OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 89 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 193Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2641 of 10951 Old 09-26-2011, 09:24 PM
Newbie
 
outdatedtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Los Angeles california
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would buy it but 5k for a 25 inch oled no way. just wait intil they have bigger displays.
outdatedtech is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2642 of 10951 Old 09-26-2011, 09:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So I'm supposed to watch marketing for a TV I can't purchase in concert with the Olympics? Who comes up with these brilliant ideas?

I think you can. It will not be vapourware.

But I doubt it's gonna be reasonably priced. LG's solution should be cheaper than Sammy. Even so I doubt the 55" will be
specuvestor is offline  
post #2643 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 08:33 AM
Member
 
Sunidrem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OT-ish:

Back in 1999 I had a job at a software company. Not a dot com company with frilly HTML, but fun stuff: C on Unix/Linux/Solaris. Needless to say, a bunch of nerds worked there. One day at lunch two of the guys were all excited about the new "high definition TV" they got. Being the nerds the rest of us were, we quickly recognized that a high-def TV is useless unless the signal is also being broadcast in HD. Not to worry, we were told. For one hour a day, the local TV station broadcasts the 10pm news in HD.

I remember thinking what an absolute waste of money it was to buy an HD TV just so you can watch the nightly news in HD for one hour a day. Just googled and found an article that said the price of those TVs was $7k to $8k
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...ec98/hdtv.html
(this is from late 1998, but close enough)

Seems to have strong parallels, hopefully, to where we are right now with OLED TVs.
Sunidrem is offline  
post #2644 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 12:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I think you can. It will not be vapourware.

But I doubt it's gonna be reasonably priced. LG's solution should be cheaper than Sammy. Even so I doubt the 55" will be

I'm sorry, so now you believe the TV will actually be out before the Olympics? Forgive me, that just strains the imagination. The games start in 10 months. Do you have a guess as to how many they'll ship by, say, June 1 -- enough time to get them to Europe at least so people can buy them and watch them? Are we talking 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?

I just really don't believe anything LG says -- and with good reason.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2645 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 01:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
The original post was about both LG and Samsung.

Who knows how many they would sell? Like I said before, who cares? Any production would be incidental to working on the yields. They'll price them at a huge premium that will have no relation to the ultimate price for a 55" TV from a Gen 8 fab and advertise them to get some attention for the brand.

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #2646 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yes it's both LG AND Sammy. Both may be showcasing in Japan next month earliest or CES next year. If LG is making an AMOLED TV by next year I would think they are smoking pot, as I've been saying past 3 months or so.

But looks like it will be white OLED with IGZO implementation. Not exactly what I thought an OLED TV should be, but technically LG didn't say it's an AMOLED TV

Point is it is not vaporware. Like LG 72" it may not ship to US but you can get it if you really want it.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2647 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 05:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Sun, I paid $5000+ for my first HD set. Worth it to me. There's a gigantic difference however. The resolution of the best HD broadcasts is about 6x NTSC and there's more color info to boot. It's like night and day. I urge some sports fan to go try to watch non-HD sports these days. It's so terrible, it's a wonder how we ever put up with it.

Nothing OLED does is going to be more than incremental to the best TVs out there.

I recognize there are people who will disagree with the above statement, but they're wrong. Most of the problems of picture quality have been solved. A properly executed OLED TV could well be better than anything on the market, but it's going to be better on the margins. Maybe a touch better with motion. Maybe a touch better with simultaneous contrast. Certainly better at off-axis viewing versus LCD, but not really possible to do better in that regard than plasma. Effectively, LCD and plasma both offer reference color and greyscale already. The former offers enough brightness to turn night into day.

Slacker, it's not a given that production of these TVs is going to happen. I get that all of you think it is. It's even less of a given that LG will invest in trying to produce them. They talk about it a lot. They just don't do much about it. So when spec tells me they are going to actually have a TV for sale in 9 months, I am curious what he thinks the production will look like.

Samsung has a more intriguing story around OLED right now. They are shoveling out mediocre LCDs by the containerload. They are arguably proving the techynology is bad (it isn't, but you'd never really know it from them). And since they are locked out of full-array LCD for the time being, there are limits to how much better they can make their LCDs. Their problem is that they also can't make big LCDs apparently, and it's not really clear an 8G OLED fab is going to change their math problem in that regard.

