OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 460 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1134Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #13771 of 13862 Old 02-10-2017, 06:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Mr. Hookup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
LED prices keep plummeting higher.
Greg: I can't speak for TV prices in Hawaii, but where I live, prices on LCD/ LED are much lower priced then OLED. Right now, around here, LG is the only manufacturer of large OLEDs right now.

A/V is only as good as your weakest link.
Mr. Hookup is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #13772 of 13862 Old 02-10-2017, 07:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Couple of notes:

1) Your analysis of sizes in the other post was really outstanding. I'd pick a few nits, for example, Sharp more or less invented the practical 70-inch display. They could set standards. And the 8-up 60-inch was seen as an amazing competitive weapon in the development of the fab.

2) It's not clear to me (but I'm sure it's clear to LG) whether they need to offer 55/60/65/70 to hit all their sales goals over the next 5 years. They clear do not over the next 2 years, but things will get more complex after that because with bigger volume goals -- while still being able to only play in expensive price bands -- come bigger problems. I should clarify that "70" in this case could be replaced by 72 just fine, those are interchangeable sizes at retail even though a few percent of sales would be lost to cabinet sizes where the larger one wouldn't fit. Anyway, I'd lay a relatively decent wager we'll see a 60 in the mix.
It's possible LG picks an identical substrate use to Sharp/Sakai that optimizes 60" and 70" and modest expense to 65", but I doubt it.

More likely to be me that they choose one of the substrate sizes that maximizes the efficiency at 65", since that seems to be the emerging next 'sweet-size' in the market (55" being the first).

A substrate for 6-up 65" would be roughly equivalent to the current 8.5G substrates at 55" and 77", so doesn't buy LG much in the way of diversity. The super-efficient 18-up display such a substrate could support is 37" - pretty small and seemingly pretty distant from today's OLED market.

The larger substrate designed for 8-up 65" I already mentioned would also be optimally efficient for 73" as well as 18-up is 43".

So LG would get 49", 55"' and 77" off of their existing 8.5G lines and they would get 43", 65", and 73" off of their new 10G line.

60" could be produced - they just woukdn't be any less expensive to manufacture than 65"... (meaning 128% the cost of a 55" panel).

And by the way, in terms of cabinet sizes, since most 70" LCDs had large bezels surrounding the screen and OLEDs have next to none, a 72" or 73" OLED probably fits most 70" cabinets...

Quote:
3) There is still no meaningful market at 75+. LG can pick whatever size (or two) it wants there. It will sell a few. They are well served by optimizing for cost but it still seems like a few years before they even bother to try to compete on price.
Agreed. It's a showpiece / bragging-rights size but will not be a priority before yields approach LCD levels or LG begins facing an overcapacity problem (which doesn't look like a potential problem for about as long out as we can see from today )

Quote:
4) If you look at the graph, you'll see LCD fully displacing CRT (and most of plasma) in a decade. Now you may be asking, Why can't OLED replace LCD that fast? The answer is simple and complex

* When flat panels were ascendant, they were super compelling vs. box TVs. There was going to be a one-time, replace everything cycle. You'll note the TV market actually grew during that cycle. It happened to coincide with the HD cycle which also fueled the one-time, replace everything cycle. You couldn't deliver a big HD picture on CRT because you couldn't make a big CRT.

* When LCD became viable (thanks to the magic LC sputtering innovation), everyone decided to invest nearly simultaneously. That led to three separate and critical phenomena:

i) There was overcapacity almost overnight that persisted for years to come.

ii) There was an amazing push to drive learning curve effects and scale economics.

iii) There was a huge market for suppliers to make LCD-making equipment which drove down the prices of said equipment and drove innovation there.

* This is not being repeated in OLED. There is only one primary manufacturer at this time. It is moving slowly. No longer glacially, but slowly.

* The 25% number was less a prediction than sort of a guesstimate at what might be possible 8 years from now. Consider that it's fully 3 years before there ie even one plant to complement LG's existing production capacity. And the existing capacity is <1% of TV volume. If tomorrow we learned BOE was building its own "P10"-sized plant, it would be possible for OLED to reach something like 5% of the TV market by volume by 2020 but it wouldn't be possible to get to 10%.

5) This gets back to the LG and "followers". What I meant was other manufacturers. The OLED global takeover needs them. It needs Foxconn (which now owns a huge chunk of the display industry). It needs Samsung, which I suspect is bluffing on its lack of interest and is waiting out patents / researching printing / continuing to discuss licensing / contemplating what a future without TV profits looks like. It needs China, which likely lacks the expertise to really grow/succeed here because this is cutting-edge stuff.

6) Another factor that matters here is that in 2005, you had aging CRT that couldn't make LCDs and were well beyond fully depreciated. Obviously, they had no future. In 2017, you have aging LCD plants that still make LCDs that satisfy the vast, vast, vast majority of TV buyers. They are fully depreciated. There is no reason to shut those plants down. They make really cheap TVs. LCD is not going to be displaced the way CRT was. OLED doesn't have anything remotely resembling the HD or flat-panel transitions as tailwinds.

