OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 92 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 75Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2731 of 10518 Old 10-07-2011, 04:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 608
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Samsung's strong results help alleviate at least some of the worry that the global economy could impact the timing of a possible pilot Gen 8 fab. Hopefully, an analyst asks about their plans during the Q3 conference call.


Slacker
slacker711 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2732 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 47
wow this thread has died since the mods chased rogo off this forum.

I guesss we will just have to wait until 2015 to see if we get 55" oled displays

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #2733 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hughh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington TX
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

wow this thread has died since the mods chased rogo off this forum.

I guesss we will just have to wait until 2015 to see if we get 55" oled displays

What? They chased Rogo??? For what and for how long?

Hate to see the guy go. He's always with great information for us "dumb" members. Always looked forward to his posts...
hughh is offline  
post #2734 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dsinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 57
^Totally agree. Mod with severe case of rectocranial impaction.
dsinger is online now  
post #2735 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 06:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

What? They chased Rogo??? For what and for how long?

Hate to see the guy go. He's always with great information for us "dumb" members. Always looked forward to his posts...

It wasn't a ban. It was me being pissed off at having 10+ hours of posts wiped out without a warning, a PM, a chance to move them, whatever. I was pissed, I am pissed, and so I pretty much don't post on AVS anymore.

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 #2736 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hughh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arlington TX
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It wasn't a ban. It was me being pissed off at having 10+ hours of posts wiped out without a warning, a PM, a chance to move them, whatever. I was pissed, I am pissed, and so I pretty much don't post on AVS anymore.

Screw the guys, Rogo! Keep checking out all the other posts and helping us all!
hughh is offline  
post #2737 of 10518 Old 10-13-2011, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 227
^^^^ agreed! I've always learned a lot from his posts even when I wasn't sure what he was talking about Stay with us.
Otto Pylot is offline  
post #2738 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 10:09 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunidrem View Post

I understand that Sony is only putting out very small volumes of their OLED TVs, but I still find it odd that there is nothing about what fab they're using. For all the talk about Samsung's fabs, and all the talk about LG's grandiose talk about future fabs, Sony somehow seems to escape general notice.

In essence, above is a plea for minimal education. I'm sure that there's a bunch of stuff I'm missing in OLED, but this is a kind of big thing to be missing.

Would this be because Sony is using inferior power-hungry fluorescent OLED and not PHOLED? At least I think they are, except on the PS Vita.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2739 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"A further advantage is that - unlike LCDs - OLEDs don't require a backlight."

True!

"This means they're more energy efficient"

Does not automatically follow. Why does crap like this continue to be written? The energy consumption on modern LCDs is ridiculously tiny (check the Energy Guide sticker on the 70" Sharp). Can OLED do better? Perhaps. Are the Samsung Galaxy S phones obliterating their completition's battery life? No.

Only because the Samsung OLED screens are currently using green and blue fluorescent OLED material and only one PHOLED one (red). Green is beginning to be used now and will increase the power efficiency significantly.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605

pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2740 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 12:04 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@Slacker, it matters but not enough. On a 55" TV, the power consumption of an LCD TV is fairly negligible already.

Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2741 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 12:31 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Consoles are going away, GPUs are dead? Gaming is a pretty big market that isn't just going to disappear.

Indeed. Gaming has surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2742 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Indeed. Gaming has surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue.

really? please provide references. i would think that revenues from movies and tv shows far surpass the revenues from the gaming industry.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #2743 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 01:45 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.

For argument's sake, let's assume you have a plasma that consumes 300 watts calibrated and an LED LCD that consumes 100 watts calibrated (these numbers came from CNET and were the average measured power consumption for each technology). The national average cost of electricity in 2011 has been $0.11/kwh, and the average person watches about 4 hours of TV/day (let's say 6 to be conservative, although I think that is extreme).

This means someone our plasma owner would spend 300*6/1000*30*0.11 = $5.94 on electricity per month to watch TV, whereas our LCD owner would spend 100*6/1000*30*0.11 = $1.98/month. In other words, the plasma owner will spend $3.96 more/month or $47.52 more/year than the LCD owner on electricity. From a cost standpoint, we're talking small potatoes.