(To be clear, they can make big LCDs right now with 8G, just not very efficiently. In fact, the best I can guess is that their putative 75" TV is actually coming off their 7-2 line at Tangjeong in a method similar to how Sharp is making the 80s. It doesn't make any sense to make the 75s on an 8G line at Samsung unless they are willing to waste a lot of glass. The "strip" on the edge is too small to make anything valuable at a fab that is normally dedicated to larger displays.)

8G glass is typically 2200 x 2500mm, which yields a 2x3 cut of 55" displays. That's why you keep hearing about 55" OLEDs. The problem is, it doesn't cut well into sizes above 60" at all. 8G doesn't even make for especially great cuts into 60". You'd really want about 2300 x 2700mm for a pure 60" cut with minimal waste. (Note, the 8G cut would have waste even if you used mixed cuts on the single sheet. Oddly, most references to 8.5G fabs refer to 2200 x 2500mm glass, which is 8G in Samsung/Sony speak. This could be because Samsung just didn't want to use the 8.5G nomenclature.)

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

We have heard a song and dance about how OLED is going to be cheaper than LCD. The problem with that nonsense is that it requires massive volume to even possibly be true. At some point Samsung might just have to start replacing LCD production with OLED to make it true because this marketing strategy does not have a chance of working. Even though some of you think it does.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2648 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
navychop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 2,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I think Rogo got attached to the idea that Sony is on the way out and will defend that no matter what. He's nothing if not sure of his predictions.......

Trust me. ROGO's predictions over the years have been exceedingly accurate. He can detach what we want to see from what we'll likely see.

Reunite Pangea!
navychop is offline  
post #2649 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 06:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:


it's not a given that production of these TVs is going to happen. I get that all of you think it is.

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

Perhaps you will be right that OLED's dont provide enough of an advantage over LCD's....but we have exactly one comprehensive view of an OLED television and it is overwhelmingly positive.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1289487180


Quote:


Conclusion

So, what is OLED? In short OLED is small light emitting diodes that does magic! OLED has been integrated in a few handheld devices in 2010 but is not yet ready for larger monitors and TVs. LG’s 15-inch EL9500 is currently the largest OLED-TV but in this test we were interesting in looking at the OLED technology from a critical point of view and thus commenting on the potential for this new display technology.

And we’re convinced that OLED is the new bright future of display technology. The OLED technology enables perfect black levels – even from extreme angles. Response time is lightning fast and viewing angles are extremely wide. Color reproduction is fantastic too, with amazing color detailing. But this is also largely a matter of proper calibration by the TV manufacturers.

OLED panels are extremely thin – down to a few millimeters – and we experienced no problems with either buzzing or inhomogeneous backlight. EL9500 was also able to provide enough brightness to ensure great picture in even brightly lit environments and at the same time maintaining the deep black levels. Shadow detailing was great, too, and the OLED technology has no problems reproducing darker grey tones.

OLED is without doubt superior to both LCD and plasma. It combines the best from both worlds and has none of the major downsides. It not only raises that upper bar but also the lower bar, enabling even cheap manufacturers to create great picture quality because of the stunning OLED picture characteristics.
The only downside of the OLED technology at the moment is the price. But really, that’s just a matter of putting it into mass production. And manufacturers are currently ramping up production of OLED panels so we hope that in a few years we see more realistic pricing on these wonders. Seriously, if this display was just 7-10 inches larger it would have replaced my current desktop monitor instantaneously…

The first professional Sony OLED's are now being shipped (per twitter) so I am hoping it wont be long before we get a real review. This will be particularly interesting since the competition will be the best of breed CRT's and LCD's on the market.

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #2650 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 06:18 PM
Member
 
Sunidrem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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?

Edit: Slacker's quote of a review says it all.
Sunidrem is offline  
post #2651 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Spec posted a rumor from a brokerage. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be correct, I don't just post rumour. I post those with constant newsflow from the chain and sound plausible. So I'll like to think it is "more"

As u know in our line we can't be dogmatic. I thought large size will come in 2013 as well, most of us think so. But I'm not a career prophet, I'm a career pragmatist and this is what the chain seemed to be saying. Though from the recent JPM contradiction on iPad shipment we have a feel of how difficult sometimes it can be. So hopefully it shows we finance guys do make some analysis rather than sell derivatives and wreck the world
specuvestor is offline  
post #2652 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 07:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunidrem View Post

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: None

Motion 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: Minor

Greyscale 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: None

Reference 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 minimal

On/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 exist

ANSI 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 minimal

Response 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 it

Pixel 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 close

Raw 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 LCD

Viewing 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 plasma

Reflections
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.

