OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 402 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 558Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #12031 of 12060 Old 04-24-2015, 11:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
If LG uses glass sheet size 2200x2500 mm in its M2 OLED plant what might be the biggest size two displays stamped on this glass? Half of the glass sheet is either 2200x1250 mm or 2500x1100 mm but which of these is possible? Both?? Do they stamp four 55 inchers on this sheet?
The M2 fab is a classic 8G fab essentially.

It allows for 6-up production of 55-inch displays because it doesn't require cutting the sheets in half.

A 55-inch display is 1216mm wide, which fits into the width with enough space for edge handling and cutting.

It's 685 mm tall, which fits into a 3-tall format.

What it doesn't do is fit into a half sheet and allow you to make four displays. Period. You would never cut to the 1100 dimension, you'd only get two. Instead, you'd cut the other way and and you'd get three. This is presumably what they'd done with M1, cutting the sheets "early" and getting the same total output.

You can't magically get make displays off of half sheets, however. Basic math should make that clear.

It should similarly be clear that making 65s and 77s is much less efficient. Once you start cutting those sizes out, you get waste that can't be avoided.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12032 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 03:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 94
^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"?

Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?
irkuck is offline  
post #12033 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 11:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"?

Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?
No way to mix panel sizes on the same sheet.

Both 3 65" and 2 77" utilize about 2/3 of the panel (meaning 1/3 is wasted).

The 77" 2-up is probably based on stacking 2 along the short 2200mm side of the sheet and if the can manufacture with two stacked along the long 2500mm side of the panel, they should at least be able to manufacture 88" TVs.

If there was no overhead (which there is), the long side of the screen would be the full 2200mm side of the sheet and the result would be a 99" TV.

The fact that Sharp is selling 90" LCD TVs is reason to have confidence that 90" OLEDs being manufactured in 2-up configuration will eventually be possible...
fafrd is online now  
post #12034 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1238
I have a Fabrication 401 question.

Are these glass substrates for rigid panels only?

Using Artificial Life algorithms, I created a bunch of creatures and let them evolve on my system. Over the years they gained intelligence, a society, and quite a few interesting abilities. However, using the rules from their world, they concluded that I did not exist. So I created a special creature meant to spread the Word about Me with amazing magical abilities that only He had. Went well, until they decided to nail the poor Guy to a tree.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #12035 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 01:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
^Brilliant. My fault I have not expressed clearly what I had in mind. The question was about the biggest size of two displays which would fit onto the LG glass sheet. The size would be then limited by the cut in half, is this the reason why LG is making the 77"?

Another efficient cut for maximizing single display size seems to possible since 6x55" is clearly being done. The cut would be at 2/3 of the height and thus there would be one 110" display and two 55". Glass would be utilized then as in the 6x55" but is such arrangement possible?
I don't see why it isn't. They don't "pixel pattern" the OLED material so it seems like this could be done. Whether it's efficient/practical is another matter. But technologically, it should be achievable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
No way to mix panel sizes on the same sheet.
Well, that's not entirely true.
Quote:
Both 3 65" and 2 77" utilize about 2/3 of the panel (meaning 1/3 is wasted).
That, however, is much more true.
Quote:
The 77" 2-up is probably based on stacking 2 along the short 2200mm side of the sheet and if the can manufacture with two stacked along the long 2500mm side of the panel, they should at least be able to manufacture 88" TVs.
The thing is, they can obviously make 110" inch TVs the way irkuck describes. They'd be wasting no more of the sheet than they waste today in the 65s and 77s. And arguably, because the cut actually makes sense, they'd be wasting zero of the sheet, while using the 1/3 they didn't use on a 110" for 2 55s. This sets a theoretical lower bound for the 110 at 4 x 55 plus a yield factor compensator plus a logistic factor compensator plus a "this is a small market" compensator. In short, I actually believe they could someday sell $20,000 110-inch TVs pretty easily if they decide people would buy them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I have a Fabrication 401 question.

Are these glass substrates for rigid panels only?
Well, that's trickier to answer. LG has some fascinating "shenanigans" going on that allows them to already make the displays flexible. This involves what is very likely incredibly thin glass on the TVs as the substrate and not plastic, but it seems as though plastic is being used on the smart phones, perhaps a polyimide (which is the direction of the future) with thin-film encapsulation.

Irrespective of that, glass processing is being used by LG today which is then curving the vast majority of the TVs and is planning on launching a TV that will curve and uncurve repeatedly. So, no, glass substrates are not being used for rigid panels only. But LG has talked about how the glass eventually can "leave" the display even if it's used in the creation thereof and then a film-film encapsulation strategy can protect the OLED from air, etc. to preserve longevity.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12036 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


Well, that's not entirely true.