Of course, if you're looking to save energy, sure an LED LCD will be more efficient, but I'm not sure how much savings that would generate as compared to other items in the house.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #2744 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

One of the reasons as a home-theater aficionado I'm so unexcited about what's going on right now is I expect that even these 55" OLEDs will be incrementally better but astronomically more expensive. And yet there is no path to get them up into the 65-70 range. There's a reason Samsung is so terrible at making 65" LCDs using 8G glass. And I don't believe there is a market for premium 55" displays or -- more specifically -- not much of one. The 60" displays are getting cheap and yet there are premium options that are in the $5K range. This whole thing feels like a fiasco in the making to be completely honest.

I don't get your point - on the one hand you say OLED can't command a price premium but then you go on to make reference to fact that there are premium HDTVs with current antiquated technologies that sell for 5K (which is likely where OLED sets will be a year or two after initial rampup).
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2745 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 03:19 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Spec posted a rumor from a brokerage. Nothing more, nothing less. I add it as a data point to everything else that has been posted and have zero certainty that it will actually happen. OTOH, it does add to the weight of the evidence that LG and Samsung believe that they are making progress on large screen OLED's and are likely to announce capex for their 8G fabs in the near future.

Samsung already announced US $4.8 billion capex for their 8G plant something like February this year, didn't they?

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...to-fall-in--11

Quote:


This week, Samsung tipped its capital spending plans. As reported, Samsung provided its capex forecasts for 2011, including 10.3 trillion won ($9.2 billion) for the semiconductors, 5.4 trillion won ($4.8 billion) for LCDs, and 5.4 trillion won for OLEDs.

Quote:


LCD spending is down. ''Samsung's calendar 2010 spending in LCD of 4 trillion won fell below management's prior guide of 5 trillion won ($4.4 billion). However, having secured approval for their China LCD fab, management's outlook for 5.4 trillion won capex in calendar 2011 exceeded our expectations of 3.8 trillion won ($3.4 billion), highlighting the importance of the China market for the top tier panel makers,'' he said. ''We anticipate the majority of 2011 spending to flow to the China fab, with perhaps a third of the budget targeting Gen 8-2 fab expansion.''

pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2746 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

The funny part is the number of "absurd assumptions" that you need to make to get to your claim that AMOLED's will NEVER be cheaper to produce. You absolutely know that all of that R&D that is going into ink-jet printing will never ever work out. That must reflect a fairly impressive grasp of the technology and the various roadblocks in getting to market.

and before you post otherwise, I am not claiming that I know that it will....simply that it is an open question and that any certainty on either side is ridiculous.

Agreed - in fact, have a look at this news from two days ago:

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...eds-39665.aspx

Quote:


US research group creates scalable printing process for OLEDs

US researchers led by OLED expert Stephen Forrest, vice president for research at the University of Michigan's materials science and engineering department, have developed a printing process for depositing OLED materials.

Stephen Forrest was also a founder of Universal Display.

The Organic Vapour Jet Deposition process could simplify the manufacturing of OLEDs for displays and lighting, which could also reduce costs.

Forrest presented the research at the Plastic Electronics 2011 event taking place today in Dresden, Germany.

The scalable process could pattern a 60-inch OLED television display in 25 seconds, according to Forrest.

The quality of the patterned display is also better than needed for current applications, he adds.

Resolution

Forrest remarked in his presentation: 'The ultra-high resolution is far more than is needed. It can do 1-1.5µ patterning for a display, even micro display requirements.'

The research team is speaking to a number of companies and working on commercialising the device, Forrest explained.

Organic Vapour Jet Deposition print heads consist of a nozzle plate that receives the red, green and blue materials through gas flow vents. The 200µ x 20µ nozzle array then deposits the materials on a substrate, which can be passed in front of it in a roll-to-roll process.

Forrest says of its scalability: 'Arrays of 3,000 nozzles would be feasible.

'We know the basic fluid dynamics and we know how far it can go. It's more a matter of moving the substrate quickly.'