The market for quality has never been a mass market. There really is no precedent. And quite honestly, trends are counter to a "quality centric" product become a mass-market product. The entire OLED synergy cycle of low price coming from high production coming from market acceptance relies on some meaningful amount of early adoption based on quality. I don't see this happening. (See, MP3 obliterating DVD-A, SACD and even CD. See cell phone cameras obliterating -- slowly but surely -- other cameras even while DSLR maintains a tiny sliver of the market. See even Dropbox -- the simple, limited file tool -- obliterating SugarSync and countless more comprehensive backup solutions in terms of userbase.) This presents a dilemma. At some point, the would-be OLED manufacturer has to confront a very simple choice matrix:

(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.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2653 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 08:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
tory40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I thought it cost much much less to manufacture, enabling them to retain or improve their bottom-lines?

Can't wait to see a ghosting test done with OLEDs!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tory40 is offline  
post #2654 of 10951 Old 09-27-2011, 08:41 PM
Senior Member
 
powertoold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.

However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.
powertoold is offline  
post #2655 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 02:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
rogo, what was said 5 years ago about OLED is like SED or FED. It is quite irrelevant now. PMOLED was not able to produce moving pictures, just as E-Ink now. It will not be a display tech.

About a year ago I started to discuss in this thread on OLED and your reaction was just as "aggressive" Past 12 months we see that OLED is actually a viable technology.

Reason for my thinking 12 months ago is the same as now: 1) Sammy putting money where their mouth is and 2) Contrast, which is what the eye is MOST sensitive to.

Like I said before, if LCD can achieve OLED contrast under the sunlight then I think OLED is lost. Your comparison above is true in so many aspects but it is exclusive, when AMOLED incorporates the middle road for both LCD and Plasma. It can be more black than plasma, yet as bright as LCD, at slightly higher power usage than LCD. That's why their contrast is excellent if IMPLEMENTED correctly.

We can argue till the cows come home whether huge size >=70" TVs will be viable or there is a market for Elites, but ultimately Sharp put their $ where their mouth is. So has Sammy on OLED. Past arguments that OLED is vapourware has been struck down and then now large size OLED is vaporware is coming to roost. So question is at what point we will re-examine and allow OLED to mature as per all emerging tech and hopefully be competitive IN FUTURE with current tech.

They are not going to sell millions of OLED TV next year, but if Sammy builds the 8G plant, they THINK they will sell millions in 2013-14. Will it be too early as Sharp has done with the 10G plant? Only time will tell but their battleplans have been laid out, and it's up to the industry to dismiss it, like Plasma towards LCD TV some 6 years ago, or to react to it strategically. My feel is that you are doing the former.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2656 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 02:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Rogo, I think you are grossly overstating how much other flat panel technology has improved in recent years, underestimate just how much better OLED screens are, and are missing out key factors of image quality such as gradation.


As for Samsung's AMOLED screens vs the iPhone LCD, the main differences there are resolution—217 PPI is considerably lower than the 330 PPI of the iPhone 4 (the new Galaxy SII LTE HD screen is much closer at 316 PPI, but it is only available in Korea) and brightness—300 nits compared to almost 600 nits with the iPhone 4 screen.

Color gamut, contrast ratio, motion handling etc. all matters considerably less for a screen on a mobile phone compared to a HT display.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #2657 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 04:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:


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.

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

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

You are missing two very big points in your comparisons between the iPhone and the Galaxy S2 display. One is that the iPhone LCD is a LTPS display. It is much higher quality than any of the large screen LCD's. The fact that Apple used LTPS means that the two displays are actually cost competitive. Notice that nobody plans on bringing a 55" LTPS LCD to market.

The second point that you are missing is that the Galaxy S2 isnt reflective of AMOLED's ultimate visual capabilities. Samsung made various choices (such as oversaturation) for either cost or perception reasons. I guess that is why you use that as your reference rather than the LG review that I keep posting.