7) I'm going to bet on the TV market shrinking quite a bit over the next 5-10 years. It looks like it used to be much smaller, those tailwinds are gone, video viewing has overwhelming shifted to phones and tablets, and the Chinese middle class that wants TV likely has already bought one. It doesn't feel like current volumes are sustainable without any catalyst to upgrade. And while I know some of you love HDR and 4K, these are not catalysts to upgrade.
Agree with everything you gave stated here. The only nuance to add is that, the flip side to LG facing a huge capacity of cost-competetive and fully-depreciated LCD manufacturing capacity is that that same capacity offers the possibility of acceleration (both in terms of time and magnitude) if/when conversions of that existing LCD capacity begin to happen...

Last edited by fafrd; 02-11-2017 at 11:50 AM.
fafrd is offline  
post #13773 of 13862 Old 02-11-2017, 05:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,154
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
i) There was overcapacity almost overnight that persisted for years to come.
There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.

The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.

LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.
slacker711 is online now  
 
post #13774 of 13862 Old 02-11-2017, 12:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.

The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.
Seems as though Samsung remains committed to RGB emissive technologies, so to me, it's less about Samsung being lost in the QLED wilderness than it is about them being lost in the patterned emitters' wilderness. The manufacturing differences between WOLED and RGB OLED are more significant than the differences between RGB OLED and RGB QD-LED.

Samsung's entire 'QLED' initiative seems to be a bet that patterning of emitters, either in the form of photoresist + photolithography, or in the form of printing, will industrialize quickly enough to offer a competetive alternative to WOLED before LG's technology has established dominance in large-screen displays.

And interestingly, one of the chief benefits of patterned QD-LED over WOLED would be higher brightess and greater 'color-volume,' so there is a rational strategy behind Samsung's marketing campaign to establish a value proposition for those characteristics now in advance of having true emissive technology to deliver...

Quote:
LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.
LG's announced plans including 10G P10 probably give them the capacity to get close to 10M WOLED panels annually by 2020 (and more if they decide to get into the 40-49" market ).

The lead-time for conversion of an 8G LCD line to WOLED seems to be about 18 months, so if any partners get announced this year, it's still possible for a second source to get established before 2020, but that partnership agreement would need to come together in 2017.

A second source starting from a cold start and without support/licensing of WOLED from LG seems like a far riskier/more-uncertain development, but I'm not aware of the patent expiration and how realistic of an option that might be.

In terms of partners LG would be comfortable licensing to, Sharp seemed like an interesting possibility, but the involvement of Foxconn makes that seem less likely now.

Regionally, LG could license into Japan, Taiwan, or China and with Sony, Panasonic, and now Toshiba all entering the OLED TV market, a viable Japan option appears to be the most attractive option if there is one...

But to the extent Sony could have influence in what steps might be next, it's likely they are going to want to see how 2017 plays out before making any commitments.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think you're right, hard to see substantial WOLED capacity from a second source before 2020 .
fafrd is offline  
post #13775 of 13862 Old 02-12-2017, 07:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,805
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1615 Post(s)
Liked: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
It's possible LG picks an identical substrate use to Sharp/Sakai that optimizes 60" and 70" and modest expense to 65", but I doubt it.

More likely to be me that they choose one of the substrate sizes that maximizes the efficiency at 65", since that seems to be the emerging next 'sweet-size' in the market (55" being the first)....

The larger substrate designed for 8-up 65" I already mentioned would also be optimally efficient for 73" as well as 18-up is 43".

So LG would get 49", 55"' and 77" off of their existing 8.5G lines and they would get 43", 65", and 73" off of their new 10G line.....
And by the way, in terms of cabinet sizes, since most 70" LCDs had large bezels surrounding the screen and OLEDs have next to none, a 72" or 73" OLED probably fits most 70" cabinets...
43/49/55/65/72 isn't a bad lineup. It's not a great one because of that 10-inch gap in the middle though. They might be able to make it work by essentially going bezel-less on those 65s and 72s. I should be clear I don't think your theory is wrong, but I do think it's going to be challenging to have that nice clean set of 6-inch gaps and basically not have a 60/61-inch display in there.

Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore
Quote:
Agree with everything you gave stated here. The only nuance to add is that, the flip side to LG facing a huge capacity of cost-competetive and fully-depreciated LCD manufacturing capacity is that that same capacity offers the possibility of acceleration (both in terms of time and magnitude) if/when conversions of that existing LCD capacity begin to happen...
Right, but those aren't easy and are currently limited to LG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
There is a decent chance that we will get that in mobile OLED's where the Chinese are throwing money at the sector in the hope of catching Samsung. Combine that with Apple likely 2nd sourcing their requirements to non-Chinese vendors and you have the recipe for massive oversupply. The hope would be that the technical skills that the Chinese learn in mobile will allow them to jump start their television efforts. The backplanes are different but deposition is actually easier for televisions.
Yes, I've wondered about this too.
Quote:
The problem is that this takes time. Samsung is still the single company that could dramatically increase OLED capacity in the near-term but they are stuck in their QLED wilderness. I doubt that they are going to change to OLED's on a dime though maybe their high-end sales in 2017 will be disastrous enough to give them some 2nd thoughts on their current path. Regardless of image quality, the initial prices for QLED's are going to make them a nearly impossible sell. They really need LCD panel prices to fall substantially, but I am not sure that happens in 2017.
I'm fairly sure it doesn't happen in 2017. But it does seem like 2018 could be carnage for the waning hopes of selling $3000+ LCDs. Maybe things move then?
Quote:
LG Display will continue ramping their own capacity but it is hard to see substantial capacity from a 2nd source before 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Regionally, LG could license into Japan, Taiwan, or China and with Sony, Panasonic, and now Toshiba all entering the OLED TV market, a viable Japan option appears to be the most attractive option if there is one...

But to the extent Sony could have influence in what steps might be next, it's likely they are going to want to see how 2017 plays out before making any commitments.

This is my long-winded way of saying that I think you're right, hard to see substantial WOLED capacity from a second source before 2020 .
Sony has never manufactured a flat panel for consumers. It won't be them. But at some point LG will want a licensee more than a lead. Maybe that point is when it's going to get a volume Chinese knock off that it will have to fight in a patent suit anyway?

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13776 of 13862 Old 02-12-2017, 08:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
43/49/55/65/72 isn't a bad lineup. It's not a great one because of that 10-inch gap in the middle though. They might be able to make it work by essentially going bezel-less on those 65s and 72s. I should be clear I don't think your theory is wrong, but I do think it's going to be challenging to have that nice clean set of 6-inch gaps and basically not have a 60/61-inch display in there.
I'm not sure which Gen LCD fabs are best for putting out 60" LCD panels (other than Sakai ), but perhaps LG can convert one of those .

LG does offer IPS TVs in 60": http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-60UF7700-4k-uhd-led-tv, so either they manufacture those on Gen 8.5 substrates or some older generation. If 60" proves important for the development of the OLED TV market, I'm sure LG knows how to manage it - cost will probably just be less optimized than it is for the other sizes.

Planning a new fab to optimize 60" and 70" just seems like the wrong move given where the market is and where it seems to be going. Checking Amazon or Best Buy, there are way more (3-4 times) 65" TVs than 60" TVs. So a 6-up or 8-up substrate for 65" just seems like it will position LG to drive forward the advantage they have established for themselves at that critical size in the premium / large-screen TV market.

6-up at 65 is also very efficient at 55" (8-up), but so what - the existing 8.5G lines are already optimized for 55", so that overlap buy them almost nothing (a bit of manufacturing flexibility).

Looking 7-10 years out, an optimized 70"+ panel just seems like a wiser investment for the future. And the fact that that investment also provides an optimally-efficient 43" panel is just icing on the cake.

Quote:
Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore
If you do the math on a 6-up 65" substrate, once you discover that the largest size for 3-up layout is exactly 77", you understand what drove LG to choose that size. It cannot be a coincidence...

Between abandoning 77" in favor of 80" or keeping 77" as is and introducing 85" beyond it, I doubt we see any decisions made before P10 is up and running...

And as I said in my earlier post, the 8-up 65" substrate can fit 3-up all the way to 87"... (more icing on the cake).


Quote:
I'm fairly sure it doesn't happen in 2017. But it does seem like 2018 could be carnage for the waning hopes of selling $3000+ LCDs. Maybe things move then?
The LCD market had an easy way to differentiate picture quality to justify price gaps that OLED doesn't share. There are so many 'tricks' used to improve LCD, almost all involving incremental cost, that a good, better, best picture quality lineup was justified.

With OLED, raw picture quality is driven by the panel. Premium brands like Panasonic can differentiate with capability such as 3D-LUT and Sony can differentiate with better processing for OTA and cable compressed sources, but the fundamentals of picture-quality are far more 'locked-in' at the panel level than they are in LED/LCD.

So even if there are higher-priced OLED TVs with better CMS, better processing, and better sound (the LG product lineup strategy), the entry-level OLEDs will create much more of a price ceiling than entry-level LED/LCDs ever could.

I'm pretty confident LG's entry-level OLEDs will be available at close to half of introductory MSRP again this November as they were last year, which will mean a 65C7P should be widely available at prices approaching $2000 before the end of the year.

It's really hard to see how that doesn't pull the wool out from under the $3000+ 65" LCD TV market.