Forrest's presentation was part of the opening plenary session at the Plastic Electronics 2011 show, which runs from 11-13 October 2011.

Wasn't rogo just saying that roll-to-roll wasn't happening anywhere? Why yes he did:

Quote:


The funny part is that they are not absurd. First of all, "ink-jet printing" is not being used to make AMOLEDs. The fantasy of giant rolls of substrate being run off like so many Xeroxes is not happening anywhere.

By that I assume he didn't just mean in production fabs, but anywhere. So he's wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You are presuming -- wrongly -- that there is some set of generally observable differences that are coming down the pike from this theoretical OLED TV that you cannot buy. And let's just pretend that the math you listed above matters. Whatever observable difference existed when the move occurred from 3k:1 to 30k:1 contrast was probably noticeable to some people. Now, how many are going to notice the move from 30k:1 to 300k:1? 1/10th as many? 1/100th as many? 1/1000th as many? This is why the remaining improvements are slight.

Even if I agreed with you, you must certainly appreciate that LCD's time has passed, with its horrible backlighting issues, slow pixel response and slow refresh rate. OLED is the heir apparent and no manufacturer will be investing any more in LCD (we've already seen drops in LCD investment this year). The HDTVs of the future will be OLED, whether that's because consumers see them and love them (likely a part of it) or whether manufactirers acknowledge the benefits of the newer technology and gradually move that way (and in the end see prices of production drop as OLEDs inherent simpler structures pay off).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Seriously, I want to respond to your post with "blah blah blah blah blah". As a courtesy, I won't. You are like the guy who argues his AMG Mercedes is "clearly superior" because it goes from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds while the other guy can only do it in 5.0 seconds. So what? The other guy generally doesn't give a rat's rear end.

This is like splitting hairs of hairs that have already been split.

You are presuming -- wrongly -- that there is some set of generally observable differences that are coming down the pike from this theoretical OLED TV that you cannot buy. And let's just pretend that the math you listed above matters. Whatever observable difference existed when the move occurred from 3k:1 to 30k:1 contrast was probably noticeable to some people. Now, how many are going to notice the move from 30k:1 to 300k:1? 1/10th as many? 1/100th as many? 1/1000th as many? This is why the remaining improvements are slight.

It's the proverbial tree in the proverbial forest without the actual camcorder to confirm there was indeed a tree falling. Stuff normal people can't detect may as well not be happening. At least when you buy your AMG Mercedes, people are impressed. And you get psychic benefit out of it every time you slide inside and turn it on. Will that apply to OLED TVs? Maybe. But unfortunately, the panel fabrication business does not work the way niche automobiles do. Well, it kind of does. You can make relatively small numbers of "superior" cars / displays but only at much higher prices.

And OLED as currently conceived cannot cross the chasm to mass market for the multitude of reasons I've already explained. I get you are not choosing to understand the cycle of production --> pricing --> sales --> production --> pricing --> sales. I no longer care. (You should be happy I chose ignoramus; my original word selection was, um...) It is certainly possible that someone like Samsung will change the equation and I, in fact, have never said otherwise. As home-theater aficionados, we really should stop caring at this point. If the best display ever was comparably priced and 55 inches diagonal, I would not care, nor would anyone who has a decent sized room and really wants to enjoy movies and sports in said room.

I find it amusing that the multitude of trolling at AVS loves to have it both ways: First, everyone is going to buy a 70-80 inch TV. Then, everyone is going to accept a 55-inch TV because they will all have such discerning vision they'll see the superiority of these 55-inch TVs over everything else ever made. So where are the enthusiasts going exactly? Big? Small but "better? You can't have your early adopter pool out doing everything you want it to do. It just doesn't work that way. And quite frankly, every one of them that buys a Sharp 70 or 80 or even a Panasonic 65 has almost zero chance of buying a 55-inch anything -- especially one that costs more money. That's reality. Drink a cup.

(Since the NBA reference was lost there, the Galaxy S II phones are huge and getting bigger still with 4.5" screens and even a ridiculous 5.3" screen in the Galaxy Note. NBA players tend to be large men with huge hands. Ask your wife or girlfriend to hold a Galaxy S II sometime -- well, ask someone with a wife or girlfriend -- as it's kind of amusing.)