Slacker
slacker711 is offline  
post #2658 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Holy bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


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: None

Sony's 0.5inch XGA OLED EVF and the 0.7inch HD panel used in the HMD have very high PPI

Sony is dead.
Holy bear is offline  
post #2659 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mr. wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: land of the pumas
Posts: 3,812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold View Post

I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.

However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.

seen both the galaxy and iphone screens, and subjectively, the amoleds looked brighter, sharper, more color contrast, and just more pleasing to the eye.

don't know if this will play out with larger displays, but it is certainly one of the
reasons people are excited about the possibility of large oled displays.

neflixis our nemesis
mr. wally is offline  
post #2660 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 01:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

They are not going to sell millions of OLED TV next year, but if Sammy builds the 8G plant, they THINK they will sell millions in 2013-14. Will it be too early as Sharp has done with the 10G plant? Only time will tell but their battleplans have been laid out, and it's up to the industry to dismiss it, like Plasma towards LCD TV some 6 years ago, or to react to it strategically. My feel is that you are doing the former.

We disagree that plasma "dismissed" LCD. There was nothing they could do stop it. The gigantic economies of scale that were generated from the PC industry were brought to bear, slowly but surely, on TV. And the results speak for itself. The fact that plasma was not very easy to make cost effectively in smaller sizes and could not easily be made into 1080p in the 42" sizes did not help.

And besides, the picture quality of today's LCDs and plasmas is so much better than what out 10 years ago, it's not even funny. I suggest if anyone can, they go find one from the early part of the millennium and try to watch a movie. It's really quite awful. Now? It's really quite good. This hand waving that is so popular at AVS belies the fact that the world has absorbed somewhere around a billion HDTVs. Most of them are not in dire need of replacement because they are freaking HDTVs. Compare this to 1999 when basically every single TV on the planet needed to be replaced to enjoy HDTV.

As for this contrast business, I don't know what your experience has been Spec, but I urge you to do two things:

1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.

2) In a day-lit room, hang out with a Samsung D8000 LCD. I find that product to be generally "bad" in many ways. In a day-lit room., however, it's almost without compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

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

The funny part is that they are not absurd. First of all, "ink-jet printing" is not being used to make AMOLEDs. The fantasy of giant rolls of substrate being run off like so many Xeroxes is not happening anywhere. Second of all, TFT backplanes are still required for OLED displays. You know how they plan on making those? The way they plan on making them for LCD TVs (using IGZO). It's patently obvious you know nothing about learning curves and manufacturing efficiencies. I'm not going to apologize that I do. (When I say that AMOLED won't be cheaper to produce this decade than TFT-LCD, I should add, I'm specifically referring to large televisions -- I have no opinions about or interest in small cell-phone screens.) LCD yields are currently nearly 100% at television fabs. Why? Because production processes are so mature at every stage of manufacture.

No OLED TV has ever been mass produced save an 11" model that sold, who knows, 20,000 units and a broadcast model that sells something similar over a few years. And the company making those is sharing its learning with neither of the companies pursuing OLED TV. The idiotic analyst report is the one that makes all sorts of nutty assumptions. "Some factory that hasn't been built yet that has a cost we can only somewhat guess at will buy a line whose tools we don't know the price of. Said tools will produce yields of some predictable amount with input costs of some other predictable amount per square meter of display area. We can already tell you this is meaningfully lower than the cost of patterning/masking/filtering an LCD display of the same area because we are privy to the internal specifics of every bit of the cost structure of those fabs (even though we aren't but, hey, go with it)." This kind of drivel is exactly what Canon and Toshiba did around SED. You set up a fake argument -- called a straw man -- about the competition and then you beat it. Even before you produce a single display.

If and when Samsung is producing millions of OLED TVs -- and I'm sorry Spec, but millions of OLED TVs in 2013?!?!? that very much strains the imagination -- they will begin to work down the learning curve and gain manufacturing efficiencies. Until then, they are not getting any better at making OLED TVs. It's all hypothetical.
Quote:


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

I expressed no certainty. I expressed significant doubt that OLED will be cheaper than TFT this decade -- if ever.
Quote:


The second point that you are missing is that the Galaxy S2 isnt reflective of AMOLED's ultimate visual capabilities. Samsung made various choices (such as oversaturation) for either cost or perception reasons. I guess that is why you use that as your reference rather than the LG review that I keep posting.

