OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 103 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 195Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3061 of 10953 Old 12-06-2011, 02:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Somebody used the word Foldable, and then everybody is on the "Foldable wagon". I am on the "roll up wagon".
The Samsung concept of future transparent screens was meant a little humoristic from Samsung, for those that didn't get that.

I want a 100" Incjet printed OLED screen in the future (if I live that long ), minimum a 300PPI screen.
How do I get it into my house.
It will come rolled up in a protective tube, unrolled and hung on the wall, just like any other projector screen today. And of course it will not be transparent.

But does flexible and/or transparent screens have any use in the future?
Futuristic conceptual designer think so.

Bring it on, I'm ready!





coolscan is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3062 of 10953 Old 12-06-2011, 11:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Again, while I'm sure you really do want a rollable screen, I'm equally sure most people don't. Either it's going to stay open all the time, in which case it's pointless, or it's going to have to unroll and re-roll all the time, which is going to greatly increase the amount of time from when you press "on" to when you are watching TV.

It's worth noting that "rollable" electronics are significantly less complex than foldable ones, but still significantly more complex than anything that exists today. The stresses of repeatedly rolling and unrolling the wiring / electrodes would be extraordinary, nevermind that the technology to mass produce this doesn't exist. Perhaps someday.

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 #3063 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 03:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Have you ever seen those 100" Plasmas being moved around? It is not a trivial job. For one thing, they won't fit through doorways.
If you live in a flat? http://www.techdigest.tv/2007/07/how_do_you_get.html
As screens get ever thinner, something that size is even more difficult to move around due to their fragility, if they are rigid glass.

Being able to roll up a screen that size and then tension the screen once it's in the room you want it would make things significantly easier.

A projector screen of that size is a relatively easy thing to have delivered and set up yourself, a rigid television that size is anything but.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3064 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 04:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Yes, I get all this. I mean, I don't want to be critical, but thanks for stating the obvious.

That doesn't change the fact that:

1) Most people don't care about having a 100" TV.
2) Most people that do will find a way to get it into their room.
3) Engineering a roll up screen to solve the problems associated with (2) is not something mankind does.

It'd be like shipping Ikea furniture pre-assembled because of the difficulty most people have with assembling it (high). Would this be nice? For most people yes. Is it doable technologically? Yes. Cost effective? No. Your roll-up TV is not doable technologically nor cost effective. And the problem it solves is one most people will never have. The problem with people in love with technology is they fail to grasp why most things that maybe could be real never become real: the costs don't justify the results. Civil aviation is not supersonic even though the technology to allow it is 40+ years old. Roll-up televisions are currently technologically impossible. Even if they someday aren't, is there going to be enough reason to ever make them? I'll tell you this. The ability to fit them through a doorway is never going to be part of that justification. Not when there are 100" TVs already on yachts (and there are).

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 #3065 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 05:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
All this rollable screen speculation is really interesting. I definitely think the physical size of large flat panels is a barrier for many. We already know these things matter, as it helped people turn away from large bulky CRTs (among many other reasons of course). If you're a homeowner and expect to live there the rest of your life, then the job of moving a large display once in and eventually once out isn't a big deal. If you're renting or expect to move sometime in the next five years, then you know that you're buying a giant headache with that giant plasma.

I don't think we even have to be talking about 100" displays. a 50" rollable OLED screen would be quite nice too. Smaller footprint when not in use. Motorize it and there's no hassle in turning it on or off. Put electronics and speakers in the case. With a few extra moving parts, I imagine they could engineer it to roll up rather than down, so you could just set the thing on a stand, making it all the more user friendly.

Cost is a concern as always, but considering this thing doesn't exist yet, I'm not going place any bets on retail prices 20 years down the line.
Airion is offline  
post #3066 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 06:58 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
I cannot help but think of the wives that have come thru my house for dinners or parties, and looked at my 61" HDTV, and said sarcastically "That TV big enough for you?" I suspect they were trying to preempt their husbands wanting one. I, not being particularly sociable, immediately stated on each occasion, that if I had known the 70" version was going out of production, I would have bought one of those. That shut their pie holes.