What will you be saying when you have a projector screen that you can roll up or down for use, but it's not a projector, but rather an OLED display? No daylight issues, takes up zero space, and has all the benefits of OLED including contrast/speed/etc? Something no other tech can even consider doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Xrox, I personally fail to see how anything OLED could even theoretically do would rise to the level of what plasma and LCD did to CRT. TVs used to be:

1) Effectively limited to 27"-31" unless you went with projection, which was really room dominating and gigantic.
2) Standard definition and interlaced
3) Almost 2 feet thick and often 150 lbs.

To me, it's ridiculous to compare a somewhat better flat panel's impact to the impact that plasma and LCD had. And what OLED is -- on its best possible day -- is a somewhat better flat panel. It's not just a matter of perceived technological leaps here. I mean it really won't be "flatter" and the importance of moving from 1.5" thick sets to 0.5" thick sets is pretty meaningless. It won't be ushering in the HD era either.

You're completely overlooking the things OLED can do that other displays can't - like be literally as thin as a sheet of paper. Or be made flexible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It is my opinion that flat panel:standard def CRT is more like Maybach:horse than Maybach:Camry. And further, you'd have to set up an entirely fake comparison to get OLED to even by Maybach:Camry. And than even if you set up that fake comparison (it's fake because you have to disregard every dimension of picture quality where the LCD is really very good and only focus on the ones where the OLED is demonstrably better so it looks like the score is OLED 5, LCD 0, when the real score is more like 10 ties, 3 very small wins, 2 larger wins), the reality is Maybach:Camry is what I suggested above -- not the rout it first appears to be.

Not sure what a "Maybach" is, but it only costs 2-3 times what a Camry costs? Because that's where OLED will be selling (LCDs 1500-5000 and OLEDs 5000-15000), right?

Quote:


And, again, I've never suggested otherwise. People seem to wish to read otherwise, but the text is actually there and that's not in fact what it says at all. It suggests it will be very difficult to sell many millions at premium prices based on some small superiority. And absent selling many millions it will be impossible to drive the price down. And absent driving the price down, it will be impossible to sell many millions. And we are back to square one.

If that argument was anywhere near valid don't you think it would have stopped all the various HDTV display types we've seen (DLP, plasma, LCD, etc)? Because, according to that logic none of those displays were "enough better" that anyone would pay a premium for, so how did they ever get past the loop you describe above? But in fact they DID get past it and did the same way OLED will; by being better enough that some people will be willing to pay the premium to have it and eventually drive the costs down.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2747 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 05:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.

Seriously, what?

The current Energy Star maximum is 108 watts. You pick a chart with TVs as old as 3 years old to try to make a point... Against TVs that you won't be able to buy till next year?

My valid point was that LC TVs are not going to be meaningfully eclipsed by OLED TVs. And since Sharp can get 70" TVs into the 108-watt Energy Star budget, I imagine that 55" TVs will comfortably be running around 80 watts by the time you are buying your OLED TVs. If you believe the OLED is going to make more than a negligible difference vs. LCD, you are wrong.

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 #2748 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 05:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

I don't get your point - on the one hand you say OLED can't command a price premium but then you go on to make reference to fact that there are premium HDTVs with current antiquated technologies that sell for 5K (which is likely where OLED sets will be a year or two after initial rampup).

Uh huh, I don't get your point. It's 2011. The only TVs that sell for $5K are hardly "antiquated". They use local dimming LCD technology that has basically just now become readily available. They are out now.

In 3 years -- when you are talking about these OLED being $5K (they ship 1-2 years from now in your theory, they become $5K 1-2 years after that) -- the current premium TVs' technology is available for under $3000. So basically, this amazing picture quality that today people will pay some premium for in small numbers vs. a $3000 TV is then itself $3000. While the $3000 TV moves to $1500. The room left for $5000 TVs? Not much -- if any.