70" and above will remain a strong market for LED/LCD at least until 2019 when P10 should be up and running, but 65" TVs costing north of $3000 will probably be a luxury item for the deep-pocketed by next year (meaning volumes will be much lower).

Who knows where Samsung is headed and how long they are going to stay their QLED course. They'll still sell a huge number of 65" LED/LCD TVs this year, just not their flagships costing $3000+ for 65". Whatever 65" model sells for $1500 or less, like the 65KS8000 last year, should enjoy a high volume of sales, but it's hard to see the QLED/LCD 65" Flagships selling at a premium to LG's entry-level 65C7P OLED (just as the 65KS9800 greatly undersold the 65B/C6P last year ).

Perhaps 2017 amounts to an investment in marketing with hopes of payoff in 2018 with some real technology (QDCF/E-LCD), but that seems technologically optimistic and once P10 starts to ramp, it feels like Samsung's window starts closing...


Quote:
Sony has never manufactured a flat panel for consumers. It won't be them. But at some point LG will want a licensee more than a lead. Maybe that point is when it's going to get a volume Chinese knock off that it will have to fight in a patent suit anyway?
Yeah, Sony as part of a syndicate, perhaps, but never alone. Sharp would have been the most natural choice for Japan but they are now Chinese-owned.

Panasonic once produced flat panels, but conversion of old plasma lines to WOLED seems like a non-starter.

Japan Display has some manufacturing but it seems to be pretty niche/fringe rather than consumer, and anyway, they already have their own OLED technology.

If there are not any attractive/sensible licensing partners left in Japan, the next obvious choice would probably be Taiwan where perhaps the looming bloodbath gets a big panel supplier like AUO motivated...

It's a near-certainty that someone will eventually license from LG - it just seems unlikely before P10 has successfully come online and another few years of success are under WOLED TV's belt .
pitviper45 likes this.

Last edited by fafrd; 02-12-2017 at 09:03 PM.
fafrd is offline  
post #13777 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 12:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Just ran into this from last June: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/bl...liers-upgraded

A lot of detail about Samsung's LCD capacity and plans as well as Panasonic. Short version is that Samsung is in the process of selling off all LCD TC manufacturing plants (meaning equipment) save one, which has 'only' 400K 8.5G sheet capacity.

Panasonic also has an 8.5G LCD fab that they are mothballing down to 10K sheet/month capacity.
fafrd is offline  
post #13778 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 11:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sorry, chances are excellent that you're an idiot.
Posts: 9,806
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2464 Post(s)
Liked: 2241
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Also, I think there is no magic at 77. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced even though it's neatly 6 inches above the 72. I expect 80. I've wonder honestly if the size wasn't partly picked because of rigidity issues with the physical backplanes. The flexi-back models suggest that's not a limiting factor anymore
Rogo, does the ability to cut a 77" substrate translate directly to a 77" substrate that can be turned into a 77" display? Or do they need to cut, say 79".

IOW, is it possible that there needs to be a margin for a machine to "hold", or otherwise allow the vapor-dep to remain perfectly level? I'm [sort of] wondering if deposits that do a "full bleed" to the edge produce edge effects.

Thought #EAA: I wonder how many people know that no one ever says "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (1967).
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13779 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 12:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Rogo, does the ability to cut a 77" substrate translate directly to a 77" substrate that can be turned into a 77" display? Or do they need to cut, say 79".

IOW, is it possible that there needs to be a margin for a machine to "hold", or otherwise allow the vapor-dep to remain perfectly level? I'm [sort of] wondering if deposits that do a "full bleed" to the edge produce edge effects.
There is almost certainly some inter panel gap, but it is probably pretty small. There is also likely some modest edge keep-out.

The current 8.5G substrates have a 'long' dimension of 2500mm and two 55" panels laid-up side-by-side take up 2436mm with no gap.

My 65C6P has about 1/4" or 6mm between the outermost pixels and the end of the cover glass/coating, but it is impossible for me to say whether the underlying OLED panel continues to that extent or not.

Adding 6mm surrounding each 55" OLED would take the above side-by-side dimension up to 2460mm, 98% of the substrate dimension...

It is unlikely that the OLED panel's are 'trimmed' in a second step after being cut from each other, if that was your question. It is almost certainly a 'single' cut operation where an 8.5G substrate is cut 3 times to free 6 55" panels, though it is possible there is an additional 4 trimming cuts applied to the outermost edges first.
tgm1024 likes this.
fafrd is offline  
post #13780 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 01:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,307
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1080 Post(s)
Liked: 731
Wizziwig is offline  
post #13781 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 05:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sorry, chances are excellent that you're an idiot.
Posts: 9,806
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2464 Post(s)
Liked: 2241
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
There is almost certainly some inter panel gap, but it is probably pretty small. There is also likely some modest edge keep-out.

The current 8.5G substrates have a 'long' dimension of 2500mm and two 55" panels laid-up side-by-side take up 2436mm with no gap.