Fact is, industry sees the "sweet spot" of HDTVs settling in at around 40 some inches. The market for larger drops off pretty fast past 60", it seems. The market for large projection or any 80" plus size, will remain quite small. A profitable niche, perhaps, but still rather small. And most of the world has little use for large screen TVs, given their smaller abodes.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #3067 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 07:01 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
I will add, that smaller size roll ups don't make sense. If you're going to have an electronics cabinet anyway, you might as well just set the TV on top, or have a solid TV rise up from the cabinet while in use, like they do on some RVs.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #3068 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 09:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:


But on a normal mobile phone or tablet? I'm pulling and tugging and then having this non-rigid screen? When am I using that? To watch a movie? Am I paying 4x as much for my mobile phone to watch a movie on a somewhat bigger screen? I don't see this happening.

FWIW, I found an article talking about how Samsung is implementing the foldable OLED display. This isnt a non-rigid screen.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...le-crease.html

Doubling the screen area would be useful for just about anything you might do on your handset...movies, apps, web browsing, reading etc. As usual, cost is everything but I do think that this would find a market if they managed to commercialize it.

We actually agree about the "rollable" TV. It is a niche application that is a long long way away.

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #3069 of 10953 Old 12-07-2011, 10:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

FWIW, I found an article talking about how Samsung is implementing the foldable OLED display. This isnt a non-rigid screen.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...le-crease.html

Doubling the screen area would be useful for just about anything you might do on your handset...movies, apps, web browsing, reading etc. As usual, cost is everything but I do think that this would find a market if they managed to commercialize it.

We actually agree about the "rollable" TV. It is a niche application that is a long long way away.

Slacker, cool article and cool tech. The problem of non-rigidity remains very real, however. If the folding section lacks a rigid bezel, it can't be used as a touchscreen without a table or wall behind it -- virtually no one is using phones or tablets like that today for very good reasons.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful to have more screen real estate by the way. Quite the contrary. I'm saying it wouldn't be especially useful enough to justify the trouble and expense of having this unfurling going on all the time. Will there be a use for this? Yes. Will some application justify manufacturing it? I'm a lot less persuaded.

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 #3070 of 10953 Old 12-08-2011, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by navychop View Post

Fact is, industry sees the "sweet spot" of HDTVs settling in at around 40 some inches. The market for larger drops off pretty fast past 60", it seems. The market for large projection or any 80" plus size, will remain quite small. A profitable niche, perhaps, but still rather small. And most of the world has little use for large screen TVs, given their smaller abodes.

I think a lot of that probably has to do with cost, the hassle of moving a display that size, and how much of an eyesore a massive TV is in anything other than a dedicated "video room" or "home theatre room" which is not that common.

Assuming that costs are brought down, having a display that size which is transparent when off, boosts the "acceptance factor" considerably. Aside from a base with the other electronics in it, it only has an impact on the room when it's on.

In an open-plan space, I can envision things being set up in such a way that your TV area is nice and open when the display is off, but the display itself sections off the room when turned on and becomes (mostly?) opaque.


The same argument could be made for a massive rollable display that either rises from a motorised base, or drops down from the ceiling like a projection screenwithout the need for a large, hot and loud projector that needs constant maintenance and frequent bulb changes, or needing to have the room completely blacked out to get even a halfway good picture. (and even still, projected images are low contrast unless you have ideal conditions to avoid room reflections)

Or simply a rollable display that is fixed into a rigid frame once you get home with it. It would still have the impact on the room that any large display does (though it could be thinner) but it avoids potential stress on the display from constantly rolling/unrolling it and makes it far easier to deal with for anyone that rents or moves houses more frequently than they change displays. Even with smaller screens in the 40-50" range, there are people who simply sell the display along with the house because they don't want to go through the hassle of moving it. (this is typically wall-mounted)

Quote:
Originally Posted by navychop View Post

I will add, that smaller size roll ups don't make sense. If you're going to have an electronics cabinet anyway, you might as well just set the TV on top, or have a solid TV rise up from the cabinet while in use, like they do on some RVs.

That assumes you want an electronics cabinet. The only HT-related hardware in my room is the wall-mounted display. There is trunking buried in the walls and a 50ft HDMI cable going through it to a HTPC (now my only source) located in the corner of another room to keep the heat, noise and sight of it out of the way.

Even with a cabinet though, and assuming you can have a rollable display that is durable enough to last hundreds of thousands of activations, I can definitely see people wanting them in smaller sizes. It doesn't have to be about enabling large screen sizes, you can have a TV that simply rolls up into a stylish base that is unobtrusive when it's turned off, and makes it considerably easier to transport.

Specialised furniture that hides a TV is often as expensive as the display itself, and most of it is pretty oversized and ugly from what I've seen.

