins to trickle in, researchers are already thinking long-term and state that the next big thing after OLED will be..............ILED.

Inorganic Light Emitting Diode (or something like that). They claim it can exceed OLED lolz. So if you think OLED is perfect, then ILED is..........beyond perfect hahaha :p

Coming not earlier than year 2020 mwahahahaha.:D
:)

They claim it can exceed OLED

"They claim": Love to see an article or source somewhere about that and ILED.

OLED microdisplay with superhigh resolution

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1240467762


"Offering better comfort to users of point-and-shoot digital cameras, and new designs for video glasses with the highest resolution ever, Microoled and the CEA-Leti have targeted these and many other potential applications with the announcement of the yet most efficient silicon-based OLED microdisplay out there."

that's so cool. even though it's very small i can see that the image is very crisp and detailed.. i hope they will be releasing it soon and i hope that video glasses (http://www.twift.com/LCD%20&%20Video%20Displays/Video%20Glasses/) like these would use the similar technology.. but ofcourse and a much cheaper price :p

"They claim": Love to see an article or source somewhere about that and ILED.

Well that's what they said.........but it will only happen years after OLED starts kicking in.

With regards to the ILED stuff, well......you can ask Isochroma about it hehe:D
:)

Seriously though, when OLED arrives, I think we will hit a wall as far as TV tech goes. It will be the end all and be all of TV tech.
I believe you've made numerous posts that the fear of burn in is enough to scare you away from plasma. OLED has the same "issue". In fact it's a lot worse at the present due to OLED's shorter half-brightness life - Sony claims 30k hours (independant test estimated 17k) vs. 100k for plasma. Back to the drawing board :D

jeff

I believe you've made numerous posts that the fear of burn in is enough to scare you away from plasma. OLED has the same "issue". In fact it's a lot worse at the present due to OLED's shorter half-brightness life - Sony claims 30k hours (independant test estimated 17k) vs. 100k for plasma. Back to the drawing board :D

jeff

True

While current-gen OLED possess superb characteristics in terms of PQ and energy efficiency, it is not without major drawbacks (mainly on the uber-low lifespan of Blue materials)

The key here is to continue with R&D in order to improve on its superb characteristics and reduce its drawbacks.

Well, after OLED begins to trickle in, researchers are already thinking long-term and state that the next big thing after OLED will be..............ILED.

Inorganic Light Emitting Diode (or something like that). They claim it can exceed OLED lolz. So if you think OLED is perfect, then ILED is..........beyond perfect hahaha :p

Coming not earlier than year 2020 mwahahahaha.:D
:)

Well, isn't LCD inorganic as it is now? So if I'm assuming ILEDs are essentially man-made chemicals that can light up when a current is passed through them? Well, that's the first time I've heard of it. What are the advantages over OLED?