Originally Posted by Sunidrem
rogo - Is it fair to assume you've seen an OLED TV? The Sony 11" or otherwise. Because, for me at least, seeing the Sony 11" was what made me excited about OLED - very similar to the first time I saw NFL on HD. Are you that positive that the general public won't notice/care about the difference?
Sun, I've seen the Sony 11", the larger Sony prototype shown at the same CES, the LG prototype 15" and the larger LG prototype shown at CES 2011. My profound observation is this: Each time, the performance of the OLED relative to the other TVs currently available was less incrementally impressive.
This is what, honestly, I think the 'fanboys' don't get (not at all suggesting you are are a fanboy). Technology does not exist in a vacuum. OLED development has more or less set some bar without moving said bar since the Sony. LCD and plasma keep moving their own bars (LCD has moved its bar relatively more since then, in larger part because the last Kuros were so ridiculously good).
If you read the reviews of the Samsung Galaxy S II, they provide the most objective comments on this. The display is considered -- by some -- the best on the market. Others still find the iPhone 4's displays a bit more satisfying. This is telling in my mind.
Also, there was a time when existing flat panels were failing at one or more dimensions of picture quality pretty badly. That's just no longer true. It's worth looking at the list of picture quality attributes and considering how much better an OLED could be. I'd be happy to edit this post per user comments:Static Resolution
Static resolution is done right now. If/when 4k arrives, it will arrive first on LCD. There is much debate after if/whether this is going to happen en masse
. So far, OLED is not showing itself to be particularly easy to adapt to the highest pixel resolutions anyway.Possible improvement: NoneMotion resolution
Those of you that understand video know that still resolving all 1080 lines of a moving image can be tricky. Plasma solved this years ago. LCD has done so as of 2010/2011 with the Sonys and, apparently, the Elites. LCD still has some minor weirdness due to interpolation and backlight strobing being imperfect. I would label this an area where LCD could improve given the comments we read here and the need to shut off many of the enhancement circuits on LCDs, but keep in mind, the 2013 models will almost certainly be better than 2011 models.Possible improvement: MinorGreyscale and gamma
Done on both existing technology. Ruler flat D65 is achievable. It's also possible to dial in perfectly satisfactory gamma on both techs. Not clear OLED has any advantage here and might actually be worse at first.Possible improvement: NoneReference color
Rec. 709 gamut and the ability to dial it in has more or less been achieved on both plasma and LCD. Do individual models have issues? Yes. That said, OLED is not going to be free of model-to-model issues. There are still concerns about the specific wavelengths being output by given colors of OLED and their performance changing over time. Could OLED be better? Maybe, but color does not appear to be a real problem with existing technology.Possible improvement: Very very very minimalOn/off or sequential contrast
How black can black be in dark scenes? Very on current plasmas and exceptionally on current locally dimmed LCDs. Could this be improved? Infinitesimally, perhaps. Local dimming needs some work to eliminate halos / blooming. Plasma still needs to get back to Kuro levels. More zones will come to LCD. Maybe Panasonic will finally bring out its own Kuro killer plasma. Again, though, we are splitting hairs. There is room here, but there is not much room. The Sony/Elite are ridiculously good in this metric.Possible improvement: Minimal but it does existANSI or simultaneous contrast
The ability to show bright and dark at once. With local dimming, LCD is now an order of magnitude better than it once was. Plasma was always decent here, never amazing. For what it's worth, CRT was never amazing here, yet it was "reference" for years. OLED will be better. Will this improve picture quality? Marginally at most. Are LCD and plasma standing still here? No. In fact, plasma's biggest weakness -- light output -- goes away on mixed content and allows for small areas of very bright output.Possible improvement: Minimal and the importance is minimalResponse times and pixel shenanigans
Plasmas are already ridiculous fast, but some small number of people see phosphor trails. Some of you also can see dithering used to produce intermediate shades. Some of you never see either. The former is uncommon, the latter somewhat common. LCDs don't really have the quoted response times, but really are fast enough to refresh at 120Hz most of the time from grey-to-grey. Interpolated frames are weird sometimes, but that's really back to the motion topic. OLED will refresh as fast as plasma and should be able to skip the dithering. Whether it can entirely skip the persistence effect some of you see with phosphor trailing remains to be seen. Still, OLED is a best of both worlds here, which is nice.Possible improvement: Small, but real; many might not see it, some with really like itPixel fill ratio