The thing is, they can obviously make 110" inch TVs the way irkuck describes. They'd be wasting no more of the sheet than they waste today in the 65s and 77s. And arguably, because the cut actually makes sense, they'd be wasting zero of the sheet, while using the 1/3 they didn't use on a 110" for 2 55s. This sets a theoretical lower bound for the 110 at 4 x 55 plus a yield factor compensator plus a logistic factor compensator plus a "this is a small market" compensator. In short, I actually believe they could someday sell $20,000 110-inch TVs pretty easily if they decide people would buy them.
Yes, the max I commented on of 88-99" was for a 2-up configuration. The maximum size for a 1-up configuration is 110".

And while the theory of manufacturing 1110" and 2 55" OLED YV panels per sheet is enticing, I suspect it is a logistical nightmare. Among other things, LG would probably start by trying to salvage to 1/3 panel leftovers from manufacturing 3 65" or 2 77" OLEDs to start. For the number of 110" OLEDs they might ever produce, the payoff of solving the logistics issues to try to salvage the leftover panel space from manufacturing a single 110" OLED would be far less compelling than solving those issues to salvage the leftovers when manufacturing 3 65" OLEDs.

These exact same 'wasted sheet' issues exist when manufacturing LCDs - are you aware of any manufacturer like sharp that attempts to salvage the leftovers of their LCD sheets by mixing panels of differing sizes on a single sheet?

By the way, on the subject of LCD, I have another question for you - the largest 1-up size for a 2500mm X 2200mm sheet is just under 113" (assuming no overhead at all, which is not realistic).

So how is Vizio making a 120" LCD?

Last edited by fafrd; 04-25-2015 at 05:38 PM.
fafrd is online now  
post #12037 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1238
^^^ fix the quote. Who said what?

Using Artificial Life algorithms, I created a bunch of creatures and let them evolve on my system. Over the years they gained intelligence, a society, and quite a few interesting abilities. However, using the rules from their world, they concluded that I did not exist. So I created a special creature meant to spread the Word about Me with amazing magical abilities that only He had. Went well, until they decided to nail the poor Guy to a tree.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #12038 of 12060 Old 04-25-2015, 05:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
^^^ fix the quote. Who said what?
Apologies - fixed...
fafrd is online now  
post #12039 of 12060 Old 04-26-2015, 01:34 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


Irrespective of that, glass processing is being used by LG today which is then curving the vast majority of the TVs and is planning on launching a TV that will curve and uncurve repeatedly. So, no, glass substrates are not being used for rigid panels only. But LG has talked about how the glass eventually can "leave" the display even if it's used in the creation thereof and then a film-film encapsulation strategy can protect the OLED from air, etc. to preserve longevity.
Have you any idea of how pigments are treated for production of paint or ink?


And if not it's okay for it is not something that's highly publicized.


Because it is off-topic I am not going to go into gory detail about the aforementioned process. But basically, during the OLED manufacturing process some of the pigment containing oils will have evaporated before the rest of the material solidifies and it's all fine and in good order when you use natural pigments, but when you use pigments which constitute part of a small-molecule OLED which have very little nuturality about them... well, then the vapors coming out of those pigment oils are explosive and only one whiff of contaminated air is enough to poison a dozen of people that's why they can't have these vapors contaminating the air.


Encapsulation has little to do with longevity down the line, but it is very important that oils don't evaporate right after they are deposited.


P.S. These are just inferences based off my experience with the treatment of pigments for fluorescent and phosphorescent materials for LEDs and CCFLs. I am not personally familiar with how LGD does it, but this is what I'd have done in order to avoid explosions and air contamination and prevent pigment evaporation i.e, encapsulation and air-tight production rooms.

....

Last edited by stas3098; 04-26-2015 at 10:49 AM.
stas3098 is offline  
post #12040 of 12060 Old 04-26-2015, 06:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Fafrd, this isn't LCD. LCD is laid down as pixels on the substrate and to "mix sizes" would be more logistically challenging.

Because the OLED vapor deposition step isn't pixel based, however, it's less of a logistical challenge to deposit the whole sheet, cut, and then make the rest of the magic happen separately. At least in theory.

Practice? I have no idea.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12041 of 12060 Old 04-26-2015, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Fafrd, this isn't LCD. LCD is laid down as pixels on the substrate and to "mix sizes" would be more logistically challenging.

Because the OLED vapor deposition step isn't pixel based, however, it's less of a logistical challenge to deposit the whole sheet, cut, and then make the rest of the magic happen separately. At least in theory.

Practice? I have no idea.
Your saying the color filters are deposited following singulation?

Agree that would make size mixing more practical, but I assumed the entire stack was processed in sheet form and only singulated following completion of all of the processing steps (including color filter).

P.s. Still curious how/where Vizio is manufacturing the 120" panel for the R120 - is there a Gen 9 LCD fab somewhere!??

P.p.s. Found this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/201...amsung-and-lg/

Sounds like a Gen 10 fab must be getting used to manufacture that 120" panel for Vizio. Either Sharp or possibly Hon Hai if they are in production yet...