My 65C6P has about 1/4" or 6mm between the outermost pixels and the end of the cover glass/coating, but it is impossible for me to say whether the underlying OLED panel continues to that extent or not.

Adding 6mm surrounding each 55" OLED would take the above side-by-side dimension up to 2460mm, 98% of the substrate dimension...

It is unlikely that the OLED panel's are 'trimmed' in a second step after being cut from each other, if that was your question. It is almost certainly a 'single' cut operation where an 8.5G substrate is cut 3 times to free 6 55" panels, though it is possible there is an additional 4 trimming cuts applied to the outermost edges first.
Sort of. My question had to do with Rogo's suggestion that there might not be anything magical about the choice of 77".

The problem was: I don't know what 77" diagonal translates to in terms of the required initial cut. Is it 79", etc., etc. (IOW, is the 79" the magical number). That changes the "I can get this, that, and the other sizes cut from a 10G" formula a bit.

However, you're right in that if there were a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.

Thought #EAA: I wonder how many people know that no one ever says "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (1967).

Last edited by tgm1024; 02-13-2017 at 05:39 PM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13782 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 05:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sorry, chances are excellent that you're an idiot.
Posts: 9,806
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2464 Post(s)
Liked: 2241
Wow, great find. Guess they patched things up for Valentine's day.

Can't go wrong with Samsung phone OLED's. Been a fan of mine for quite some time now.

Thought #EAA: I wonder how many people know that no one ever says "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (1967).
tgm1024 is offline  
post #13783 of 13862 Old 02-13-2017, 06:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Sort of. My question had to do with Rogo's suggestion that there might not be anything magical about the choice of 77".
I think Rogo was suspecting some upper limit associated with mechanical support of the panel, not anything related to manufacturing.

77" is a very strange size because those 8.5G substrates can only hold 2-up of any panel larger than 65" all the way up to 98" maximum.

But 2 65" OLEDs side-by-side have a width of 2878mm and a stack of three 77" OLEDs are 2877mm, and that cannot be coincidence.

If LG was planning for a P10 fab with 9.5G substrates holding 3x2 65" OLEDs, the maximum panel size that would fit 3-up is exactly 77". That has got to be the reason they chose that strange size.

And the result will be that, it they decide to go with a larger 10G substrate holding 4x2 65" panels, while they would still fit 3 77" panels, that's no longer an especially efficient size. 73" panels would fit 6-to-a-substrate, so would cost half as much as 77" panels. And the largest panel that fits 3-to-a-substrate is 87", so 77" or 87" would have equivalent panel cost.

Finally, since these 10G substrates would cost ~170% of the current 8.5G substrates to manufacture, 3 77" OLEDs on a 10G substrate would actually cost ~13% more than 2 77" OLEDs on the current 8.5G substrate.

So while there was something a bit 'magical' about LG's initia choice of 77" (the largest panel they could manufacture 3-up on the originally-planned 9.5G substrate), that magic gets lost in the shuffle if they elect to go for a 10G substrate...

Quote:
The problem was: I don't know what 77" diagonal translates to in terms of the required initial cut. Is it 79", etc., etc. (IOW, is the 79" the magical number). That changes the "I can get this, that, and the other sizes cut from a 10G" formula a bit.
If you are asking about required inter-panel spacing or edge-spacing, I don't know them either and all of my calculations are based on 0mm spacing but then rounded up. If there is dead-space required, am almost certain that is is closer to 1/4" than 1", both because we know the dimensions of the 8.5G substrates and the 3x2 layout of 55" and 3x1 layout of 65" OLED panels that it holds, as well as inspecting the small gap between edge of glass and first pixels on my 64C6P (~1/4").

[wuote]
However, you're right in that if there were a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.[/QUOTE]

The 8.5G substrates are 2200x2500mm.

Each 55" panel is 1218 x 685mm, so 2-across x 3 high requires 2436 x 2055mm. That translates to 91% efficiency.

Assume a surround of 6mm on all sides plus an additional 6mm for the substrate edge and efficiency increases to 95% (2473x2103mm).

For the optimal sizes (55" and 49" on 8.5G), the waste is very small.

The efficiency of manufacturing 3 65" or 2 77" panels on 8.5G substrates is far worse - about 67%

My gut feeling is that 55" and 65" are sizes LG is committed to, while 77" was a speculative size determined by a manufacturing roadmap that may be changing (and I suspect this is probably one of the reasons LG has left 77" pricing as high as it is).
tgm1024 likes this.
fafrd is offline  
post #13784 of 13862 Old 02-14-2017, 09:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Found this from a few weeks ago: http://www.displaysupplychain.com/bl...-lens-capacity

Another source talking about LG/Paju/P10 being 10.5G...

Also indicates 30K substrate/month OLED capacity out of 90K substrate/month total capacity.

Attached is the table of 10.5G/11G Fabs under construction.

