OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 259 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 128Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #7741 of 10697 Old 12-20-2013, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked: 667


And so the broken quoting continues on...
 

Quote:

and on....
 

Quote:

and on....
 

Quote:

and on....
 

Quote:
and on....

 

 

 


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #7742 of 10697 Old 12-20-2013, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Has anyone purchased the non curved 55" LG OLED from an European seller to use here in the USA? If so, please comment.
Orbitron is offline  
post #7743 of 10697 Old 12-20-2013, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria and aesthetics they have to juggle for their own home. For many, TVs or home theater displays are not a big focus of interest. But that said, I think someone can underestimate how well a larger screen can be integrated into a room. It sort of depends on priorities. If someone's priorities is getting the most immersive experience he can into a room, then the aesthetics can be designed to accomidate that goal. Sure if perhaps you take the exact same wall location and change nothing at all in the room, then plunk down a giant new screen, it won't mesh. But that's what interior decorating is all about; creating new balances. I think that almost any sized screen can be integrated beautifully into a room, with the right planning or aesthetic touch.

(I had to integrate essentially a wall sized screen into an existing living room, and every guest thinks the end result is far nicer, and cooler, than the "normal looking" chairs-facing-sofa living room we had before).
I understand what it's like to get used to the size of a display over time, and even wanting to look for something bigger every time you upgrade.
I've had 120" fixed-frame projection screens before, and a few of the larger sets (55-60") in my home to demo/review, so I have a very good idea of how they look. I just don't want anything taller than a 55" panel, and even though my preference is to actually frame the image, something that size would have to be a bezel-free design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

My solution to those who want immersive yet don't want the really large display in the living room - do a motorized 92" screen that lowers in front of the flat panel. Then, during the day with light coming into the room or if you just want to watch tv use the flat panel - at night or if the room is light controlled, when you want to watch a movie, push the button, the screen lowers and you're at the cinema.
This is why we need rollable OLED displays...

I've done the projection setup before, and even went all-out and totally blacked out the room for it, and that was an awesome setup.
I've seriously considered another projector setup a couple of times in the last year or two, but these days I don't want to deal with the fan noise, heat, and having to sit in a completely treated room to get reasonable contrast performance any more.
I don't like the softness of 3-chip projector designs, and I don't know that I'm willing to spend a lot of money for a high-end DLP. I was only able to put up with the dither and rainbowing with my previous DLP because it was my first projector, and it was cheap.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #7744 of 10697 Old 12-20-2013, 08:05 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
The dreaded dithering and phosphor trails/rainbowing again. That is a poison pill I don't mind swallowing given the alternatives.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #7745 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 02:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
"This is why we need rollable OLED displays..."

Please....

Oh, I mean, please don't hold your breath. They aren't coming this decade. At least not in the sense desired here.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #7746 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 02:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's interesting rogo. I had the impression...knowing no sales numbers whatsoever...that it has just been "up, up, up" in terms of the screen sizes people are buying. It certainly looks that way at least when you walk into a Best Buy type store. And yet the bigger models still aren't selling? Wow.

I'm not saying they aren't selling at all. I'm saing that (a) the increase in average screen size is minimal at this point. (It may be close to zero in Europe and Japan.) (b) The number of really large sets being sold is increasing, but not by an especially big number. There isn't a secular trend toward larger sizes.
Quote:
It's just such a weird time for AV equipment. At exactly the time when amazingly high res 4K displays and content resolution makes huge, cinema-quality images a reality for consumers,
the tide also turns toward a generation bent on looking at lower res content on ever tinier screens.

And, yes, if anything the secular trend is toward 7" screens. It's just beginning, but it has a very, very long way to run.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #7747 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 05:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JazzGuyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oro Valley AZ
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Films are almost all natively shot in 21:9.

I believe far more theatrical films are shot or framed for 1.85:1 than for 21:9. 21:9 aspect ratio is mainly reserved for blockbusters. And these days many films are framed to also show on IMAX screens which are hardly 21:9. Unless one is only interested in watching certain blockbuster films, then 21:9 is a solution in search of a problem. If one is interested in seeing all kinds of movies then you really want to deal effectively with everything from 1.1:1 all the way to around 3.1:1 since all of these various aspect ratios have been part of the history of film. Even a 21:9 screen would not deal properly with a movie like Ben-Hur for example, where you would still not have full image height on the screen.

Short of a very expensive solution like a variable-mask projection screen and various lenses, any display aspect ratio is going to require compromises which will be less than perfect. I just wish we had gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio for our displays (say around 2.1:1) which would have been a reasonable compromise. It is my understanding that such a ratio was impossible when the high definition standards were being developed because the CRT technology available at the time would have been unable to produce a picture tube with that ratio that would not implode and still be affordable.

