OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 356 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 123Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #10651 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 08:48 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.
I'd say that the things are the worst for audio than anything else, basically because truly lossless audio can only be found on torrents.


Try finding a legal version of Nirvana in lossless/studio quality and you'll end up with zilch. On most torrents Nirvana and countless others can be easily found in Lossless Quality like this (thanks to lossless audio buffs):


General
Complete name : D:\Nirvana - Nevermind (ORG Pallas)\11 - On A Plain.flac
Format : FLAC
Format/Info : Free Lossless Audio Codec
File size : 77.4 MiB
Duration : 3mn 17s
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 3 289 Kbps
Album : Nevermind
Track name : On A Plain
Track name/Position : 11
Performer : Nirvana
Genre : Rock
Recorded date : 1991


Not that I would download it


For high quality video there's iTunes where there's almost everything in 1080p 5000kbps, not quite Blue ray but really close to it( ITunes uses HiP (5.1 or even high10) for compression which is tantamount to 10000 to 15000 BP (baseline 3.0 or main 3.0) which is used for streaming)


P.S if you truly care about quality of your audio than torrents are the only places where you can find really high quality audio. I guess it is this way because most people care about quality only when comes for free.

....

Last edited by stas3098; Yesterday at 05:44 PM.
stas3098 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #10652 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,438
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 58
I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.

But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.


As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.

More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.

Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.
stas3098 likes this.
wco81 is offline  
post #10653 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
I haven't tried to sit down and really listen to differences between AC3 and DTS HD MA. My speakers probably aren't optimally placed and I care more about dialogue than effects or soundtrack most of the time.

But I know a lot of AVS members are more exacting on this.


As for the general consumer, even if 4K OLED looked way better, say comparable to the jump between old NTSC and ATSC, unless the prices are under $1k for a 42-inch display (and $1500 or less for 60-inch), people generally aren't going to be motivated enough to upgrade on a scale similar to the SD to HD transition, which was driven partly by the shutting off of analog broadcasts.

More than movies and TV shows, a new display type would have to demonstrate noticeable improvements for live sporting events (especially the spectacles like the Superbowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc.) at the same or lower price point.

Can OLED deliver equal or better motion resolution as plasma? Then again, most people are watching sports on LCDs and they don't seem to care.
No OLED can't deliver better motion than plasma, but for me the motion on OLEDs is ok as is(certainly better than on LCD), but than again I'm not a big sports fan.


For me there's a quite noticeable difference between AC3 and DTS especially where dialogues are concerned. On DTS voices sound more natural at least in Game of Thrones. I have the third season of Game of Thrones in two qualities one HBO on demand (AC3) and the other BD rips from my Blu Ray (DTS) and DTS sounds noticeably better (more depth and clearer which is great for voices)

....

Last edited by stas3098; Yesterday at 09:40 AM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #10654 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 02:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
SiGGy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lenexa, Kansas
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
No OLED can't deliver better motion than plasma, but for me the motion on OLEDs is ok as is(certainly better than on LCD), but than again I'm not a big sports fan.
Can't or Doesn't?

The response time on the OLEDs is really fast, because of this they can change the drive to make the motion as good and perhaps better. You make it sound like plasma motion is perfect. When plasma motion suffers from motion dithering, phosphor lag, and flickering. I didn't see them playing any video which exacerbates the plasma's phosphor lag, motion dithering or flickering.

I guess it depends on how you define "better"...

If they add black frame insertion in and try some other techniques it can be just as good or better. Question is what other sacrifices are made to achieve better motion.

In the material I watched I didn't notice much motion bluring at all on the LG OLED.
conan48 likes this.

-SiGGy
SiGGy is offline  
post #10655 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 02:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,093
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.
So spot on.

I do look forward to the mainstreaming of better quality if/when OLED begins to displace LCD. But when I say that, I realize most people still won't care.

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 #10656 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiGGy View Post
Can't or Doesn't?

The response time on the OLEDs is really fast, because of this they can change the drive to make the motion as good and perhaps better. You make it sound like plasma motion is perfect. When plasma motion suffers from motion dithering, phosphor lag, and flickering. I didn't see them playing any video which exacerbates the plasma's phosphor lag, motion dithering or flickering.