The 4 LCD fabs have a combined max capacity in excess of 500K 10.5G panels per month, each of which can generate 6 75", 8 65", or 18 43" panels.

There is a bloodbath coming in 2020 and 65" TVs are going to get much less expensive. 75" is the new 55"...

Nikon's ability to deliver 10.5G lithography equipment to all of these projects will apparently be a bottleneck on how quickly they can all come on-line. BOE and TCL have placed POs, the others including LG not yet. LG has made statements about finalizing decision on P10 this June, and placement of appropriate POs is likely to follow soon after that.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	106
Size:	43.9 KB
ID:	1970033  
NintendoManiac64 likes this.

Last edited by fafrd; 02-15-2017 at 12:26 PM.
fafrd is offline  
post #13785 of 13862 Old 02-15-2017, 09:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,805
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1615 Post(s)
Liked: 1808
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I think Rogo was suspecting some upper limit associated with mechanical support of the panel, not anything related to manufacturing.

77" is a very strange size because those 8.5G substrates can only hold 2-up of any panel larger than 65" all the way up to 98" maximum.
Yes, that 77 had no particular reason to exist given 98 was as efficient but that 77 might have been a good, practical choice given LG likely had issues (initially) building rigid enough, super thin TVs.
Quote:
But 2 65" OLEDs side-by-side have a width of 2878mm and a stack of three 77" OLEDs are 2877mm, and that cannot be coincidence.

If LG was planning for a P10 fab with 9.5G substrates holding 3x2 65" OLEDs, the maximum panel size that would fit 3-up is exactly 77". That has got to be the reason they chose that strange size.
I buy this to a point. They could always have changed the size at P10.
Quote:
So while there was something a bit 'magical' about LG's initia choice of 77" (the largest panel they could manufacture 3-up on the originally-planned 9.5G substrate), that magic gets lost in the shuffle if they elect to go for a 10G substrate...
And given 10G always had to be a maybe....
Quote:
If you are asking about required inter-panel spacing or edge-spacing, I don't know them either and all of my calculations are based on 0mm spacing but then rounded up. If there is dead-space required, am almost certain that is is closer to 1/4" than 1", both because we know the dimensions of the 8.5G substrates and the 3x2 layout of 55" and 3x1 layout of 65" OLED panels that it holds, as well as inspecting the small gap between edge of glass and first pixels on my 64C6P (~1/4").

However, you're right in that if there were a secondary trimming, then it makes me wonder if there were a considerable amount of throw-away.
You need very little between panels. And you cut once, not twice.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13786 of 13862 Old 02-15-2017, 10:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Yes, that 77 had no particular reason to exist given 98 was as efficient but that 77 might have been a good, practical choice given LG likely had issues (initially) building rigid enough, super thin TVs.


I buy this to a point. They could always have changed the size at P10.


And given 10G always had to be a maybe....


You need very little between panels. And you cut once, not twice.
In addition to the article I posted earlier, I found this referring to the 4 10.5G or 11G LCD fabs being constructed in China: http://www.odmlcd.com/Hot%20News/138.htm

What's confusing is that I have seen identical substrate size referred to as both 10.5G and 11G in the article:

"China-based BOE Technology is constructing a 10.5G TFT-LCD factory with monthly production capacity of 120,000 2,940mm by 3,370mm glass substrates that will start production in the first half of 2018, the sources said."

"China Star Optoelectronics Technology will soon start construction of an 11G TFT-LCD factory with monthly production capacity of 60,000 2,940mm by 3,370mm glass substrates in the first phase and of 140,000 substrates eventually, and plans to kick off production in the first half of 2019."

so my first question is whether anyone understands the difference between 10.5G and 11G - are they different substrate sizes or not?

And my second question is whether, if the 4 China LCD fabs are all converging on the same size 2940mm X 3370mm substrates, would that lead LG to adopt a similar substrate size if it decides to go 10G in P10?

It seems as though there is 10.5G equipment in the pipeline (Nikon, etc...) and that the display/equipment industry is converging on that as the next 'standard' substrate/equipment standard following 8.5G...

If all that 10.5G equipment can handle smaller size substrates down to 9.5G or whatever, LG would be free to choose a smaller sheet size, but if not, that's an awful lot of custom one-off equipment to manage.

And if they pay for all that 10.5G equipment but only use it with smaller-size 95G substrates, that will mean higher amortization costs per panel (and slightly lower production costs).

These larger 105G substrates the 4 LCD factories are using are 180% the size of the current 8.5G substrates and will just barely miss holding 6 77" OLEDs.

But they will hold 6 76" OLEDs (assuming very little between panels) and those 76" OLED panels would cost less that 60% of the cost of the current 2-up 8.5G 77" panels...

And savings on the 65" OLEDs would be less than 70% of the current 3-up 8.5G cost.

