Originally Posted by andy sullivan
When it comes to designing a larger OLED, like say 65" and above, does the structural rigidity of the curve make it actually less costly to manufacture than making it flat? I assume that there is a certain degree of arc that is optimal.
Less costly to make? No. But quite possibly -- as I speculated elsewhere -- more possible to make a tabletop stand that holds up a TV that is strong enough to withstand day-to-day living.
Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Not sure I'd agree with this Mark. I still see this as a 2nd gen or perhaps, even a 3rd gen OLED. Simply adding more pixels is not something so dramatic or something that would pull this back to a '1st gen' product. Now if LG had no experience with UHD, I might agree with you, but the fact is they do. So the upconversion process is nothing new to LG along with the other aspects of electronics that make for a UHD display.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. I see this as very much Gen 1 because (a) LG has had a bear of time with IGZO period (b) LG will need to repattern the pixels for 4K or else the amount of fill on these sets is likely to be very unsatisfying (c) it's not like they've sold more than a few thousand TVs total, worldwide thus far (maybe five figures by now?).
I guess what I'm saying is there's nothing unique that I can see about a 4K OLED vs a 4K LCD, when you've already got 2 gens of OLED behind you.
Well, knowing what I know about the manufacturing and the lousy IGZO backplane yields and the pixel fill on the 1080 and the sales, I see a lot unique about it. But even if there was nothing unique about it... The existing track record on so few TVs -- with so many problems, to be honest, based on the anecdotes we've read here at AVS -- isn't great yet. I want a lot more reports that don't mention glitches, weirdly retained images, etc. In short, I want all of you to enjoy a year of your TVs and let me know how it goes. Selfish? Maybe. Pragmatic? Very. (And I'm in no rush to spend $10,000 or more on the TV I want when it will be a lot cheaper in 2 years anyway. I don't value 2 years of OLED at $4000.)
Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Oh, I don't know, maybe 'dumb' people like me who are looking for the best PQ available today.
This brings up the interesting, often repeated by those who don't want to jump in now, 'fix the problems' statement. What problems are those? Are they:
* A tendency to IR like plasma that was never really fixed either?
* Viewing angles that are somewhere between LCD & plasma that may well be inherent in the display tech as it is with LCD? If you require plasma like viewing angles, good luck to you waiting for 'future OLED improvements'. If you don't, then there's nothing wrong with current OLED viewing angles and you can scratch this 'problem' off your list.
* Is it the 'less than perfect' color that had to be isolated to one scene from one movie and was totally invisible with all other content to the attendees at the shootout?
* Oh wait, is it the fear that this display tech will 'only' last 5-10 years instead of 20 years? How long do you keep your displays?
Sorry, I don't see what these major 'prototype' issues and 'problems' are, but if it makes you feel better.....
Several owners reported trouble with their sets. I'm, like you, a lot less worried about these small picture quality issues. I'm worried that these TVs haven't yet proved they can provide 5-10 years of high-quality service. I get that most buyers are convincing themselves that's a given. We haven't really seen it. LG isn't warranty-ing it at all. And all that put together leaves one a bit more uncertainty than is ideal.
The more time that elapses, the more people that buy them, the less this remains an issue. But right now, without trying to spread FUD, I believe it's a concern.