P.p.p.s Sounds like it must be Sharp Sakai - found this interesting DARPA presentation on Gen 10 manufacturing: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/defau...PV%20final.pdf

Last edited by fafrd; 04-26-2015 at 07:21 PM.
fafrd is online now  
post #12042 of 12060 Old 04-26-2015, 11:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Your saying the color filters are deposited following singulation?
I'm saying it's possible. It's also the case that given a 110" would have the same size pixels as a 1080p 55", well....
Quote:
Agree that would make size mixing more practical, but I assumed the entire stack was processed in sheet form and only singulated following completion of all of the processing steps (including color filter).
So, anyway... I haven't seen the fab or how it does it's magic. But you could have multiple different color-filter layouts. One for all 55s, one for 65s, one for 77s, one for a 110 and 2 55s... I mean lots of things are possible.
[quote]
P.s. Still curious how/where Vizio is manufacturing the 120" panel for the R120 - is there a Gen 9 LCD fab somewhere!??[/quite]

AFAIK, no.
Quote:
P.p.s. Found this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/201...amsung-and-lg/

Sounds like a Gen 10 fab must be getting used to manufacture that 120" panel for Vizio. Either Sharp or possibly Hon Hai if they are in production yet...
All Hon Hai did was give Sharp some bailout money to help stave off bankruptcy. And Sharp is still bitter that Foxconn didn't agree to buy shares at some dumb price that they are unlikely to ever trade at again. Sharp still wants that price honored for any future investment even though it's like 2x current market. Non-starter much?
Quote:
P.p.p.s Sounds like it must be Sharp Sakai - found this interesting DARPA presentation on Gen 10 manufacturing: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/defau...PV%20final.pdf
Pretty sure that's the only >8G fab running on earth still and perhaps forever using conventional techniques. If we're going to see bigger fabrication, it's likely going to come from some sort of roll-to-roll processing that allows for an 8G (or perhaps a bit more) width and an arbitrary length. If (when?) printable OLED ever becomes real, this becomes an exciting technique though it may prove very difficult to adapt roll-to-roll to Kateeva's nitrogen atmosphere. We'll see.

AVS Forumers continue to wildly overestimate the demand for giant displays. The fact that 8G fabs can easily be adapted to 110" screens means there's a path to larger screens than have ever been sold in any commercial volumes. While I continue to believe the ability to sell said screens for <$10,000 is well within the grasp of existing manufacturing (for LCD, not yet for OLED), I don't believe the demand even at $9999 is especially high. It's clearly far higher than today's demand at many multiples of that. And with OLEDs that are likely to survive the shipping due to flexible substrates, it'll be far more interesting.

Is this a 1 million unit/$10B business someday? We might learn that in 2025 or so.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12043 of 12060 Old 04-27-2015, 04:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 205
FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.

Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's.

It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.
dsinger likes this.
slacker711 is offline  
post #12044 of 12060 Old 04-27-2015, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.

Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's.

It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.
When is that new BOE Gen 10 Fab expected to be up and running?

Sharp is probably supplying the vast majority of the worlds demand for 60" and 70" LCD panels right now, and even with at they are unable to make money and are probably underutilizing their fab. With a second Gen 10 fab coming online, there is going to be an absolute glut of 60" and 70" LCDs and this could amount to doom for Sharp.

Maybe it's time for Sharp and LG to start thinking about an alliance to convert Sakai to WOLED production...

LG would quickly round out their OLED product offering with sheet-efficient 60" and 70" OLEDs and Sharp may carve out a small piece of the future for themselves...
fafrd is online now  
post #12045 of 12060 Old 04-27-2015, 12:46 PM
Member
 
ynotgoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
When is that new BOE Gen 10 Fab expected to be up and running?
On April 20, 2015, Chinese panel maker BOE officially announced its investment of CNY 40 billion in the world’s largest TFT LCD fab, a Gen 10.5 with glass substrates sized 3370 × 2940 mm. Mass production is scheduled for late 2017 or early 2018.

According to the announcement, BOE’s Gen 10.5 will mainly produce 60”+, ultra-high resolution, high-end smart TVs, and digital information displays with a design capacity of 90K glass substrates per month. We believe this Gen 10.5 will actually focus on both 43” and 65” products.
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/201...10-5-in-china/

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
FWIW, BOE recently received the go ahead for a Gen 10 LCD fab. I have no idea why they think that duplicating Sharp's venture will be a good idea but it is possible that their reasons arent economic in nature. It would seem far cheaper to me to just buy Sharp's capacity than build another fab.

Samsung was supposedly considering a Gen 10 LCD fab until they decided to renew their push back into OLED's.

It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.
LCD production requires significant labor (much more so than OLED) and wage rates are lower in China than in Japan. Here are some quotes from UBI Research...

any experts who know Korea’s display would recognize that Gen10 LCD line investment is not suitable for Korea. This is because even if Korea expands the market share by investing in Gen10 LCD line they will still be weak against Chinese display companies in price.

An interesting point and perhaps why LG put a lot of focus on China for their initial OLED sets while they worked out production issues...