JazzGuyy is offline  
post #7748 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 07:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,843
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo 

I'm not saying they aren't selling at all. I'm saing that (a) the increase in average screen size is minimal at this point. (It may be close to zero in Europe and Japan.) (b) The number of really large sets being sold is increasing, but not by an especially big number. There isn't a secular trend toward larger sizes.

In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.

PDF European TV markt 2007 - 2012 (screen size developments - page 13)
8mile13 is offline  
post #7749 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

I believe far more theatrical films are shot or framed for 1.85:1 than for 21:9. 21:9 aspect ratio is mainly reserved for blockbusters.
You have that backwards, or you must be watching broadcast or streaming services that are cropping the films rather than displaying them in their original aspect ratio.
The vast majority of films in my collection, and films that have ever been shot, are 21:9 or thereabouts.
I mainly see 16:9 in very mainstream US productions such as comedy films.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

And these days many films are framed to also show on IMAX screens which are hardly 21:9.
It's true, there have been a handful of blockbuster films recently which have had some scenes shot for IMAX and they switch between 21:9 and ~16:9. But this is rare, and IMAX scenes are generally shot with 21:9 framing in mind, and are really "open matte".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

If one is interested in seeing all kinds of movies then you really want to deal effectively with everything from 1.1:1 all the way to around 3.1:1 since all of these various aspect ratios have been part of the history of film. Even a 21:9 screen would not deal properly with a movie like Ben-Hur for example, where you would still not have full image height on the screen.
There have been some films which are shot even wider than 21:9, but those are generally very old titles, and quite rare. You still get a much larger image with them on a 21:9 screen than you do on a 16:9 display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

Short of a very expensive solution like a variable-mask projection screen and various lenses, any display aspect ratio is going to require compromises which will be less than perfect. I just wish we had gotten a slightly wider aspect ratio for our displays (say around 2.1:1) which would have been a reasonable compromise. It is my understanding that such a ratio was impossible when the high definition standards were being developed because the CRT technology available at the time would have been unable to produce a picture tube with that ratio that would not implode and still be affordable.
Considering that very little if anything is shot in "2.1:1" I'm not sure I see the point in it. ~2.35:1 (21:9) has been fairly standardized for a long time now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.
This is not really surprising to me when you consider the quality of small displays available today. You used to be able to buy a cheap 14-21" CRT and you would get a fantastic image. Televisions in that size range are now using the lowest quality LCD panels imaginable, they're truly horrible to watch. Manufacturers only begin to use decent panels in their TVs from the 32-40" range and up.
The only decent TV in that size range has been LG's 15" OLED but that's no longer available and was hardly a cheap display.

We still have an old 14" CRT in use today, because we can't find anything else to replace it.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #7750 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JazzGuyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oro Valley AZ
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 78
You are the one who has things backwards because your understanding of movies only seems to include the last 50 years or so and include only theatrical widescreen films. This only encompasses a very small segment of all the movies made, even if you limited yourself to only great ones.

Until the early 1950s, movies had an aspect ratio of 1.37 or less, with only a few exceptions. Starting in the '50s there were a number of widescreen formats that were tried out, varying all over the place so that you got everything from 3.15:1 to 1:66.1 as wide(r)screen formats. Even during the period of the '50s and '60s, many films were still shot in 1.37:1 or were shot that way and matted to some other format. This whole time period encompasses thousands of movies that would not fit the 21:9 format. After that 1.85:1 became the most generally used format with "big" movies going to wider ratios. Now, if your interest in films only extends to blockbuster films made since the 1950s, then 21:9 works. My interests are much broader and encompass the entire 100+ years of the history of commercial (and sometimes non-commercial) movies. I own a couple of thousand movies and they are in all sorts of aspect ratios and about half of them are in black and white so I need to get reasonable results for all of these movies. I also watch some broadcast television so I need to deal with that as well.

2.1:1 was proposed as a compromise ratio that would produce the best overall result for all the possible film aspect ratios but would be native to just about none of them. But it was not possible technically when the HD standard was being developed all the way back in the late 1980s through the mid-'90s. Short of the variable masking and the use of multiple lenses on a projector, this would provide a reasonable compromise. Compromises are always just that and can't possibly meet everyone's requirements.

I won't say any more on this thread since we're getting off topic.

JazzGuyy is offline  
post #7751 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JazzGuyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oro Valley AZ
Posts: 2,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post


Which means that you never fill the display and have a mixture of letterboxing and pillarboxing depending on the content.