There used to be room for $10,000 TVs. There isn't anymore. It's a moving target. Never stops moving waiting for something that isn't out to get there. The OLED needs to hit $3000 to have a chance to go mainstream, $5000 isn't relevant.

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 #2749 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 06:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post


Wasn't rogo just saying that roll-to-roll wasn't happening anywhere? Why yes he did:

I meant production, not some fantasy demo. There have been dozens of fantasy demos... And the number of OLED production facilities on earth using them? None. The number of them planning to use this technique? None.
Quote:


By that I assume he didn't just mean in production fabs, but anywhere. So he's wrong.

You know what that say about assuming.
Quote:


Even if I agreed with you, you must certainly appreciate that LCD's time has passed, with its horrible backlighting issues, slow pixel response and slow refresh rate. OLED is the heir apparent and no manufacturer will be investing any more in LCD (we've already seen drops in LCD investment this year). The HDTVs of the future will be OLED, whether that's because consumers see them and love them (likely a part of it) or whether manufactirers acknowledge the benefits of the newer technology and gradually move that way (and in the end see prices of production drop as OLEDs inherent simpler structures pay off).

I acknowledge your opinions on this. They are largely irrelevant and the vast majority of smartphones, tablets, laptops and TVs will be LCD certainly at mid decade and quite possibly at decade's end. Certainly, we can conclude that LCD:OLED ratios for TVs will be a minimum of 10:1 in 2015 and probably much higher.
Quote:


What will you be saying when you have a projector screen that you can roll up or down for use, but it's not a projector, but rather an OLED display? No daylight issues, takes up zero space, and has all the benefits of OLED including contrast/speed/etc? Something no other tech can even consider doing.

I will tell you that such a screen has absolutely no chance of reaching the market this decade and that no one is even considering building such a thing. It's a fantasy. Rollable, retractable OLEDs are very much like the flying car: You'll see the demos for a long time, you'll see the viable products... maybe someday. I mean it's nice that you believe the hype, but the reality is that such a product is absolutely nowhere near reality there is no such thing as a screen that can be repeatedly rolled and unrolled, it's not actually clear there is any demand for such a product at the price it would cost to deliver it even if it could be manufactured, there are scores of issues before manufacturing it is even remotely realistic, and the odds are even a decade from now, it won't be realistic or available.

You want to talk to me about OLED tiles that that can be joined together with rear-mounted connectors to form an arbitrarily large display with almost no visible seams? Fine. You want to talk about a single display from an 8G fab within 5-8 years? OK, fine. You want to talk fantasy? I'm sure there are plenty of Lord of the Rings forums for that.

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 #2750 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 10:08 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

really? please provide references. i would think that revenues from movies and tv shows far surpass the revenues from the gaming industry.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/1...Than-Hollywood

Quote:


The $10 billion video game industry, which generates more revenue than Hollywood, has never released so many highly anticipated blockbuster titles in a single season.

pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2751 of 10518 Old 10-14-2011, 10:17 PM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Uh huh, I don't get your point. It's 2011. The only TVs that sell for $5K are hardly "antiquated". They use local dimming LCD technology that has basically just now become readily available. They are out now.

In 3 years -- when you are talking about these OLED being $5K (they ship 1-2 years from now in your theory, they become $5K 1-2 years after that) -- the current premium TVs' technology is available for under $3000. So basically, this amazing picture quality that today people will pay some premium for in small numbers vs. a $3000 TV is then itself $3000. While the $3000 TV moves to $1500. The room left for $5000 TVs? Not much -- if any.

There used to be room for $10,000 TVs. There isn't anymore. It's a moving target. Never stops moving waiting for something that isn't out to get there. The OLED needs to hit $3000 to have a chance to go mainstream, $5000 isn't relevant.

They're antiquated in that they're LCDs.

I think the failing on your side of the debate is that you guys are trying to compare OLED using only the form factor LCDs and plasmas can function in, when OLED can and will be much more than that. Try Googling for "Samsung skin" for an idea of what I'm referring to. There are applications that people haven't even come up with yet and all you can imagine about OLED to measure its value is as a square box that sits in your living room.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2752 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 12:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Not sure what a "Maybach" is, but it only costs 2-3 times what a Camry costs? Because that's where OLED will be selling (LCDs 1500-5000 and OLEDs 5000-15000), right?