Korean display companies only sell high quality goods and 90~95% is the limit of yield rate. In comparison, in China the size of the population who can easily purchase expensive high quality TV and the consumers who demands lower priced goods are both huge; faulty display panels have a place in Chinese market. Chinese display companies can also sell lower quality panels through close relationship with lower price TV production companies with factories in China. Theoretically, this can lower the panel price as yield rate close to 100% can be achieved. Furthermore, support from Chinese government and cheap factory construction cost increases price competitiveness of Chinese display companies even more.

Why Samsung must choose OLED TV...

Samsung Elec.’s smart phone business department, IM, is recording twice the amount of revenue of VD business department that produces TV. Therefore that VD department’s marketing method of emphasizing OLED has worse definition than LCD is contradictory since IM department is marketing their product by valuing the superior picture quality of OLED over LCD. If QD-LCD is good then obviously the panel for Galaxy S series also has to be replaced to QD-LCD. Insisting that OLED has better picture quality in smart phone and LCD is superior in TV is mutually incompatible. This kind of dual behavior could result in Samsung Elec.’s rationales to be considered as ones by the boy who cried wolf. For the future expansion of Samsung Elec.’s smart phone market, VD department also has to produce OLED TV and establish the equation of ‘Samsung Elec. = OLED’ in order to complete the business strategy. This is the reason Samsung must undertake OLED TV.

LTPS vs oxide backplane...

Even in TFT production cost, Samsung Display is weaker in comparison to LG Display. LTPS-TFT process used by Samsung Display requires 8~9 mask processes but LG Display is using oxide TFT which needs 4~5. Therefore, it has an advantage of minimizing the investment cost when LCD line is transformed to OLED line. For Samsung Display to transform existing LCD line to OLED line, they have to add a huge amount of capital to the LTPS-TFT production. If they transform the existing 200K LCD factory to OLED line, the capa. also decreases to 90K, but LG Display can maintain the 200K volume without any loss. When OLED is produced transforming the existing LCD line, LG Display does not need additional factory construction but it is calculated that Samsung Display has to build another factory of equal size.

Conclusion...

In conclusion, for Samsung Display to re-enter OLED panel for TV industry, rather than using their existing technology of LTPS-TFT, RGB OLED, and damn & fill encapsulation, it is better to use the technology being used by LG Display such as oxide TFT structure, WRGB OLED structure and lamination method of encapsulation structure that uses adhesive film.

To challenge large area OLED panel industry again, Samsung Display placed the existing large area OLED team under research lab led by their top OLED expert SungChul Kim. Although there has been no official discussion regarding OLED panel production technology directional course, using the same technology as LG Display’s would be advisable in order to succeed.

In terms of resources, Samsung Display, with their many years of OLED panel mass production experience and several thousands of top quality OLED engineers, is superior compared to LG Display.

Only the patents and decision making processes are left.
fafrd and dsinger like this.
ynotgoal is offline  
post #12046 of 12060 Old 04-27-2015, 01:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotgoal View Post
On April 20, 2015, Chinese panel maker BOE officially announced its investment of CNY 40 billion in the world’s largest TFT LCD fab, a Gen 10.5 with glass substrates sized 3370 × 2940 mm. Mass production is scheduled for late 2017 or early 2018.

According to the announcement, BOE’s Gen 10.5 will mainly produce 60”+, ultra-high resolution, high-end smart TVs, and digital information displays with a design capacity of 90K glass substrates per month. We believe this Gen 10.5 will actually focus on both 43” and 65” products.
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/201...10-5-in-china/



LCD production requires significant labor (much more so than OLED) and wage rates are lower in China than in Japan. Here are some quotes from UBI Research...

any experts who know Korea’s display would recognize that Gen10 LCD line investment is not suitable for Korea. This is because even if Korea expands the market share by investing in Gen10 LCD line they will still be weak against Chinese display companies in price.

An interesting point and perhaps why LG put a lot of focus on China for their initial OLED sets while they worked out production issues...

Korean display companies only sell high quality goods and 90~95% is the limit of yield rate. In comparison, in China the size of the population who can easily purchase expensive high quality TV and the consumers who demands lower priced goods are both huge; faulty display panels have a place in Chinese market. Chinese display companies can also sell lower quality panels through close relationship with lower price TV production companies with factories in China. Theoretically, this can lower the panel price as yield rate close to 100% can be achieved. Furthermore, support from Chinese government and cheap factory construction cost increases price competitiveness of Chinese display companies even more.

Why Samsung must choose OLED TV...

Samsung Elec.’s smart phone business department, IM, is recording twice the amount of revenue of VD business department that produces TV. Therefore that VD department’s marketing method of emphasizing OLED has worse definition than LCD is contradictory since IM department is marketing their product by valuing the superior picture quality of OLED over LCD. If QD-LCD is good then obviously the panel for Galaxy S series also has to be replaced to QD-LCD. Insisting that OLED has better picture quality in smart phone and LCD is superior in TV is mutually incompatible. This kind of dual behavior could result in Samsung Elec.’s rationales to be considered as ones by the boy who cried wolf. For the future expansion of Samsung Elec.’s smart phone market, VD department also has to produce OLED TV and establish the equation of ‘Samsung Elec. = OLED’ in order to complete the business strategy. This is the reason Samsung must undertake OLED TV.