Why buy more furniture when you can just have a small bar that sits on top of whatever you've got in place of the TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

If the folding section lacks a rigid bezel, it can't be used as a touchscreen without a table or wall behind it -- virtually no one is using phones or tablets like that today for very good reasons.

Compared to everything else they would have to do to make a folding tablet, for example, it would be trivial for it to have a sprung locking mechanism that stops it from moving once it's fully opened.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3071 of 10953 Old 12-08-2011, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
It would be trivial to have a spring-loaded mechanism except that it would add weight and moving parts. I'd like you to go look at the current iPhone 4S and the current Galaxy S II phones and count the moving parts. I'd like you to ask yourself why there are so few of them.

As for this ridiculous idea of transparent displays when off that become opaque when on, the only way this could possibly work is to have an entire layer behind the illumination layer that can morph from transparent to opaque. This is so ridiculously Rube Goldberg to solve a problem that doesn't exist, never mind the cost. Knock yourself out dreaming about it; there's a reason even on Star Trek the portable displays had bezels and backplanes.

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 #3072 of 10953 Old 12-08-2011, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
I personally don't think that the folding displays or rollable displays are something that I would want, for those very reasons, but that's not to say that such a product couldn't conceivably exist, and that there aren't people out there that do want such a thing.


Off the top of my head, couldn't you have a transparent LCD panel bonded to a TOLED display to turn black? It wouldn't need any pixels at all, just a large single pixel LCD that turns black. (similar to how 3D glasses currently use a large "single pixel" LCD for example)

Of course you are lowering the contrast of the display and missing out on the "perfect" black level that OLED is theoretically capable of, but I'm sure there are a large number of people that would be willing to make that compromise.

That's without putting any thought into it whatsoever (as I'm sure you can tell) but if I can come up with a solution like that off the top of my head, I'm sure that the people making the displays can come up with a far better solution.


Every year there are more developments being made with transparent OLEDs and LCD displays, so clearly display manufacturers think there's something interesting there.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3073 of 10953 Old 12-08-2011, 10:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Every year there are demonstration products involving LCDs and OLEDs that are transparent. Occasionally, there is something involving a bathroom mirror or somesuch that maybe is actually real. But for TV, where this conversation started? No.

And as for your idea. Yes, you could have a crude a panel bonded to the back. If said panel is transparent normally, it's not going to be black when the LC material is twisted. It can't be one giant pixel, but it could be a crude array (one giant pixel would be impossible to twist, but the way the privacy glass type LC stuff works hybridized with a really crude TV.... yeah). And this is so I can see through my TV? No, this is not happening.

Look, this isn't saying there won't be transparent LCDs -- we all agree the opposite. Augmented reality apps are real and strongly benefit from them. But giant TVs that are transparent when off? More expensive, less good... and why?

This goes to the heart of all these "could be" developments. There needs to be a compelling "why" if mass production is to happen. If not, you're looking into a niche or a quite possibly never-going-to-happen. The jet pack comes to mind.

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 #3074 of 10953 Old 12-08-2011, 11:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Hey the jet pack is real cause I saw it on Kick-Ass Great flick with lousy title BTW

Seriously I can't see how transparent displays are anything but niche. Our eyes are contrast based so we see well with black background for light source and white background for pigments
specuvestor is offline  
post #3075 of 10953 Old 12-09-2011, 08:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Panasonic is setting up a Gen 8.5 R&D line for OLED's.

http://www.oled-info.com/panasonic-b...oduction-plant

I dont see a capex or R&D number so it is impossible to determine the level of commitment, but I think it is safe to say that companies want to be ready if the OLED television market does take off.

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #3076 of 10953 Old 12-09-2011, 01:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
More on Slacker's item (per Barron's):

Shares of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology maker Universal Display (PANL) are up $2.50, or 6.4%, at $41.46 today after some upbeat remarks by Goldman Sachs’s Brian Lee, who maintains a Buy rating on the shares.

The crux is that Panasonic (PC) is apparently building what Lee brands as Japan’s first 8th-generation factory for making OLED-based displays for television sets, something Lee didn’t expect would happen until 2013, “at the earliest.”

Now, Panasonic is not known to have any agreements with Universal for TV displays, but it would not be hard, Lee argues, for Panasonic to extend an agreement already signed with Universal back in August for lighting products.

“Given the expected timing for capacity ramp, we see news of another agreement with Panasonic serving as a potential positive catalyst for PANL shares in the near term,” writes Lee.