No you ignoramus. I keep bringing up the Samsung because it's the only mass-produced AMOLED product on the market. An LG TV prototype of a model that never shipped is not very interesting. (Especially when the reviewer was drooling over having access to.) That review contains nonsense the reviewer cannot know. If I may paraphrase, "Even bad OLED TVs will be really really good". That's marketing nonsense from LG, not the expert opinion of the reviewer. Call me when someone ships a TV and I'll use that as comparison. Until then, the phone vs. phone is the valid comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Rogo, I think you are grossly overstating how much other flat panel technology has improved in recent years, underestimate just how much better OLED screens are, and are missing out key factors of image quality such as gradation.

I think you grossly didn't read my post. You can't improve on nearly every picture quality metric. Several are quite literally done. How do you plan on improving on "ruler flat gamma"? Impossible to do. Reference color? Not possible. Full 1080-line motion resolution? Not doable. As dark as the dark room black? Can't be topped. You are talking about marginal improvments and conflating them with revolution. This is done often by techno junkies on the internet. It's why people think Galaxy Tabs and Motorola Xooms will suddenly take market share from iPads.

Also, I love how these OLED screens that don't exist are somehow so much better. I saw the last 31" LG prototype. No one was being blown away by it at CES (I believe it was 31", someone can correct me). I spent about an hour there. In 2005, it probably would've attracted crowds. Now, not so much.

This notion that some large number of people are waiting for some big leap in picture quality along these fairly subtle dimension is wrong. It's always been wrong, so when I say it's wrong now, I don't have to worry about this prediction proving shaky.
Quote:


As for Samsung's AMOLED screens vs the iPhone LCD, the main differences there are resolution217 PPI is considerably lower than the 330 PPI of the iPhone 4 (the new Galaxy SII LTE HD screen is much closer at 316 PPI, but it is only available in Korea) and brightness300 nits compared to almost 600 nits with the iPhone 4 screen.

Yes, it should be nice to see that. NBA players are very excited by the new Samsung phones in particular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powertoold View Post

I've only seen OLED on a Samsung phone, and something about it was much better than any other display I've seen: contrast, colors, vibrance, viewing angles, etc. I've seen and used the iPhone 4 and have an iPad 2. They don't produce the same level of eye candy.

However, LCDs have gone a long way... I saw the Sharp Elite for a few minutes, and it looked great.

Power, I don't doubt your experience. I, too, am impressed by the Samsung phone displays. That said, I've read more or less every decent review of the Galaxy S II. While many reviewers call it the best mobile phone screen they've seen, not all of them do. And virtually none of them call it a revolutionary screen. That's very very important. When the Pioneer Kuro plasma shipped, a lot of people called it revolutionary yet many people couldn't understand what the fuss was about.

The Elite engenders a similar notion. It's so much freaking better than pretty much every other display in the room at MHT (although I'd say the VT30, D8000 Samsung plasma and Sony HX929 are not horribly far away) and yet people can walk by it without even noticing. Are they dumb? No, it's that there really aren't many terrible displays left. That's a huge, huge change in the past 5 years.

And if we fast forward to 2014-2015, around when this 55" OLED is in Magnolia for under $10,000 (even if you believe it's 2013, the situation doesn't change much), there's a problem here. Really nice $1000-1500 60" LCD TVs.... Even nicer $10,000 55" OLED TVs. Um, yeah, good luck. The most expensive LCD and plasmas will be sub $5000 -- and probably sub $3000 in 2013 to be honest.

Samsung has a viable alternative for all that screen capacity if they and Apple are not suing each other by then. That's even if they actually build out a full 8G fab. What they don't have is a path to 60" TVs from it. And even more absurd than selling $10,000 55" TVs is selling smaller, premium-priced TVs. So forget that, OK?

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2661 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.

I own a Sony HX900 and love it dearly, but there is definitely room for an order of magnitude improvement there. It's foolish to think that there isn't, just like people were asking how anyone could improve upon the original Kuros when they were so ahead of other flat panels at the time, and then the next generation literally improved the black level by an order of magnitude. (they went from 3,333:1 to 33,333:1 when calibrated)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

No you ignoramus.