LTPS vs oxide backplane...

Even in TFT production cost, Samsung Display is weaker in comparison to LG Display. LTPS-TFT process used by Samsung Display requires 8~9 mask processes but LG Display is using oxide TFT which needs 4~5. Therefore, it has an advantage of minimizing the investment cost when LCD line is transformed to OLED line. For Samsung Display to transform existing LCD line to OLED line, they have to add a huge amount of capital to the LTPS-TFT production. If they transform the existing 200K LCD factory to OLED line, the capa. also decreases to 90K, but LG Display can maintain the 200K volume without any loss. When OLED is produced transforming the existing LCD line, LG Display does not need additional factory construction but it is calculated that Samsung Display has to build another factory of equal size.

Conclusion...

In conclusion, for Samsung Display to re-enter OLED panel for TV industry, rather than using their existing technology of LTPS-TFT, RGB OLED, and damn & fill encapsulation, it is better to use the technology being used by LG Display such as oxide TFT structure, WRGB OLED structure and lamination method of encapsulation structure that uses adhesive film.

To challenge large area OLED panel industry again, Samsung Display placed the existing large area OLED team under research lab led by their top OLED expert SungChul Kim. Although there has been no official discussion regarding OLED panel production technology directional course, using the same technology as LG Display’s would be advisable in order to succeed.

In terms of resources, Samsung Display, with their many years of OLED panel mass production experience and several thousands of top quality OLED engineers, is superior compared to LG Display.

Only the patents and decision making processes are left.
Interesting find - thanks.

It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.

Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.

It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...
fafrd is online now  
post #12047 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 03:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 94
The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".
irkuck is offline  
post #12048 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 09:26 AM
Member
 
ertoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Motion resolution 300 line (4K panel)

ertoil is offline  
post #12049 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 09:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED.
I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55".

I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #12050 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Interesting find - thanks.

It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.

Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.

It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...
Slightly OT, but I just ran into this: http://www.displaysearchblog.com/201...10-5-in-china/

Seems the Gen 10.5 Fab by BOE is only going to be making IPS LCDs, so Sharp and Sakai have some breathing room and should continue to own/dominate the 60" and 70" VA panel market...

Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...
fafrd is online now  
post #12051 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...
You don't say. A big drop in price between now and sometime in the next 5 years.

:-P

Using Artificial Life algorithms, I created a bunch of creatures and let them evolve on my system. Over the years they gained intelligence, a society, and quite a few interesting abilities. However, using the rules from their world, they concluded that I did not exist. So I created a special creature meant to spread the Word about Me with amazing magical abilities that only He had. Went well, until they decided to nail the poor Guy to a tree.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #12052 of 12060 Old 04-28-2015, 11:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
It seems to me that LG/Samsung have little choice but to push towards OLED's. If OLED's dont succeed, they are likely to get buried under a tsunami of Chinese LCD capacity in a few years.
Which is a problem given that there is no detectable growth in the TV market....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Sharp is probably supplying the vast majority of the worlds demand for 60" and 70" LCD panels right now, and even with at they are unable to make money and are probably underutilizing their fab.
1) Nearly all of the world's demand in those sizes, yes. Especially the 70s.

2) Not even close to capacity, no. Never have approached it at that fab. Never will.
Quote:
With a second Gen 10 fab coming online, there is going to be an absolute glut of 60" and 70" LCDs and this could amount to doom for Sharp.
Sharp is already dead man walking. In any country outside of Japan, they'd have gone bankrupt already.
Quote:
Maybe it's time for Sharp and LG to start thinking about an alliance to convert Sakai to WOLED production...
Given that Sharp already knows IGZO, this isn't an awful idea. I'm pretty sure Sakai is multiple lines anyway given its size. You could start with one. Don't be on LG doing something like this, but it's certainly intriguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
It is clear that by 2017/2018, Sharp is going to be facing a major degree of hurt, especially since BOE is actually leapfrogging them to Gen 10.5.
They've been in a bag of hurt for the past 4-5 years already.
Quote:
Hopefully they are smart enough to figure out that a conversion of Sakia to WOLED production is about their only way out and they are already in discussions with both Korean companies to see who is going to make them a better offer.