Not sure how the cost ratio applies. Actually, I'm sure the cost ratio doesn't apply! A Maybach is about 10x the cost of a Camry more or less, but it doesn't matter. Because the ratio is irrelevant. There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal autos (and by the way, I'm not judging them negatively, more power to them). There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal TVs. The difference is, production economics support the former, not the latter.

Quote:


If that argument was anywhere near valid don't you think it would have stopped all the various HDTV display types we've seen (DLP, plasma, LCD, etc)? Because, according to that logic none of those displays were "enough better" that anyone would pay a premium for, so how did they ever get past the loop you describe above? But in fact they DID get past it and did the same way OLED will; by being better enough that some people will be willing to pay the premium to have it and eventually drive the costs down.

Again, I've explained this probably 1000 times. When there was no flat panel, flat panels were pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When you had a 31" CRT, a large screen was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When people had SD, HD was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. Guess what? Everyone who wants a flat panel has one. Everyone who wants HD has it. Everyone who wants a large screen has one.

The economics necessary to support a new entrant don't exist anymore. You can't sell $10,000 plasmas anymore. You can't sell $10,000 DLP RPTVs. You can't sell a 40-inch LCD for $8000 (yep, it launched for about that much in 2002). When everything came before, there was an awful lot of greenfield out there to build on. There just isn't anymore.

To build a new market now, you have to quite literally obliterate an existing market. TV sales are not meaningfully growing at all. In fact, TV sales in the upper end are probably going to shrink for most of the 2010s (emerging market sales will grow, but it's unlikely that first-world sales will even remain level in terms of total units sold as the decade progresses).

You, like many here, fundamentally underestimate how difficult it's going to be to maintain the existing market for televisions, let alone introduce an entirely new technology, bring it to scale, drive it down the cost curve, and turn a profit doing so. All this while the first world sits in the longest economic downturn since the 1930s and the performance of existing television technology is so freaking good that professional experts selected a sub $2000 59" Samsung plasma as the best choice on the market in a recent "shootout" of the year's top TVs.

Somehow you think that flexible OLEDs with some hypothetical applications relate to whether or not we'll have OLED TVs. They don't. And all due respect, nonsense like "Samsung skin" has been hyped and touted for a decade. None of it has come to market or even been announced as a product. Roll-to-roll OLED manufacturing, ink-jet printing, flexible substrates, etc. They all date to a time when the Twin Towers cast a shadow over Lower Manhattan. None exist.

There are lots and lots of technologies like this: Things that could be but are not. Holographic storage comes to mind. It's been "just around the corner" since when I plugged in my first hard drive. No viable holographic storage technology has ever come to market and it's unlikely any ever will.

Mankind imagines a lot of things. Mankind produces a few of them. Every generation some of those stick for a combination of reasons. Generally they are not the very best technologies on the market, but for whatever the combination of reasons, they are the ones that stick. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (about 30% efficient). The tungsten-filament incandescent light bulb (about 90% of the power goes to heat). VHS (LOL). MP3 (LOLOL). TFT-LCD (mediocre viewing angles, etc. etc.)

If someone can solve the problem of producing a 55" OLED for $3000 when a high-end 55" LCD is still $2500, then great, there exists a chance. If the high-end LCD is $1500, however, the high-end OLED will probably have to be closer to $2000. If the premium is much more than $500, the volumes will never happen. If the volumes never happen, then the experiment is a footnote and that's it. Period.

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 #2753 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 05:56 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

For argument's sake, let's assume you have a plasma that consumes 300 watts calibrated and an LED LCD that consumes 100 watts calibrated (these numbers came from CNET and were the average measured power consumption for each technology). The national average cost of electricity in 2011 has been $0.11/kwh, and the average person watches about 4 hours of TV/day (let's say 6 to be conservative, although I think that is extreme).