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 #3077 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 06:42 AM
Member
 
Brimstone-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

OLED is basically a step in-between the two. From using the HMZ-T1 OLED head mounted display yesterday, I would say that the best OLED can achieve is looking like a really good LCD. Motion handling is essentially perfect (and this turns out to be a bad thing for 24p film without interpolation, in my opinion, though it's great for 60fps gaming) and viewing angle should be very good with flat panels. (but due to the deep cell structure many displays use, it will not be perfect)

Colour and gradation have the potential to be good, but colour depends almost entirely on the CMS software (it wasn't great in the HMZ-T1) and gradation was very disappointing when it is supposed to be a true 8-bit display using Sony's 14-bit Super Bit Mapping technology, as there was very obvious banding compared to my HX900.

Black level was good, but the panel is specified at 10,000:1 with 200 nit peak white, which I would say seemed accurate. (better than a first gen Kuro, but not second, black would be 0.02nits compared to 0.03nits)
ANSI contrast should in theory be able to remain the same as on-off contrast, but there was noticeable crosstalk and power limiting in use with these displays where power consumption is hardly an issue, as the whole thing uses less than 20W. When I say crosstalk, I mean artefacts like this as seen on PDPs. (the dark/light bands shouldn't be there)

I must say that it has me somewhat concerned about the future of OLED displays. It seems like they will be a step forward in many areas (motion handling in particular, and hopefully contrast) but also another step back from what LCD is capable of, inheriting some similar traits to PDPs.

I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.
Brimstone-1 is offline  
post #3078 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 09:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
rgb32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.

I looked for some of the same things Chrono did while checking out a HMZ-T1 demo and didn't find them. I didn't find any evidence of horizontal line bleed, nor did I see any posturing (clumping of gradients) due to low native bit depth (PS3's XMD menu background is an easy test). The biggest issues I had were the visible pixel structure (not really an issue), and having the display turn itself off (demo configuration had challenges). I'm wondering if the display Chrono tried had some sort of color space mis-match! Perhaps the gradient smoothing on his HX9 gave an invalid reference!
rgb32 is offline  
post #3079 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

I think the Sony HMZ-T1 is using a color filter. White oled light sources going thru Red, Green, and Blue filters. A Samsung OLED display using Red, Green, and Blue material may look better. Of course the Blue lifetime is a serious concern unless Samsung has solved that.

Using RGB OLEDs vs white OLEDs with colour filters is only going to change the gamut of the display, and give you mis-matched response times and/or lifetimes for each colour. There shouldn't be any other impact on image quality. In many ways, white OLEDs with colour filters are actually better, at least while content still adheres to the BT.709 standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

I looked for some of the same things Chrono did while checking out a HMZ-T1 demo and didn't find them. I didn't find any evidence of horizontal line bleed, nor did I see any posturing (clumping of gradients) due to low native bit depth (PS3's XMD menu background is an easy test). The biggest issues I had were the visible pixel structure (not really an issue), and having the display turn itself off (demo configuration had challenges). I'm wondering if the display Chrono tried had some sort of color space mis-match! Perhaps the gradient smoothing on his HX9 gave an invalid reference!

If you connect the HMZ-T1 up to a PC and open a folder full of files that fills the screen in the "list" or "details" view, it should be immediately obvious.

Banding was very obvious in any of the gradient test patterns I used, primarily madVR's "small ramp" pattern which generates a 16-bit gradient that is dithered down to 8-bit (similar to Super Bit Mapping actually) CalMAN's pattern generator, and a couple of test discs. The PS3 XMB background is not a good test for gradation.

The HMZ-T1 claims to use Sony's Super Bit Mapping technology to create 14-bit quality gradations. As far as I am aware, the HX900 does no such thing, it just uses, I believe, a 10-bit native Sharp UV2A LCD panel.

I'm not sure what you mean by "invalid reference" though. A CRT, when sent 8-bit data would produce smoother gradations than any flat panel or projector I have seen to date. My HX900 cannot match this. With the HMZ-T1 being 8-bit native, it should (in theory) be capable of gradation on-par with a CRT, but this is definitely not the case, even with its SBMV processing.

Hopefully future OLEDs will be 10-bit native and capable of good gradation, but I was shocked to see that the HMZ-T1 was worse than my LCD, given that gradation was meant to be one of OLED's strong points.