This is exactly my point. There is no TV screen fixed aspect ratio that will allow all types of films to be shown without either letterboxing or pillarboxing unless you limit your viewing to one specific aspect ratio that exactly matches the screen. Even 21:9 isn't perfect for Scope ratio films because these have varied over the years from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1. The obsession of some people with completely filling their screens can never be fully satisfied unless they have variable masking. Now, if you find pillarboxing less annoying than letterboxing, then 21:9 might work. My own preference would be for the minimal overall amount of black borders on a screen for the full range of aspect ratios used for movies which is why the 2.1:1 aspect ratio makes sense to me. even if it will never happen. I understand the CIH argument but I don't find it fully satisfactory. I wish I could afford a variable masking projection system.

JazzGuyy is offline  
post #7752 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

Now, if you find pillarboxing less annoying than letterboxing, then 21:9 might work.
Of course I do! Pillarboxing means that, with the exception of films wider than 21:9, everything has a constant height and varies in width.

IBG0ChF.gif

When you display "scope" films on a 16:9 display, the image shrinks in size.

yemGL36.gif

I don't see how 16:9 is appealing at all, and even if you have a few films which are wider than 21:9, the image will still be significantly larger than a 16:9 display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

My own preference would be for the minimal overall amount of black borders on a screen for the full range of aspect ratios used for movies which is why the 2.1:1 aspect ratio makes sense to me. even if it will never happen. I understand the CIH argument but I don't find it fully satisfactory. I wish I could afford a variable masking projection system.
Keep in mind that OLED displays do not emit light when displaying pillarboxing.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #7753 of 10697 Old 12-21-2013, 10:16 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 12,620
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Enough with the ratio discussion. Let's get back on topic,please.
vinnie97 and agkss like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #7754 of 10697 Old 12-22-2013, 07:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Another one from the "every little bit helps" file:

LG's curved OLED TV now down to $8,499 in the US

http://www.oled-info.com/lgs-curved-oled-tv-now-down-8499-us
Rich Peterson is online now  
post #7755 of 10697 Old 12-22-2013, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 182
At least it is going in the right direction. Considering the original quoted price of this set , the price drop isn't too bad.
JWhip is online now  
post #7756 of 10697 Old 12-22-2013, 11:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

In Europe there is a decrease of the sales proportion of very small TVs ( 20'') and a constant increase for the two ''largest'' size categories ( between 40'' and 50'' -- between 50'' and 60'') between 2007 and 2012. Especially TVs between 40'' and 50'' became increasingly popular: the sales proportion of this size category doubled from 15% to 31%.

PDF European TV markt 2007 - 2012 (screen size developments - page 13)

Thanks for the amazing link. It will help with something I'm working on.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #7757 of 10697 Old 12-23-2013, 03:25 PM
Member
 
Spruce Goose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hayward, California
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Last week I was at the Sony Pictures Studios in Culver City, where my wife competed in a special 30th season tournament of Jeopardy. I sat in the third row of the audience, and I had a clear view of the production staff table, which is just below the first row. Each of the ten or so production staffers has their own monitor - a Sony XEL-1 OLED TV. This must be the biggest surviving collection of XEL-1s in existence. These sets are at least five years old, but they're only used about six hours per day, 46 days per year. I paid close attention to the picture quality, and it was great on all of the monitors.
Spruce Goose is offline  
post #7758 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 05:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Best home theater product of 2013: Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED TV

According to: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/best-home-theater-product-of-2013/
Quote:
there’s one product that stood out to me as the best of the year, and that’s the Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED television.

I made it clear in my hands-on review that the 55S9 put out the most stunning picture I’ve seen from a television to date, but it takes more than just a pretty picture to earn my top pick for the year. The fact is, OLED is a disruptive, breakthrough technology. It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin. Sure LCD/LED TVs can be credited with slowly snuffing out plasma, but OLED’s long-awaited arrival in the living room was the beginning of plasma’s burial service. Also, OLED technology allows for unprecedentedly thin displays, unprecedented black levels, stunning brightness and a wide color gamut. The next great TVs won’t just be 4K Ultra HD sets, they’ll be 4K Ultra HD OLED TVs. When we look at OLED, we’re looking at the future.
Rich Peterson is online now  
post #7759 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 08:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Mad Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Land of 10,000 Taxes!
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post

Best home theater product of 2013: Samsung KN55S9 curved OLED TV

According to: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/best-home-theater-product-of-2013/

"It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin. Sure LCD/LED TVs can be credited with slowly snuffing out plasma, but OLED’s long-awaited arrival in the living room was the beginning of plasma’s burial service".