I guess it depends on how you define "better"...

If they add black frame insertion in and try some other techniques it can be just as good or better. Question is what other sacrifices are made to achieve better motion.

In the material I watched I didn't notice much motion bluring at all on the LG OLED.
I don't have any substantial complaints about the motion on OLEDs and I wouldn't change anything associated with it. I can just be a bit nit-picky at times that's all.


I never really observed phosphor trailing or flickering on ST60, however there's a dithering problem at hand. From what I can see Samsung's OLED TV doesn't suffer from these issues, howbeit it had some very slight blurring in Flight Club and I don't recall there being any blurring on plasma.


Driving OLED the way plasma is driven i.e via PWM or using something that imitates it (black frame insertion ) is madness in its purest unadulterated form.

Disclaimer

The following is hard to fathom for one that has high-school-only knowledge of chemistry and physics and no higher education on the following matters, noteworthy is the fact that for the sake of simplicity I've left out a lot of secondary specifics that contribute to the below-described process withal.


Plasma is driven via PWM (something BFI mimics) because you must first charge a phosphor by UV light through ionization of noble gases by applying voltage to noble gases i.e. turning gases into plasma and thus creating electron-holes via electron Number 1 which (UV light) kicks phosphors atoms to a higher energy level where they stay as long as gases stay ionized(charged). The second step is to apply current (electrons to fill the holes) using electron Number 2 which discharges ionized gases which in turn lets phosphors get back to their normal energy level and release energy in the form of photons (light).


With oleds you can simply make them release light (photons) by applying current! No hoop-jumping here. All genius is simple, ain't it...

....

Last edited by stas3098; Yesterday at 03:46 PM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #10657 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 433 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81
Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.
That's probably also why we are seeing 4K sets with virtually no content yet from most of the big boys (cart before the horse if you will ) mfr strategy : ( move up from 1080p product put 4K in premium space) for better margins and product differentiation and lets hope it generates more unit sales whether there are tangible benefits or not .

In LG case do that (like everybody else ) LG can't loose face or sales logically they have no choice but to go along for the 4K ride . Add in WOLED put in premium space strategy move 55" maybe 65" downstream some and they have a new premium market only they are serving (for now )
predictable logical (maybe not long term ?) survival strategy's so far (for the time being ) .............. until domestic PRC brands start making OLED and 4K in volume for export that is .Everybody else is in same boat except without OLED .

LG spokesperson has publicly stated they can't compete with PRC in 1080P 2K forgot where I read that one of the usual suspect trade web sites .

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. "can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; Yesterday at 04:38 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #10658 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
SiGGy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lenexa, Kansas
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
I don't have any substantial complaints about the motion on OLEDs and I wouldn't change anything associated with it. I can just be a bit nit-picky at times that's all.


I never really observed phosphor trailing or flickering on ST60, however there's a dithering problem at hand. From what I can see Samsung's OLED TV doesn't suffer from these issues, howbeit it had some very slight blurring in Flight Club and I don't recall there being any blurring on plasma.


Driving OLED the way plasma is driven i.e via PWM or using something that imitates it (black frame insertion ) is madness in its purest unadulterated form.

Disclaimer

The following is hard to fathom for one that has high-school-only knowledge of chemistry and physics and no higher education on the following matters, noteworthy is the fact that for the sake of simplicity I've left out a lot of secondary specifics that contribute to the below-described process withal.


Plasma is driven via PWM (something BFI mimics) because you must first charge a phosphor by UV light through ionization of noble gases by applying voltage to noble gases i.e. turning gases into plasma and thus creating electron-holes via electron Number 1 which (UV light) kicks phosphors atoms to a higher energy level where they stay as long as gases stay ionized(charged). The second step is to apply current (electrons to fill the holes) using electron Number 2 which discharges ionized gases which in turn lets phosphors get back to their normal energy level and release energy in the form of photons (light).


With oleds you can simply make them release light (photons) by applying current! No hoop-jumping here. All genius is simple, ain't it...
You and I are in the same boat.

Really it's the flashing of the image on the screen that makes the motion appear better visually. The OLED(s) will definetly take a beating doing either method you mentioned but it would impove things visually from a motion standpoint.
stas3098 likes this.