There was no colour space mismatch.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3080 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDPeeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Redmond, Wa
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Chronoptimist, I think it's a mistake to make judments about OLED based on micro-displays in the HMZ-T1. For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens. The reason I say that, and I admit I could be complety wrong, is that somehow they've managed to build OLED micro-displays that have a PPI of over 2,000, while manufacturers of the (I guess you could call them macro) displays that go into our mobile phones are still having trouble breaking the 300 PPI barrier. The techniques for building those things could have a huge impact on black levels/colors/gradations. For all we know it could be apples vs. bananas compared to normal OLED screens.

I think it's also important to consider the fact that when using the HMZ, you're actually looking at two seperate screens that your brain is blending together. Who knows what kind of effect that has on color gradations.

As for the comparison to CRT, you gotta remember that CRTs have a much, MUCH smaller static contrast ratio than OLED and even modern LCD screens. It's much easier to have smooth gradations when the difference between the darkest colors and the brightest is less that 700:1.

Patience has its rewards.
HDPeeT is offline  
post #3081 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 05:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
"For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens."

They, in fact, are fundamentally different. Your point is incredibly valid.

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 #3082 of 10953 Old 12-11-2011, 10:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsung77 View Post

Sorry to bust in here but figured I might as well ask...

Does anyone know any place where I can buy the LG 15EL9500? I just missed out on a used one on ebay, http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=130612190669
My last bid was for 1200.00, since I found another listing (ebay uk) for 1300 NEW, but this seller is sold out now so I have no other options. Is this TV discontinued? I know it came out for 2500.00 but that was almost 2 years ago, etc, so I assume it's selling somewhere in the world for less than 1500 and although that's still extravagant for a measly 15inch TV, I don't care because I want to make it my desktop monitor, etc. If anyone has any ideas where I could find a retailer either in the US or International that could may have these in stock to ship I'd really appreciate it!

I answered you in the other thread, please don't spam multiple threads though -- it's considered bad form.

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 #3083 of 10953 Old 12-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"For one thing, they could be fundamentally different from normal OLED screens."

They, in fact, are fundamentally different. Your point is incredibly valid.

I think fundamentally different is going a bit far. There are fundamental constraints on the power efficiency of a white (RGBW) OLED architecture but that doesnt really matter much for televisions. The other primary concern I have read about is the type of color saturation/gamut that they are able to achieve using the color filters. However, my understanding is that it is possible to increase the color gamut to 100% of NTSC by using microcavities. The Sony OLED televisions are also using a combination of color filters and microcavities (though that is using RGB emitters).

Are there some other big drawbacks to the RGBW architecture that I am missing?

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #3084 of 10953 Old 12-12-2011, 02:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Slacker, I was agreeing with the fact that making microdisplays is almost not related to making full-size displays. They've been making TFT-LCD microdisplays for more than a decade, but no one would compare what goes on there to making LCD screens for TVs.

I have to admit, I wasn't rendering much of an opinion on the comments about color per se. I'll leave that to other posters.

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 #3085 of 10953 Old 12-12-2011, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HDPeeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Redmond, Wa
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

I think fundamentally different is going a bit far. There are fundamental constraints on the power efficiency of a white (RGBW) OLED architecture but that doesnt really matter much for televisions. The other primary concern I have read about is the type of color saturation/gamut that they are able to achieve using the color filters. However, my understanding is that it is possible to increase the color gamut to 100% of NTSC by using microcavities. The Sony OLED televisions are also using a combination of color filters and microcavities (though that is using RGB emitters).

Are there some other big drawbacks to the RGBW architecture that I am missing?

Slacker

I wasn't talking about white OLEDs+color filters, I was speaking directly to the comparisons between the micro-displays in the HMZ headset and the "macro" displays we'll (hopefully) be seeing in the future.

Patience has its rewards.
HDPeeT is offline  
post #3086 of 10953 Old 12-12-2011, 05:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Sorry about that, I'm not sure how I managed to misinterpret both of your comments.


Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #3087 of 10953 Old 12-12-2011, 11:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Sorry about that, I'm not sure how I managed to misinterpret both of your comments.

Totally harmless error. No worries.

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 #3088 of 10953 Old 12-13-2011, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Huh, I was sure I replied to this the other night. I am aware that the kind of display used in the HMZ-T1 is potentially different to what we will see in a flat panel, but it is somewhat concerning to have these issues show up.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3089 of 10953 Old 12-18-2011, 03:14 AM
Member
 
Lorddeff07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have pretty much read most of this thread and seen most of the arguments here against oled tech and my simple conclusion is...... I find the logic of some here baffling. And in all honestly, extremely myopic and biased.