Hmmm,...maybe so, but that statement seems REALLY premature and bold when OLED can't yet seem to claw its way above a 55" size display, or below a $10,000 price tag! rolleyes.gif
vinnie97 likes this.

The Insane Pink Care Bear's Home Theater Set Up:

Marantz AV 8801 Processor, Emotiva XPR-5 Amplifier, Panasonic 65" ST30 Plasma, Yamaha BD-S2900 Blu-ray, Yamaha CDC-697 CD Player, Yamaha TT-500U Turntable, w/Signet TK5e, JBL ES100 Fronts, JBL LC2 Center, JBL ES30 Surrounds & 2 JBL ES250P Subwoofers
Mad Norseman is offline  
post #7760 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 44
CES 2014: what to expect from the biggest tech show of the year

Predictions made by techradar
Quote:
LG and Samsung to unveil flexible TVs?

Both LG and Samsung have been pegged to show off flexible OLED TV prototypes at CES, with one LG executive telling the Korea Times that the company's head of TV "will meet with clients and reporters ... and will promote something new" plus "unveil a remote bendable OLED TV that hasn't been seen before."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Samsung's flexible TV is said to have a "huge" display, and it too will have a remote that controls its bends.


Note that it's been previously reported that LG won a CES 2014 "Best Of Innovations" award for their 77" UHD curved OLED prototype.
Rich Peterson is online now  
post #7761 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 10:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
sstephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
...OLED .. It put the final nail in plasma TV’s coffin.

I couldn't disagree with this more.LCD killed it, not OLED. That OLED is making an appearance at this time is marginally more than coincidental. Let me ask you this. If LCD disappeared tomorrow, do you think Plasma might make a comeback? Now if OLED disappeared tomorrow, do you think Plasma might make a comeback?

Scott Stephens
sstephen is offline  
post #7762 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 10:35 AM
Member
 
ynotgoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 42
TOKYO -- With steep technical hurdles still standing in the way of commercial production, Sony and Panasonic have decided to break off their OLED TV tie-up and focus instead on high-demand 4K technology.

The partnership, arranged in June of last year, involved developing mass-production methods for panels consisting of organic light-emitting diodes, a key component of the TVs.

The two companies had planned to combine Panasonic's production method, which involves printing organic material onto a substrate, with Sony's OLED technology. They aimed to establish a technological base for mass production in 2013, potentially working together on manufacturing thereafter.

But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, and will instead pursue development independently.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort
ynotgoal is offline  
post #7763 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 11:51 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
Oops...as the Japanese giants sink further into oblivion. Guess we'll be stuck with Korean OLEDs for the near-term, with China to follow., until I see evidence otherwise.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #7764 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 11:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Chris5028's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Looks like the VT60 will be my last TV for a LONG time...

Chris5028 is offline  
post #7765 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 12:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post

TOKYO -- With steep technical hurdles still standing in the way of commercial production, Sony and Panasonic have decided to break off their OLED TV tie-up and focus instead on high-demand 4K technology.

The partnership, arranged in June of last year, involved developing mass-production methods for panels consisting of organic light-emitting diodes, a key component of the TVs.

The two companies had planned to combine Panasonic's production method, which involves printing organic material onto a substrate, with Sony's OLED technology. They aimed to establish a technological base for mass production in 2013, potentially working together on manufacturing thereafter.

But they were unable to make the panels durable enough, nor to cut production costs. The electronics firms decided not to renew their tie-up contract when it expires at the end of the year, and will instead pursue development independently.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Technical-difficulties-foil-Sony-Panasonic-OLED-effort

The Rogo prediction machine strikes again.
CruelInventions likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #7766 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 12:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Craig Ferguson's robot sidekick just heard the news- he said "Oh My".
CruelInventions likes this.
Orbitron is offline  
post #7767 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Before concluding that LG/Samsung massacred and bulldozhed the Japanese one should consider the claim OLED technology can not be economical.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #7768 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 12:52 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1010
It's fair to say the printing method is not as close to being economically or practically realized as certain outlets would have us believe. Any more delays, however, and we might just be stuck with an LCD edgelit (holocaust!) only world.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #7769 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Now Panasonic's tv division is looking grim unfortunately. I Was really hoping for another reason for them shutting down plasma production like making room for OLED production. 😥
Jason626 is offline  
post #7770 of 10697 Old 12-24-2013, 04:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,112
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The Rogo prediction machine strikes again.

There are times I hate it when that happens. (This is one of those.)

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Plasma Hdtv , Oled Tv , Lg , Samsung

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off