Originally Posted by taichi4
Many, many more people were impressed with LG's WOLED than people unimpressed. That must be for a reason, I would think.
They were told to be? It looked pretty good? They didn't look very closely? I'd say it's a combination of those.
People are also impressed by David Copperfield and Lance Burton.
I've read that the contrast ratio of their design may be 50 times greater than Local Dimming LCDs.
ANSI? First of all, no. Second of all, you'll be unable to tell even if that's true since it so completely exceeds the limits of your visual perception system.
I came across (and lost the link for) a diagram from Kodak that showed that WOLED has far fewer elements in its design than LCD panels, which will become a manufacturing (and cost) advantage.
Even LG will tell you that will take at least 5 years.
The following interview with Kodak also shows the inherent advantages of WOLED over non-stacked horizontal RGB, including the elimination of the costly and time consuming masking process, which favors cost effective mass production for LG's (Kodak's) design. It seems logical that given WOLED's adaptability to existing fabrication methods, that once in real production WOLED will have cost advantages over RGB OLED and LCD.
I've explained this many times over, but I'll try again...
LG's method should be cheaper than Samsung's. Except that it's entirely unproven. And it will rely on reaching large volumes. And LCD has large volumes and will continue to have large volumes and continue to get cheaper.
This isn't a static system. If LG produces tens of millions of units over the next 5 years, they might
have the cheapest production. If they produce 100 million units, they probably will. However, LCD production will continue to get mastered and Samsung will improve their RGB OLED in ways that no one can currently foresee (or they'll abandon it). If Samsung sticks with it, they might outproduce LG, which will give Samsung more learning-curve effects, which might make their production cheaper.
People think they can look at the production method and the theoretical BOM and just determine that something will happen in the future. It doesn't work that way. That doesn't mean it won't work that way, but it does mean that other outcomes are possible
. It's not a static model.
Lastly, the article shows the continuity of Kodak's technology to LG's production, and the interview clarifies as well the stacked design (assuming LG has not made subsequent changes.) From the article it appears there are 4 subpixels comprising each pixel...three white OLEDs, each with its own color filter, and one unfiltered (white). Well...you learn something everyday.
I've posted this several times in the past few days, not sure how you missed all of those.
Originally Posted by CATYPH202
Well, success of smart phones, crossover vehicles, heck, even "fashionable" jeans! , obviously suggesting "Doing everything well in one
display is going to be something that OLEDs can offer" is VERY important for enormous amount of people. And they willing to pay premium for it.
I think you are making a point here that Sun is alluding to. If you're suggesting my TV should act as a smartphone, I disagree.... If not, read below.
Originally Posted by Sunidrem
I can definitely understand you comparing OLED TVs non-favorably to other top-of-the-line TVs out there (I haven't seen those TVs, but I'm perfectly content to take your word for it), but what confuses me is when you compare OLED TVs to some mythical combination of LCDs and plasmas.
It seems to me that hypothetical OLED TV comparisons should be between OLED TVs and a single TV of the future/present, not the "best of the rest" ("hypothetical" because, although the comparisons are real, the OLED TVs we're looking at were not mass-produced (which was a fair point you made in a different thread)).[/quote]
Sure, let me clarify Sun. The best LCD on the market has the 15,000:1 ANSI contrast and the full-resolution motion handling (full 1080 lines resolved). That TV currently has a flawed color processing model due to some firmware error of some kind. But "reference color" is a solved problem. It's solved on a relatively inexpensive plasma.
Sharp should've solved it on that same LCD, but screwed up somewhere along the way. I believe the upgraded firmware will solve it. I certainly believe the 2012 models will solve it.
(That same 2012 display will also likely have 4k resolution, but that's another matter.)
In essence, the very best LCD -- while expensive -- is the benchmark against which the first OLEDs will be measured. The theoretical ability of OLED to bring reference picture quality to the masses won't really matter at first; what will matter is the comparison between the OLED and the best LCD and best plasma on the market. I'm reserving judgment on the best plasma until I see a real VT50 and it's measured with some test equipment (and a real E8000 for that matter)>
My point of combining the best of what's out there was merely "these features exist already". After seeing both the Samsung and LG, I have reason to wonder if they are going to actually even be great at everything in their first incarnation. But even if they are, they will be compared to the larger Sharp Elites and quite possibly to the much less expensive VT50 and E80000 plasmas.
In a year, the comparison will be vs. a 2013 Elite (or possibly a Sharp 955), a VT60, and an F8000 plasma. In 2 years, those models will evolve yet again. There is a fundamental problem in trying to best the LCDs and plasmas that didn't exist 5 years ago: It's now possible to have critical attributes fulfilled at the maximums of human vision and / or existing video standards.
Consider these two scenarios:
A) A new display is launched at the price of a mainstream LCD, say $1500 for a 55", that has the attributes of a Sharp Elite with reference color and 20% better contrast -- and maybe on some video we can actually see that contrast.
B) A new display is launched at a 20% premium to the 2013 Sharp Elite which has 20% better ANSI contrast (which, again, we can see sometimes), similarly accurate color, 1/4 the resolution, comes only in 55" while the Elite comes also in 70" and 80" in addition to the 60" (the model which is 20% cheaper than the new display). Thanks to the I-cubed tech on the Elite, the extra resolution makes at least some 1080 material look dramatically better and the very few 4k BluRays available on the newly announced quad-layer players due in 2013 look freaking amazing.
Here's the reality. Scenario (A) is pure fantasy. By the time the OLED is $1500, the mainstream LCD will be $1000 and will quite possibly be nearly as good as the Sharp Elite. Scenario (B)? Well, that pretty much reflects what's going to happen.
(A note about contrast ratio. The Sharp Elite already has ANSI contrast that measures higher than most experts believe the eye can actually perceive. This source http://www.presentationtek.com/2006/...ets-uncovered/
among others notes that simultaneous contrast is limited to between 400:1 and 10,000:1 typically dependent on conditions. The ratio only falls
with increases in ambient light!
This is one reason why the OLED demos at CES can only be so eye popping. Shown in a lit room, no TV is going to be especially more contrasty than the best TVs already on the market. Ironically, things like reflectivity and glare resistance are going to matter more than ANSI contrast -- assuming you can exceed the ANSI threshold of humans -- and on that score the OLED prototypes were awful. The screens shown were like mirrors!
Now, there are many black-level fans at AVS and with good reason. In a a dark room and over time, the human eye can perceive something on the order of 10 million to 1 contrast! That's sequential
contrast and basically isn't especially relevant on a TV because the high end of that curve will generally be unpleasantly bright, especially in a darkened room. But the low end of the curve -- black level -- is something a lot of us have come to value. Again, the Sharp Elite and Sony HX929 are already more or less "there" -- as was the last of the vaunted Pioneer Kuro models. The OLEDs will do well here. On paper, they might even set records. Whether they actually deliver any more usable contrast than a Sharp Elite while you are watching video is another matter.
We've already established they pretty much can't on the ANSI or simultaneous side. And on the on/off or sequential side, even if you set your display well above ISF or THX standards for brightness, at most you'll be looking at a tiny reduction in absolute darkness over the best LCDs already out. Now, they may be able to deliver this over a broader viewing angle and that's worth something. But the word improvement
comes mind not the word revolution