-SiGGy
SiGGy is offline  
post #10659 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 05:20 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
That's probably also why we are seeing 4K sets with virtually no content yet from most of the big boys (cart before the horse if you will ) mfr strategy : ( move up from 1080p product put 4K in premium space) for better margins and product differentiation and lets hope it generates more unit sales whether there are tangible benefits or not .

In LG case do that (like everybody else ) LG can't loose face or sales logically they have no choice but to go along for the 4K ride . Add in WOLED put in premium space strategy move 55" maybe 65" downstream some and they have a new premium market only they are serving (for now )
predictable logical (maybe not long term ?) survival strategy's so far (for the time being ) .............. until domestic PRC brands start making OLED and 4K in volume for export that is .Everybody else is in same boat except without OLED .

LG spokesperson has publicly stated they can't compete with PRC in 1080P 2K forgot where I read that one of the usual suspect trade web sites .
Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment. My guess is that Chinese or anyone else will soon enough be able get into OLED just as easy as they can get into the LCD business now thanks to UDC (the patent troll) and Merck (the production ( of OLED and LCD materials alike) usurper).


http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...-consequences/

....

Last edited by stas3098; Yesterday at 05:38 PM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #10660 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 07:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment.
UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort.

You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.
slacker711 is offline  
post #10661 of 10668 Old Yesterday, 08:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 433 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
Well, despite losing some patents to Merck and licensing/buying a lot more the future of OLED still lies in the grabby hands of UDC which will sell anything to any one who cares enough to buy from them meaning that Chinese companies can soon go to UDC to get their own chain of supply, production technics and equipment.
Interesting about the patents

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711
UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort.

You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.
We can bet the PRC panel makers will eventually figure it out after all they reverse engineered or engineered their Chengdu J-20 air frame 'that is arguably as capable as our Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air frame wise
lots of clever folks over there .

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. "can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -
tubetwister is online now  
post #10662 of 10668 Old Today, 04:38 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
UDC doesnt sell production equipment. The Chinese companies will have to use the same companies for most of the materials and equipment that are in Samsung and LG's supply chain. The same is true for their LCD fabs. The question is how long it will take the Chinese vendors to learn the techniques that will allow them to ramp yields and material efficiency. Thus far, manufacturing OLED's has been extremely difficult. One thing is for sure though, the Chinese government has made manufacturing OLED's a priority and they are throwing a huge amount of money at the effort.

You are right that UDC will license and sell phosphorescent materials to any and all OLED vendors.
UDC can get you in touch with those who sell production equipment like Kateeva or Merck/Epson for printing or Inficon for vapor deposition. I read somewhere also that UDC have quite a few patents associated with LG's WOLED.


UDC and Merck already built two chains of supply one for Samsung the other for LG that's why building another one for Chinese will be even cheaper and easier.

....

Last edited by stas3098; Today at 04:57 PM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #10663 of 10668 Old Today, 04:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 72
^ And clever hackers as well.
dsinger is offline  
post #10664 of 10668 Old Today, 05:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by stas3098 View Post
UDC can get you in touch with those who sell production equipment like Kateeva or Merck/Epson for printing or Inficon for vapor deposition. I read somewhere also that UDC have a quite few patents associated with LG's WOLED.

UDC and Merck already built two chains of supply one for Samsung the other for LG that's why building another one for Chinese will be even cheaper and easier.

"Can get you in touch"?

I am pretty sure that OLED vendors will contact Kateeva or Epson without going through UDC. It isnt like trying to get a fake driver's license where you need to know somebody. It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers. This will take a while though. We need to see more vendors actually shipping commercial displays.

With respect to the patents, LG owns the WOLED architecture patents but I would wager that quite a bit of UDC's work on lighting has applicability to the underlying material stack for LGD. It goes beyond their patents on phosphorescent materials.

Last edited by slacker711; Today at 06:28 AM.
slacker711 is offline  
post #10665 of 10668 Old Today, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Even if people can tell the difference in the showroom, they'll notice the price difference a lot more.

Again, there is no mass market for quality.

What we've seen, especially in the last 10 years, is that consumers will choose price and convenience over quality every time.