It would be suicidal for LG to allow Samsung to team up with Sharp on WOLED, so hopefully they have the foresight to make Sharp an offer they can not refuse...
If they do a deal with Samsung and infringe on LG's patents, that's very risky for Sharp actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
The question if LG can produce 2x110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".
As Darin notes below you, it's 1, not 2. And you have a yield issue. If you achieve 80% yields on your 55-inch, your yield on the 110 is 40%. So if you could sell your 55s for "1", your EV from the 55s is (4 * x) * 0.8 = 3.2x. Your price for the 110 needs to 0.4 * x * 8 just to match the result you got before. Assume that given the extra logistics and the much, much, much smaller market, the minimum that's interesting is 10 times. Understand from this math, how you wind up with initial pricing well above 20 times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55".

I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".
Your aggregate yield is:

0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = .4096

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Seems the Gen 10.5 Fab by BOE is only going to be making IPS LCDs, so Sharp and Sakai have some breathing room and should continue to own/dominate the 60" and 70" VA panel market...
Most Sharp panels are sold into TVs that are low priced. No one is going to care whether they are IPS, VA, whatever. That said, in the developed world, there isn't much elasticity of any import to be had. TV prices have mostly bottomed. There's very little erosion because there is still plenty of market for 40-inch TVs and therefore no purpose trying to sell 60-inch TVs for $399 nor can you sell 40-inch TVs profitably for $99. Nor do you need to when people will pay multiples of that.
Quote:
Expect a big price drop in 65" and 75" IPS LED LCD TVs before the end of the decade, however...
I don't see how or why this much matters, but it's the circle of life.

Is there any catalyst that can expand the TV market meaningfully when a decade of 7% growth in China hasn't done it? I'm going to guess no.

Even the people who get paid by TV mfrs. to tell TV mfrs. the TV market is going to be great in the years to come are telling them it's going to grow like 2-3% a year. And that feels like it could easily prove optimistic as it seems poised to shrink in Japan and Europe and at best tread water in the U.S.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12053 of 12060 Old 04-29-2015, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Which is a problem given that there is no detectable growth in the TV market....



1) Nearly all of the world's demand in those sizes, yes. Especially the 70s.

2) Not even close to capacity, no. Never have approached it at that fab. Never will.


Sharp is already dead man walking. In any country outside of Japan, they'd have gone bankrupt already.


Given that Sharp already knows IGZO, [B]this isn't an awful idea. [B].I'm pretty sure Sakai is multiple lines anyway given its size. You could start with one. Don't be on LG doing something like this, but it's certainly intriguing.
Coming from you, I suppose I should give my self a little pat on the back .

It's a very sensible idea, but it would require both companies smelling the coffee (especially the Chinese kind) and neither LG nor Sharp give any indication that they are there yet. By the time they understand what a win/win this is (or maybe lose-less/lose-less ) it will probably be too late. Discussions would already need to be underway for this to have any impact (revised plan for M3).

Quote:
They've been in a bag of hurt for the past 4-5 years already.

If they do a deal with Samsung and infringe on LG's patents, that's very risky for Sharp actually.
That is a very good point - even if Samsung has the gall to ignore LG's WOLED IP and just deal with it in court, Sharp would be exposed and the legal costs could sink them (to say nothing about an eventual award of damages). So you are right - an LG/Sharp WOLED tie-up is the only one that makes any sense. Hopefully LG does not overplay their hand and Sharp doesn't take too much longer to come down off their high horse...


Quote:
Sharp panels are sold into TVs that are low priced. No one is going to care whether they are IPS, VA, whatever. That said, in the developed world, there isn't much elasticity of any import to be had. TV prices have mostly bottomed. There's very little erosion because there is still plenty of market for 40-inch TVs and therefore no purpose trying to sell 60-inch TVs for $399 nor can you sell 40-inch TVs profitably for $99. Nor do you need to when people will pay multiples of that.


I don't see how or why this much matters, but it's the circle of life.

Is there any catalyst that can expand the TV market meaningfully when a decade of 7% growth in China hasn't done it? I'm going to guess no.

Even the people who get paid by TV mfrs. to tell TV mfrs. the TV market is going to be great in the years to come are telling them it's going to grow like 2-3% a year. And that feels like it could easily prove optimistic as it seems poised to shrink in Japan and Europe and at best tread water in the U.S.
Boy, you are in a gloomy mood today, aren't you

Can't argue with anything you are saying but hoping LG finds a way to establish a toe-hold with OLED...
fafrd is online now  
post #12054 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 02:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
I'm still pretty pro on that toehold. Even a foothold.

I'm just unclear how they cross the chasm/valley of death on this. It requires a big, bold bet or a really long slog.

Moving incrementally isn't going to get them there quickly at all. You're looking at 5 years before things look a lot different.

The continued, profound irony that my 10-year-old predictions on timing of this look mostly right and my 3-year-old ones reflect being totally fooled is rarely lost on me. Perhaps it shouldn't be lost on other optimists, however. We simply don't have a path to large scale production even next year and not much of a path to it in 2017. That's the disappointing part of this, yet it was easy-ish to foresee a long while ago.

Irony.

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12055 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I'm guessing that should have been one 110" for four 55". I'm not sure how much they could determine ahead of time about whether they would get a good 110" display, since one of the four 55" being bad would mean three good ones, but no good 110".
Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.