Plasmas exhibit some amount of screen-door effect really close up, none at normal viewing distances. LCDs exhibit some really really close up, none at even somewhat abnormal viewing distances. OLED is better. OK, fair enough.Possible improvement: OLED will be an improvement for people who sit very closeRaw brightness
Not important at all. LCD already needs to be dialed down to avoid blinding people -- seriously. Plasma is weaker here in part because 1000w TVs are not socially acceptable in an age of scarce energy (contrary to popular belief, they are not illegal). OLED at first won't be exceptionally brighter than LCD and won't actually try to be in the long run.Possible improvement: None over LCDViewing angle
LCD's weakness. Vertically it drops off a lot, horizontally, brightness and contrast drop off at 20-40 degrees depending on model. This matters a ton to some people and not at all to others. Plasma? No horizontal viewing angle issues. Vertically? Some plasmas have a new filter that limits vertical viewing in exchange for reduced reflections from overhead lighting. Not much of a factor though. OLED will have plasma like viewing angles, but might also get filtered like plasma.Possible improvement: None over plasmaReflections
Every technology is going to suffer from this so long as there is a glass front. It's going to be worse if the glass front is "pure" or glossy. OLED has no secrets here except that it will hopefully use thinner glass like most LCDs do. But let's not kid ourselves, the new super-thin bezel Samsungs are like mirrors. The only reason they are tolerable is that most of the time the picture overpowers the reflections. Nothing about OLED is going to change this, sadly.Possible improvement: None
Imagine if we had made that list 10 years ago. Seriously, they were talking about OLED back then being <5 years away (just like now, really). First of all, plasmas were $5000 and up. Second of all, LCDs were not 40". Third of all, the maximum light output from both sucked. Fourth of all, black levels on both were awful or really awful. Fifth of all, ANSI contrast was bad. Sixth of all, color was nowhere near reference. Seventh of all, 1080p was largely a dream. Eighth of all, motion resolution was worse than static resolution. Ninth of all, fill ratios on both techs were terrible. Etc. etc.
Today, a bar that was sitting in Death Valley has moved up to Everest. The good news is that AMOLED is a technology worthy of Hillary and Norgay. The bad news is that LCD and plasma are
Hillary and Norgay.
So, yes, back to Sun's question, I am quite positive the general public won't notice or care about the difference. Some people will see the OLED TV as superior the same way some people see the Elite as superior. Some people will actually be unable to detect any differences whatsoever. A large number of people will wonder what all the fuss is about over a 55" TV when Costco, Best Buy, etc. have tons of 60" TVs that are well priced -- from $1000 to $5000.
I actually believe that almost any 11" TV with a lot of pixels would blow people away if they were told it was based on some kind of advanced technology. Tiny screens are going to look amazing. It's part of why iPhone is so breathtaking. So I don't really believe Sony proved all that much with their TV (and neither, apparently, do they). But that's really academic. If you hold iPhone up to Galaxy S II, you will find some people preferring one, some the other (note, iPhone has more pixels, Galaxy is AMOLED). You won't find large numbers of peoples -- and you especially won't even find expert reviewers -- calling it a revolution. Why? Because of that bar having moved so darned much.
(1) Accept this is a small market and attempt to sell just a few of them at high prices
(2) Abandon pursuit of the OLED TV market entirely because (1) is not especially attractive given how much capital investment it would require
(3) Sell at prices far down the learning curve to build demand while effectively sell millions of units below cost, competing with one's own products to do so
The only way (3) makes sense is if you really believe you will ultimately have lower costs than LCD and therefore gain a competitive cost advantage as well as the quality edge because it will cost you a lot of real money to gain a marketing edge that will be "ethereal" unless customers are actually convinced your product is superior and choose it over the competition in greater numbers than they already were choosing your product
. I should add that I don't believe AMOLED will be cheaper to produce than TFT-LCD anytime this decade if ever. These kind of claims are often made by upstarts in mature industries but almost never realized
. The upstart fails to understand that the existing technology has so more room to get cheaper than they can hope to comprehend and has economies of scale that they can only dream about. The report recently linked to here contains so many absurd assumptions about the cost of making displays, it's laughable. Some non-existent OLED fab the machines for which have yet to be invented is presumed to spit out finished product at a price lower than an LCD fab that is making millions of displays per year? Again, if anyone is interested, I have a nice bridge, old but in great shape, spanning the East River, for sale, inquiries welcome.