Here is what I think Oled tech is quite simply and obviously going to be the replacement for LCD tech as we know it. Its pros simply far outweigh the cons and we don't need to be rocket scientists to see that not only does every new tech get introduced small first and at a premium price but that this transition to oleds is already happening.

How far back do we have to look? I mean just look at this very thread, at some point at the start of this thread they were talking about this breakthrough and that breakthrough and now we are saying actual oled panels being mass produced. Do any of you here think that the transition from crt to lcds happened over night?

Oleds are popping up in tablets this year, mobile phones and gaming devices.... I am going to guess that we will start seeing them in laptops next year or in more mobile phones and tablets. That says one thing; via those means of production these manufactures will use the smaller form factors of these introductory devices to fine tune their manufacturing processes (like they have always done in the past with any new tech). Why this is so hard to believe, see or understand is beyond me. Like do any of you here really think that we wont at least have oled tvs at home in the next 5 years? Do some here think that the average consumer gives a damn how long that new tv they just got took to get to them? all he cares about is that its affordable and its better than what he had before. And oleds have the potential to ultimately be cheaper to manufacture than lcds and be better. Period.

What really shocks me about what i just said though is how biased some here seem to be about that little fact. Is oled more expensie than lcds or other competing display techs today? absolutely. Does that mean that the manufacturers wont shift primarily to oled tech? Absolutely not. I am guessing at one point it was cheaper making crts than it was making lcd tvs.

But the cost of manufacturing is just half teh argument. The real kicker is the need for the tech, oled has to offer something better (practically) to make and force its growth, and this si where i think most ppl here are blind to its promise and potential.

First order of business for oleds will be mobile devices, phones, tablets and laptops... cause there is an undeniable practical gain in those areas for both the manufacturer and the consumer. And the next area will finally be home tvs, but not primarily as we know it. Oled tech has one real advantage up its sleeve, and that is actually that they can be manufactured on flexible surfaces...... hold on.

Imagine this, you buy a box that is no bigger than 1ft x 2ft x 5ft. Now in this box is the disassembled structure for your 155" diagonal frame that can be made from aluminium and be no more than 3mm thick. Just a frame that you will have to put together. Now imagine that the border of this frame is magnetic and that the oled display is printed on a metal foil backing layer. Long story short, on something that when alligned can adhere to this frame. Now you simply roll out the screen all 155" of it and by means of grooves on the frame allign it and let it stick as you unroll it then hang the darn thing on your wall. Only thing that will be coming out of that frame and screen set up is a cable going to a reciever and power box that you can pretty much place anywhere you want. I mean use your imagination, nothing i have said here is "wishful thinking" or unreasonable especially if you are ready to give the tech like 10 years to develop. But that right there is a way of application that current display tech can simply not achieve.

Now the real question is this, and which is why i believe this is a sample of the future.... if you can buy a 155" display, that allows you connect everything that you typically can connect to displays today to it, has a max 7mm profile, is able to give you the absolute best blacks possible in display history and refresh rates faster and better than anything before it, will be way easier to take home than that 65" lcd tv you bought and will cost you now more than $3000. Will you do it?

And that right there is the core of my argument, look at this thread and look at how far the tech has come in 5 years. Where do you think it will be in 5 more? Then give it another five after that and you will get what i mean. In 2008 I bought a 32inch 720p lcd for $1300. Just last month i bought a 55" led lcd 3dtv for $1600 and a 32" 1080p led tv for $399. I am also looking to buy a 3d projector for $3500 though i could get one for as little as $1500. See my point? See why i think it would be damn right stupid of anyone to sit here and think that oleds arent going to one day be everywhere? Unless of course you have been living under a rock your entire life.......
Lorddeff07 is offline  
post #3090 of 10953 Old 12-18-2011, 05:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Interesting post by Lorddeff07. You lost me with the part about having to make your own 155" frame (people who are willing to do that already have a projector), but in general I think you give a good reality check on OLED in regard to it's past expectations, present, and future.

A common argument here is that LCD is good enough, and that not many will pay a premium for the image quality improvement with OLED, an improvement that many may not even really notice. I'm pretty sure I've made that argument in one form or another somewhere on the forums. And yet despite this, as you point out, OLED is now available on tablets, mobile phones, and gaming devices. If you want a PS Vita, OLED is your only option right now. That fact has helped reinforce Sony's message that the Vita has the best visuals available in a handheld.
Airion is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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