If the entire future of the LCD industry is moving toward these 10.5G Substrates, it's hard for me to see how LG would want to be the odd man out.
fafrd is offline  
post #13787 of 13862 Old 02-16-2017, 07:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,805
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1615 Post(s)
Liked: 1808
I'm sure the 10.5G vs. 11G thing is just terminology. A distinction without a difference.

If lots of adoption is occurring around a particular substrate size, it would of course behoove LG to follow suit. And there is no harm in shifting to 76 inches from 77 if that's the inexpensive size. I mean this should be obvious stuff, but I'm sort of nodding that, "Yes, yes, you want to cut all your cost intelligently and when you're investing billions in a multi-year deal, you want to get this right."

It will cost LG nothing commercially to shift those 77s down to 76 or even 75.

Being great at 65 is obviously valuable.

All of this sounds logically.

If they move away from what's logical and don't get the best cost structure some other way, they will regret it.
fafrd likes this.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13788 of 13862 Old 02-16-2017, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
I'm sure the 10.5G vs. 11G thing is just terminology. A distinction without a difference.

If lots of adoption is occurring around a particular substrate size, it would of course behoove LG to follow suit. And there is no harm in shifting to 76 inches from 77 if that's the inexpensive size. I mean this should be obvious stuff, but I'm sort of nodding that, "Yes, yes, you want to cut all your cost intelligently and when you're investing billions in a multi-year deal, you want to get this right."

It will cost LG nothing commercially to shift those 77s down to 76 or even 75.

Being great at 65 is obviously valuable.

All of this sounds logically.

If they move away from what's logical and don't get the best cost structure some other way, they will regret it.
Happy to confirm there is nothing I am missing in all this (especially that there is not some subtle difference between 10.5G and 11G - it's all about substrate size).

If the LCD industry is converging on 3370mm X 2940mm as the next-gen substrate size, the plus is it will reduce risk and cost for LG to follow that trend, and the minus is that they may need to 'get in line' and could be facing schedule delays due to bottlenecks in 10.5G equipment production...

Also, the fact that it appears that pretty much the entire LCD industry is entering thus upgrade cycle for new 10.5G fabs means that the drawback OLED TV has in terms of increased amortization should be effectively neutralized.

At 55" (and eventually 49"), LG's investments in OLED capacity lag the LCD industry and so they have a handicap in terms of amortization.

But at 65" and 75-76" OLED should be roughly at parity and it comes down to material costs (economies of scale) and yield. Those 10.5G fabs are also going to be very efficient at 43" panels as well, when the time comes, but that will probably not be the first priority, at least for LG OLED...

The stakes also go up significantly for Samsung's gambit on true electro-emissive QLEDs - LG managed to enter the OLED TV market successfully partly because they were able to convert existing 8.5G fabs which were the most advanced mainstream generation.

By 2020, Samsung will have difficulty following the same strategy. If they convert an 8.5G LCD fab, they can be semi-competetive at 55", but they are going to be horribly uncompetitive at 65" and above.

And investing in a new 10.5G fab (or converting a new 10.5G LCD fab) before succeeding to prove market acceptance and getting through the early-phase growing pains seems imprudent.

It's gonna be an interesting next 5 years...
fafrd is offline  
post #13789 of 13862 Old 02-16-2017, 07:25 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Does the 8G or 10G fabrication impact whether the screen will be 10bit or 12 bit? Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question but I'd like to know. I heard Dolby Vision is better on a 12 bit screen so I'm curious as to when I'll be able to get a 12bit screen.
boe is offline  
post #13790 of 13862 Old 02-16-2017, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe View Post
[B{Does the 8G or 10G fabrication impact whether the screen will be 10bit or 12 bit? [/B] Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question but I'd like to know.
No.

Quote:
I heard Dolby Vision is better on a 12 bit screen so I'm curious as to when I'll be able to get a 12bit screen.
Dolby Vision delivers HDR video in 12-bit resolution, compared to HDR10 which delivers HDR in 10-bit video (hence the name ).

There is so much processing performed between video input and panel display that there is really no need for a true 12-bit panel to render 12-bit video optimally. Banding is the chief concern when panel bit-depth is insufficient and true 10-bit panels will generally not exhibit any banding.

Many 10-bit panels are actually 8 'true' bits with 2 additional bits delivered through FRC (Frame-rare-control, meaning temporal dithering).

As far as OLEDs go (since this is the OLED Thread ), current-generation OLEDs do not even deliver a full 8-bits near-black, let alone 10 bits.

Hopefully this is an area LG makes progress on with their next-generation 2018 panel, but in the meantime, my advice to you is '10-bits in the hand is worth 12-bits in the bush'
boe and tigertim like this.
fafrd is offline  
post #13791 of 13862 Old 02-16-2017, 08:43 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
No.