There's no need to resort to name calling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I think you grossly didn't read my post. You can't improve on nearly every picture quality metric. Several are quite literally done. How do you plan on improving on "ruler flat gamma"? Impossible to do. Reference color? Not possible.

No consumer display currently on the market has a completely ruler flat gamma all the way down to black with good gradation, or reference colour all the way down to black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Full 1080-line motion resolution? Not doable.

The tests used for this are tailored to the displays. Panasonic claims their plasmas resolve 1080 lines each year, while simultaneously downgrading the previous year's model as they have increased the speed of the test to the limit of the new displays.

No flat panel out there currently can maintain full motion resolution with fast movement without artefacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

As dark as the dark room black? Can't be topped.

No plasma can do this at all. No LCD can do this when there is other content on the screen simultaneously. OLED can.


Plasmas might do well on viewing angle tests, but the gradation and bright room handling sucks.
LCDs might do well on gradation (OLED will be better) and handle bright rooms well, but the viewing angle sucks, motion handling still isn't great without interpolation.
There are numerous other issues with both technologies aside from the main ones mentioned here that OLED aims to fix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Also, I love how these OLED screens that don't exist are somehow so much better. I saw the last 31" LG prototype. No one was being blown away by it at CES (I believe it was 31", someone can correct me). I spent about an hour there. In 2005, it probably would've attracted crowds. Now, not so much.

It's the same as anything really. OLED is just a technology, what matters is doing it right. Sony has illustrated with their displays (especially the BVM-Es) that when it is done right, OLED surpasses any display made to date at any price. I have never seen any LG product that I have impressed with. The same thing goes for Samsung. They make products where the design might look nice at a distance, but get up close and you see that it's cheap and poorly put together. The specs might be good but the image quality doesn't live up to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

This notion that some large number of people are waiting for some big leap in picture quality along these fairly subtle dimension is wrong. It's always been wrong, so when I say it's wrong now, I don't have to worry about this prediction proving shaky.

Most people are happy to buy the cheapest LCD, but that's not why we're here. We're all here because we care about image quality and want the best. OLED offers that. There is a market for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Yes, it should be nice to see that. NBA players are very excited by the new Samsung phones in particular.

What?
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #2662 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 04:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Seriously, I want to respond to your post with "blah blah blah blah blah". As a courtesy, I won't. You are like the guy who argues his AMG Mercedes is "clearly superior" because it goes from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds while the other guy can only do it in 5.0 seconds. So what? The other guy generally doesn't give a rat's rear end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2663 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

We disagree that plasma "dismissed" LCD. There was nothing they could do stop it. The gigantic economies of scale that were generated from the PC industry were brought to bear, slowly but surely, on TV. And the results speak for itself. The fact that plasma was not very easy to make cost effectively in smaller sizes and could not easily be made into 1080p in the 42" sizes did not help.

And besides, the picture quality of today's LCDs and plasmas is so much better than what out 10 years ago, it's not even funny. I suggest if anyone can, they go find one from the early part of the millennium and try to watch a movie. It's really quite awful. Now? It's really quite good. This hand waving that is so popular at AVS belies the fact that the world has absorbed somewhere around a billion HDTVs. Most of them are not in dire need of replacement because they are freaking HDTVs. Compare this to 1999 when basically every single TV on the planet needed to be replaced to enjoy HDTV.

As for this contrast business, I don't know what your experience has been Spec, but I urge you to do two things:

1) See an Elite or Sony HX when you can. They are quite quite amazing. Nothing in a "home theater" setting is going to be an order of magnitude better.

2) In a day-lit room, hang out with a Samsung D8000 LCD. I find that product to be generally "bad" in many ways. In a day-lit room., however, it's almost without compromise.

--snip--

If and when Samsung is producing millions of OLED TVs -- and I'm sorry Spec, but millions of OLED TVs in 2013?!?!? that very much strains the imagination -- they will begin to work down the learning curve and gain manufacturing efficiencies. Until then, they are not getting any better at making OLED TVs. It's all hypothetical.


I expressed no certainty. I expressed significant doubt that OLED will be cheaper than TFT this decade -- if ever.

Not from my experience talking with the plasma guys. They have been saying they are so far ahead of the cost curve that LCD can only compete in the <42" space which they "give" to them (or plasma can't make, depending how you read between the lines). I seriously think they misjudged, even within LG & Sammy which makes both tech.