The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
The question if LG can produce 110" on the glass sheet they use for making 4x55" has direct impact on the perspectives of OLED. 55" OLEDs competing with 55" LCDs is questionable since this market segment has razor-sharp price and profits sensitivity, if there are profits at all there. Profits are in the big size segment and thus there is no other way than grabbing it, jumping over the LCD. 110" LCD were announced but at exorbitant prices and never made to the shops. A 110" 4K OLED would be PQ-wise extremely competitive in the high-end home theater projectors among others and obviously it would be a hot marketing item "OLED dwarfs LCD". The 110" does not have to carry ultrahigh price if made on the same line and the same pixel size as the 55".

As you can read in another thread
, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .

Last edited by irkuck; Yesterday at 06:05 AM.
irkuck is offline  
post #12056 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 06:48 AM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 83
I had seen 32in' TVs sell for under 100 bucks at 全國電子 in February in 北京市.


I am sure neither LG nor Samsung can't make 42 inch 100 dollar TVs, but Chinese very well might...

....
stas3098 is offline  
post #12057 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
barth2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.

The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:



As you can read in another thread
, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .
I'm sure they can sell a thousand of those a year :-) That should keep OLED in business.
barth2k is offline  
post #12058 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Obviously the talk is about single 110" from the glass sheet and it is evident that yield on 110" is lower than on 55". This is why the price of 110" can not be close to 4x55". But on the other hand in the condition of high yields where many full sheets are good, the price does not have to be ionospheric.

The problem has bigger ramifications and it turns out I was prophetic in my teachings:



As you can read in another thread
, Samsung in its quest to beat the LG without having competing OLED technology decided to go LCD big way.Building 10 generation LCD plant and concentrating on supersized panels aims to keep the most profitable and visible part of the market on the LCD size. Indeed, if this strategy would be successful then LG OLEDs would be relegated to a niche of relatively smaller high-end sets with huge pressure on prices and profitability. From the marketing point of view LCD would still be a king as size is the strongest segregating factor. To get on the winning size I proposed strategy for the LG: OLED has to grab the 100"+ segment and this is why ability for producing 110" panels on the line making 4x55" is so critical. I mean real volume production with realistic prices. This is my Commandment for LG: Drop those funny 55" OLEDs and try 110" instead .
Your logic correct at the high-level but somewhat flawed on several important fronts.

First, the 1080p OLEDs are not manufactured on the full-sheet M2 line, but rather on the half-sheet M1 line, and this means LG cannot manufacture 110" OLEDs on the same line used to manufacture 55" 1080p OLEDs, but only 100" (or 98" or whatever...).

With that refinement (manufacturing on half-sheets in M1 rather than full sheets in M2), there is some logic to your suggestion.

In addition, LG has stated their yield on M1 manufacturing 55" 1080p OLEDs is better that 90% now, which changes the picture versus Rogo's simplistic yield model at 80% yield.

In the simplistic model Rogo used, and assuming 1 100" 2160p OLED covers same surface area as 3 55" 1080p OLEDs, yield on the 100" OLEDs would be about 90% x 90% x 90% = 73% and this would mean that to generate the same revenue per half-sheet as LG does by selling 3 raw 55" 1080p OLEDs for $2500 (meaning 2.7 yielded 55" 1080p OLEDs @ $2500 or $6750), they could sell a raw sheet of 100" OLED for anything north of $6750 and they would be coming out ahead. With Rogo's simplified model resulting in a 73% yield, this would translate into a yielded price of $9250 for a 100" 2160p OLED. Not bad.

Now if you actually match the pixel area of the large panel to the same pixel area as 3 55" panels, you end up with a panel size of 95" instead of 100" and pixels which are a bit smaller than the 55" 1080p pixels, so yields might be slightly degraded for that reason, but a 90% yield over 1/3 of that area actually equates to full-panel yields of 82% rather than the 73% predicted by Rogo's model (because there is some probability of 2 defects occasionally killing 2 55" panels on the same half-sheet which would only kill a single 95" panel rather than two), so 95" OLED yields closer to 80% than 70% seem very credible, meaning a yielded 95" OLED price of $7800 - downright interesting!

If the panel size is increased from matching large-2160p-panel pixel area to the pixel area of 3 1080p 55" panels to instead matching large-2160p-panel active pixel height to the active pixel width of a 55" 1080p panel, panel size increases to 98" (which probably fits), pixel size increases a bit closer to that of the 1080p pixels of the 55" panels, but since the active pixel area has now increased to 105% than of 3 55" 1080p panels, that might degrade yields slightly from the 82% level. But since the yield impacts of increasing pixel size and active area offset each other, a 98" yielded OLED selling for $7800 or more still seems very credible.