Hopefully this is an area LG makes progress on with their next-generation 2018 panel, but in the meantime, my advice to you is '10-bits in the hand is worth 12-bits in the bush'

Thanks for all the info. I still have much too learn. I currently have a nice 4K TV but I really want something bigger. So I can pretend to be patient as the price goes down and the tech gets better. I don't think I could make it much more than 2 years but I can do 1 more year. I'd love an 85" OLED but I can live with 77" if the prices drop enough in the next 2 years.
boe is offline  
post #13792 of 13862 Old 02-17-2017, 05:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,154
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked: 474
This is going to be an important dynamic going forward. I doubt that Samsung Electronics was expecting to price their QLED displays quite as high as they did. Do they proceed with their 7-2 shutdown or wait until LCD panel prices come down?

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170217VL200.html




Quote:
OLED smartphones and the TV pricing connection

Michael McManus, DIGITIMES, Taipei [Friday 17 February 2017]
One side effect of the expected craze for AMOLED panels in high-end smartphones this year is that LCD TV prices may not drop as quickly as they have in the past.

A key recent trend in the global display market has been Samsung Display's decision to transform a significant portion of its L7-1 LCD production line into an AMOLED panel line for producing smartphone panels. This led to tight supply of TV panels in the second half of 2016, which was compounded by Foxconn's decision to not have Sharp provide TV panels to Samsung.

According to data from Digitimes Research, the average selling price of 42-inch TV panels increased 54% in the second half of 2016. Digitimes Research believes pricing will continue to rise slightly in the first quarter of 2017 before starting to slowly drop in the second half of the year.

However, Digitimes Research noted that consumers should not worry about the average TV price rising dramatically. TV vendors are unwilling to increase the price of electronics products since consumers tend not to be receptive, Digitimes Research pointed out. Instead TV vendors are looking to focus on higher margin products, such as larger sized TVs or 3D TVs with their panels. One symptom of the more expensive panels though, is that pricing of those products will not drop as quickly as they have in the past.

According to data from the Digitimes Research LCD panel tracker, annual global LCD TV panel shipments dropped in 2016, falling from 268 million to 261 million.

However, TV panel pricing is expected to start falling again in 2018 as more capacity from China-based makers starts ramping up and the industry moves into oversupply.
slacker711 is online now  
post #13793 of 13862 Old 03-02-2017, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Mr. Hookup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe View Post
Thanks for all the info. I still have much too learn. I currently have a nice 4K TV but I really want something bigger. So I can pretend to be patient as the price goes down and the tech gets better. I don't think I could make it much more than 2 years but I can do 1 more year. I'd love an 85" OLED but I can live with 77" if the prices drop enough in the next 2 years.
W

Why not a great Video Projector (upwards of 100" and up)?

A/V is only as good as your weakest link.
Mr. Hookup is offline  
post #13794 of 13862 Old 03-02-2017, 08:58 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hookup View Post
W

Why not a great Video Projector (upwards of 100" and up)?

I live in a relatively small apartment.
boe is offline  
post #13795 of 13862 Old 03-02-2017, 10:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 4,746
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Liked: 2315
And yet you want a screen larger than 80"! That is just bizarre to me. Imagine if you had to move [hope you're not on the second (or higher) floor].
video_analysis is online now  
post #13796 of 13862 Old 03-04-2017, 07:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 149
LG was promising 99" OLED two years ago, together with the magnetic wallpaper one. The magnetic wallpaper materialized this year, so the next year must be the 99" year .
irkuck is offline  
post #13797 of 13862 Old 03-05-2017, 07:06 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by video_analysis View Post
And yet you want a screen larger than 80"! That is just bizarre to me. Imagine if you had to move [hope you're not on the second (or higher) floor].

I had a Mits 65" CRT RPTV - that was tough to get up the 4 flights of stairs but I did it with the help of my friends. Getting rid of it was far easier. An 80" or 85" OLED TV would be a joy to move in comparison.
boe is offline  
post #13798 of 13862 Old 03-05-2017, 09:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 4,746
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Liked: 2315
You'd think that, but the thinness wreaks havoc on your nerves, giving the impression it could shatter at any moment! Of course, transporting it within its shipping container would mitigate that fear.
video_analysis is online now  
post #13799 of 13862 Old 03-06-2017, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 4,746
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Liked: 2315
Quote:
Originally Posted by boe View Post
I had a Mits 65" CRT RPTV - that was tough to get up the 4 flights of stairs but I did it with the help of my friends. Getting rid of it was far easier. An 80" or 85" OLED TV would be a joy to move in comparison.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but curiosity is killing me. Given your "small" apartment, what kind of seating distance are you anticipating from your hypothetical 85" screen? I can suddenly see why you harp on motion fairly frequently, though if you have to move your neck to keep up with the action on-screen, that might make such motion concerns moot.
video_analysis is online now  
post #13800 of 13862 Old 03-06-2017, 02:23 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 923 Post(s)
Liked: 424
12'
boe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Led Hdtv , Lg , Oled Tv , oled wireless speakers , Plasma Hdtv , 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