This means someone our plasma owner would spend 300*6/1000*30*0.11 = $5.94 on electricity per month to watch TV, whereas our LCD owner would spend 100*6/1000*30*0.11 = $1.98/month. In other words, the plasma owner will spend $3.96 more/month or $47.52 more/year than the LCD owner on electricity. From a cost standpoint, we're talking small potatoes.

Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7

Quote:


OLED is one of several emerging lighting technologies that could significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon emission. According to Moser Baer and Universal, OLED lighting could account for $20 billion in global energy savings by 2016 and the reduction of 9 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the US alone.

pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2754 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 06:02 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I meant production, not some fantasy demo. There have been dozens of fantasy demos... And the number of OLED production facilities on earth using them? None. The number of them planning to use this technique? None.

Are you really going to suggest you knew about what I posted before it even happened? It's break-through in an area you basically said was fantasy and something OLED fans shouldn't even be hoping for. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

All the hype from Epson, Kodak, duPont, yada yada about roll-to-roll printable OLEDs with flexible backing... Dates back to the Y2K era. And ... yet... nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

The economics necessary to support a new entrant don't exist anymore. You can't sell $10,000 plasmas anymore. You can't sell $10,000 DLP RPTVs. You can't sell a 40-inch LCD for $8000 (yep, it launched for about that much in 2002). When everything came before, there was an awful lot of greenfield out there to build on. There just isn't anymore.

That assumes the OLED will come out adding nothing new to the equation but perfect image quality (which I think even you will agree is better than any tech prior to it). What if the new OLED sets are flexible and roll up into your ceiling when not in use? Or are paper thin and can be literally stuck to a wall? Those won't command a premium?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Somehow you think that flexible OLEDs with some hypothetical applications relate to whether or not we'll have OLED TVs. They don't. And all due respect, nonsense like "Samsung skin" has been hyped and touted for a decade. None of it has come to market or even been announced as a product.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you... the Luddites never win in the end.

http://www.phonegadgetnews.com/samsu...n-in-2012.html

Quote:


Samsung Will Launch Galaxy Skin In 2012

This futuristic screens are made using Graphene material, which will allow the screen folded, even shock-resistant and relatively hard impact. For thickness, the Galaxy Skin will be similar to the Galaxy S II, but the screen will be longer if not folded. According to rumors, the Galaxy Skin will operate on Jelly Bean, the successor Ice Cream Sandwich.

For specifications, there has been no official statement but it is expected have a 1.2 Ghz processor, 1GB RAM, 16GB/32GB of storage, 8MP camera, 1500 mAh battery capacity, and screen resolution of 800×480 Flexible AMOLED.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/u...id-2011-video/

Quote:


UDC shows off serpentine OLED lamp concept at SID 2011 (video)

We've seen flexible OLEDs and OLED lighting solutions before, but none of them conjured our sweaty club-hopping fantasies quite like this concept from Universal Display Corporation (UDC). The flexible OLED makers weren't particularly forthcoming on the specs for this color-changing apparatus, but we can tell you that it uncoils and recoils with the help of a motion sensor, and requires very little energy to power -- note that tiny wire supplying 100 percent of the required juice.

(cool video of the device at the link above also)
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2755 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 06:06 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Again, I've explained this probably 1000 times. When there was no flat panel, flat panels were pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When you had a 31" CRT, a large screen was pretty much the most compelling thing ever.

Right - so, according to your logic, once the first HD sets were out any HD set of a different technology that came out after them would have faced the Catch 22 you described and not overcome it, and thus wouldn't have "made it". And the positive differences between OLED and what's out now are massive (IMO) compared to the differences of LCD, plasma, DLP (as differentials to what was out at the time) when they came out.

I know you were just exaggerating for effect, but we actually have a GOOD technology for displays (OLED) that fixes all the things that were wrong about the preceding ones and all you can do is pooh-pooh it as if it doesn't matter when it actually does matter.
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #2756 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
navychop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 2,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"Breakthroughs" are announced all the time. Few actually are, or ever make it to market. How many medical "breakthroughs" have you heard of in your lifetime? How many miracle drugs?