And lastly, if the entire half-panel height (the short side of 1250mm) can be devoted to large-OLED panel height (unrealistic because some of that height must be reserved for overhead), the resulting panel would have a diagonal of 100.38". So if overhead can be limited to 0.38" or less, a 2160p OLED of 100" on the half-sheet M1 line could be possible and same increased-pixel versus increased active area arguments would apply so that yields should realistically fall somewhere between 75-80%.

Whatever that practical largest-half-sheet OLED is, zi agree with you that a 95" or 98" or 100" 2160p OLED priced in the range of $8500-9000 would be a much more effective use of the M1 half-sheet manufacturing line than continuing to crank out 55" 1080p OLEDs at $2500 each.

Now there is also the issue of volume and demand at that size, but even if we assume LG is devoting 100% of the M1 half-sheet manufacturing capacity of 28000 half-sheets (14000 full-sheet-equivalents) per month and is achieving 80% yield, selling 20,000 95-100" 2160p OLEDs per month at a price under $10,000 seems infinitely more possible than selling 75,000 55" 1080p OLEDs a month at a price of $2500...

So I agree with you in general with the refinement that is the M1 half-sheet manufacturing of 55" 1080p OLEDs that LG should abandon (or at least share) in favor of introducing 2160p OLEDs of 95-100" manufactured on the same M1 half-sheet manufacturing line.

110" OLEDs from the M2 line make no sense whatsoever at this stage and LG should continue to ramp 55", 65", and 77" 2160p OLED yileds on M2 as they have been.

The last minor caveat is that while shipping and distribution of 90" flat-panel TVs in now fairly-well in place, logistics for panels larger than 100" certainly is not (and we'll what happens with the Vizio R120 later this year), so LG may be limited to panels of 90" until there are established logistics in place for panels of 95", 98", or 100"...

But in any case, using the half-sheet M1 line manufacturing line to manufacture the largest 2160p OLED that is practical makes much, much more sense than using it to crank out exclusively 55" 1080p OLEDs...

Last edited by fafrd; Yesterday at 01:02 PM.
fafrd is online now  
post #12059 of 12060 Old Yesterday, 10:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,693
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 883
The fantasy that this is a huge market for 100" TVs if only they'd be priced "reasonably" is just that: A fantasy.

Barth put it well.

There is no business focusing on that niche without also satisfying a bunch of other niches.

So irkuck's "advice" to LG is weird at best.

And, really, everyone should want Samsung to make 100" TVs and sell them for 4 x the price of a 50" TV plus the appropriate markup to justify it (50%?!?). Because if Samsung does that in LCD, LG will have to eventually come close to that in OLED.

Today, it's hard for me to imagine why LG would sell such a TV for less than $30-40K. In the future, it's possible to imagine something around $10K.

I believe -- correctly, despite what many of you might think -- that if 100" TVs were $10,000, they'd represent significantly less than 1% of the world TV market. I'd venture to guess the market size is far closer to 0.1% (200-250K units) than to 1% (2-2.5M units).

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #12060 of 12060 Unread Today, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 1206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
The fantasy that this is a huge market for 100" TVs if only they'd be priced "reasonably" is just that: A fantasy.

Barth put it well.

There is no business focusing on that niche without also satisfying a bunch of other niches.

So irkuck's "advice" to LG is weird at best.

And, really, everyone should want Samsung to make 100" TVs and sell them for 4 x the price of a 50" TV plus the appropriate markup to justify it (50%?!?). Because if Samsung does that in LCD, LG will have to eventually come close to that in OLED.

Today, it's hard for me to imagine why LG would sell such a TV for less than $30-40K. In the future, it's possible to imagine something around $10K.

I believe -- correctly, despite what many of you might think -- that if 100" TVs were $10,000, they'd represent significantly less than 1% of the world TV market. I'd venture to guess the market size is far closer to 0.1% (200-250K units) than to 1% (2-2.5M units).
Agree with everything you have written.

Just believe that in addition to the 55", 65"" and 77" 4K OLEDs produced on full-sheet M2, LG could introduce 90" and 100" 4K OLEDs from half-sheet M1 (or 88" and 99", or whatever) and offer these at a far more profitable price than selling 1080p TVs for $2500 (which will eventually need to be less to continue).

If LG can sell such sets for much more than $10,000, and even $30-40K, all the better (more profit to invest in OLED).

Of course if LG finds massive demand for 55" 4K OLEDs at a profitable price, they made need to bring up production of those on M1, but that would be non-sensical now (especially with the M2 expansion plan for late this year).

Using M1 to bring up large-screen 4K OLEDs of 90" and 100" is a much more sensible use of the half-sheet manufacturing line at this stage. And in terms of volume, even 0.1% of the market represents 200K units a year and M1 fully devoted to large-screen OLEDs has a maximum capacity of 168K raw or 125-135K yielded - sounds like a match made in heaven.

The fact that you can purchase a 90" Sharp LCD from Costco for $6300 is interesting - there must be some demand for screens that size (which LG could dominate) and 100" screens (which LG could pioneer at little incremental investment) could be the next mainstream 'massive-size' TV on the horizon...
fafrd is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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

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