So people have widely settled for lossy audio, lower bit rate video streaming and phone camera photos.


The only reason LG must be pursuing OLED is that they fear the race to the bottom with the Chinese if they stay with LCD.
LG is reported to have stated that is their main reason for focusing on bringing OLED TVs to market.



“LCD has no future. The Chinese can make even ultra high-definition TVs at lower costs,” says Oh Chang-ho, senior vice-president of LG’s OLED TV development division. “We cannot win this price war. For survival, we have to make products that they cannot make.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/068b8d02-0...#axzz3B1sMtVoe
greenland is offline  
post #10666 of 10668 Old Today, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,093
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
"Can get you in touch"?
It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers.
I think it's better for LG/Samsung than you do. Historically, the manufacturing ramp up of new technologies has only come when the supply chain has been commoditized. The early moves still have an advantage in process optimization, brand, et al. But without supply-chain commoditization, they can't drive costs down to get past early adopters. This is a case where enabling competition is actually good for the competitors.

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 #10667 of 10668 Old Today, 01:16 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
"Can get you in touch"?

I am pretty sure that OLED vendors will contact Kateeva or Epson without going through UDC. It isnt like trying to get a fake driver's license where you need to know somebody. It isnt great for Samsung/LG but commoditizing the supply chain for both materials and equipment is great for consumers. This will take a while though. We need to see more vendors actually shipping commercial displays.

With respect to the patents, LG owns the WOLED architecture patents but I would wager that quite a bit of UDC's work on lighting has applicability to the underlying material stack for LGD. It goes beyond their patents on phosphorescent materials.
I read somewhere that UDC got OLED to last for over 60,000 hours at 1000 candela meaning OLED might be already ready for lighting which might prompt Merck (Merck are the ones who have a couple of billions to go around) to take a leap of faith and try to commercialize OLED for lighting (through UDC, LG, Epson, Philips and very likely they will want to include a few Chinese companies down the road http://www.oled-info.com/tags/companies/merck) which will bring materials costs down rapidly. And seeing how Merck already got into solution processing for printing and cut deals with Epson and LG I can image that OLED lighting might take off soon enough.


In my mind when OLED lighting takes off OLED TV takes right off shortly thereafter owing to the costs of materials falling significantly and rapidly.


I don't think LG can ever on their own bring OLED prices down below the LCD levels ( for as everybody here astutely noticed OLED can displace LCD only if OLED costs less than LCD) and all seems to indicate that printed OLEDs may cost dirt-cheap.


P.S there's still no official word on mass OLED lighting commercialization from Merck only radio silence...

....

Last edited by stas3098; Today at 05:06 PM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #10668 of 10668 Old Today, 06:45 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
I think it's better for LG/Samsung than you do. Historically, the manufacturing ramp up of new technologies has only come when the supply chain has been commoditized. The early moves still have an advantage in process optimization, brand, et al. But without supply-chain commoditization, they can't drive costs down to get past early adopters. This is a case where enabling competition is actually good for the competitors.

I totally agree. The more manufacturers are buying materials and equipment the cheaper M&E gets for everyone meaning, for example, that the next ramp up from one mil to 10 might be cheaper for LGD than it is now if Samsung and JOLED ramp their production up first and vice versa or it can be multiple times cheaper if Merck and co. start making tens of millions of OLED lighting fixtures. Plus materials account for about 60 percent of the total cost of an OLED TV and if materials' costs get halved TVs prices will have fallen by at least 30 percent.


It's economies of scale e.g. the more you make the cheaper you can make it.

Here's a fly in the ointment, though: http://www.cnet.com/news/oled-tv-gro...than-expected/


Maybe the difficulty of producing OLED materials is the reason why Merck and UDC don't seem too keen to take a headlong leap into OLED lighting or even to build OLED manufacturing facilities unless there are sure-fire orders for OLED materials placed for years ahead and if that is so than OLED TV might be, just, might be even doomed. I clearly remember Merck saying that they see no future in vapor-deposited OLED TVs. And the irony is that the only reason why there's no OLED printing is because there's basically no materials for OLED printers...

....

Last edited by stas3098; Today at 07:19 PM.
stas3098 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