Been around too long not to get a bit jaded. I was hoping to put OLED lighting in my kitchen renovation. Putting up LED instead. I certainly hope some of the hype for OLED comes true. I still hope that one day they really will be produced cheaply. But when my almost 7 year old 61" JVC LCoS RPTV goes, I doubt I'll be able to buy OLED.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #2757 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 08:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7

Stop. Just stop. There aren't a billion plasma TVs. There isn't OLED white lighting. Regular LED lighting is coming along just fine and has already taken a decade to get this far. By the time your mythic OLED lighting exists, most of the world's lighting will be LED. End of game.

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 #2758 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 08:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Right - so, according to your logic, once the first HD sets were out any HD set of a different technology that came out after them would have faced the Catch 22 you described and not overcome it, and thus wouldn't have "made it". And the positive differences between OLED and what's out now are massive (IMO) compared to the differences of LCD, plasma, DLP (as differentials to what was out at the time) when they came out.

I know you were just exaggerating for effect, but we actually have a GOOD technology for displays (OLED) that fixes all the things that were wrong about the preceding ones and all you can do is pooh-pooh it as if it doesn't matter when it actually does matter.

No, I am not exaggerating for effect. At all.

The first generation of HD displays replaced small, bulky, SD sets. The next generation of HD displays was a bit bigger, a bit better. The next generation was a bit bigger, a bit better. Now, bigness is kind of ending in the mainstream (although growing on the "tail) and better is kind of "done" for 95% of people.

Only in Fantasyland is some OLED going to be perceived as much better by a lot of people. Perception is reality. Virtually no one is going to perceive these OLED TVs as better the same way virtually no one sees the value in the Elite LCD. The only reason the Elite LCD is viable is that it comes off the same fab as a TV costing <50% as much. It can sell in tiny volumes. No chance the OLED can both exist and sell in tiny volumes. When you understand that, you'll understand the problem. When you understand the problem, you might understand why solving it is not a given.

If you believe that more than ~5% of the market will pay a 25%+ premium for this "better" display, you are simply wrong.

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 #2759 of 10518 Old 10-15-2011, 08:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Are you really going to suggest you knew about what I posted before it even happened? It's break-through in an area you basically said was fantasy and something OLED fans shouldn't even be hoping for. You said:

You lost me.

Quote:


That assumes the OLED will come out adding nothing new to the equation but perfect image quality (which I think even you will agree is better than any tech prior to it). What if the new OLED sets are flexible and roll up into your ceiling when not in use? Or are paper thin and can be literally stuck to a wall? Those won't command a premium?

100% chance that OLED TVs will not be flexible and will not roll up. In 2020, maybe this changes, but we're not talking about 2020. We're talking about 2012-14 Samsungs and LGs. 0% chance those will be flexible or roll out. By 0% chance I mean not 0.00001%, but 0%.
Quote:


I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you... the Luddites never win in the end.

OK, I admit I had no idea what a Samsung skin was, but there is no chance at all Samsung is shipping a phone with a folding screen in 2012. And quite frankly, why would they? It has no utility whatsoever. Some idiotic form factor screen? Yay? And it folds? Why? This is an idea without purpose.

I don't think you know what Luddite means by the way. I'm most definitely not opposed to technological advancement and its impact on labor. I just don't eat up every phony blog post like you do.

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 #2760 of 10518 Old 10-16-2011, 08:47 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Stop. Just stop. There aren't a billion plasma TVs. There isn't OLED white lighting. Regular LED lighting is coming along just fine and has already taken a decade to get this far. By the time your mythic OLED lighting exists, most of the world's lighting will be LED. End of game.

I didn't say a billion plasmas.

LED lighting is nearly useless since its a point source only (not planar). It also uses toxic metals, which OLED does not.

OLED white lighting most certainly does exist; it's already for sale in the market, by multiple manufacturers. Here's one:

http://www.oled-info.com/files/Phili...Plus-flyer.pdf

And Universal Display just inked two long-term licensing and materials contracts with two of the biggest Japanese manufacturers, Pioneer and Panasonic, both for OLED white lighting.
pdoherty972 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