Yes PQ is great nowadays yet like you quoted, people can see the difference between Elites, HX & D8000 vs the rest. So there still exist a market for better PQ in lower prices. Like our bet on $5000 on 32" next Christmas, prices of OLED TV "should" be able to price down 1/3 annually for next 3 years or so (IF 8G ramps)when yield and operational efficiency improves, whereas the cost down for LCD is getting more and more limited as it matures. The same argument we had a year ago. There is a BASE for cost. 55" LCD is never going to be say $300.

And the 1bio HDTV sold has a global average size about 32" if not less. Normal TV or even PC upgrade cycle of 10-20% annually will be kicking in. And to be factually correct, I said 2013-14 for millions of TV Sammy hope to make. Just like Sharp "hope" to make 70" 3 years ago. So they could be wrong in the timeline especially if economy goes to a recession, which is consistently what I am saying: it's a strategy risk they have to take if they believe in it.

I'm not sure if OLED will be cheaper than LCD this decade. But the 2 facts are: OLED component cost is cheaper 2) Capex is higher. If 2) can be lowered on scale (ie depends if the Taiwanese gets in) then it is possible. Whether this decade or next, I don't know.

PS to be factually correct, nobody says everyone will buy a 70"-80" TV. But a lot of people say there is no market for 70". They are asymmetrical arguments. You were gunning for a 65" initially. Perspectives change. And the proof will be in the pudding of how the 55" OLED TV will look. And the reckoning is coming when it is no longer vaporware. And like the 70" Sharp, it will prove which hypothesis is correct. Now we nonchalantly talk 70-80" as normal what people would want if they can accommodate it in space or $.

And see if perspectives change again.
specuvestor is offline  
post #2664 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 05:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
I am more or less tired of this circular argument. So I give up.

OLED will win everything. No other technology stands a chance. It is clearly superior. It is clearly cheaper to build. It will clearly be manufactured by everyone, including companies that have demonstrated no wherewithal to manufacture it, it's just a matter of time. Whatever size it is built in will be the size the market demands because it will be just be so darned great, no one will be able to resist the greatness.

I hope you are all satisfied. You have won.

(I am going to watch my actual TV that's in my living room, which I plan on replacing very soon with another actual TV I can buy. It will be better. I doubt my wife or friends will notice anything other than that it was bigger. But I will sleep easier at night knowing that soon enough the great OLED monster will come and be better still. Smaller, but better. And I will feel inferior. But still OK. Because I will have already lost the argument. Today. 9/28/2011.)

(Edit: Also, spec, I like you. And I respect your thinking, but, um: "But a lot of people say there is no market for 70." Where did they say this? Can you show me? That's a new meme here that is used to set up a straw man argument. I've love to see the source quotes.)

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2665 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I posted the link in another thread which you might have missed:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21009941

I remember well because we were in the discussion as well, especially the large nose and the 7 feet Korean lady

BTW again to be factually right, no one is saying OLED will win everything. I think the market is big enough for the 3 tech, or at least this decade Constant argument about plasma vs LCD is tiring. This is not a thread for that either. It is whether it is VIABLE. References to other tech is to this end. I seriously think all 3 can co-exist in different segments. OLED will have to go for the <32" segment first, just as LCD did.

And Jan next year we will see if Sammy will indeed build an 8G as they reveal their capex plan. If not this thread will be silent for a while
specuvestor is offline  
post #2666 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Rogo,

I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
xrox is offline  
post #2667 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 09:53 PM
Senior Member
 
powertoold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Rogo,

I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?

Well if the OLED TV is like 5mm thick, has great 3D with its response time, and has perfect viewing angles, I'm sure it'll move a few sets.
powertoold is offline  
post #2668 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 10:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I posted the link in another thread which you might have missed:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post21009941

I remember well because we were in the discussion as well, especially the large nose and the 7 feet Korean lady

BTW again to be factually right, no one is saying OLED will win everything. I think the market is big enough for the 3 tech, or at least this decade Constant argument about plasma vs LCD is tiring. This is not a thread for that either. It is whether it is VIABLE. References to other tech is to this end. I seriously think all 3 can co-exist in different segments. OLED will have to go for the <32" segment first, just as LCD did.

And Jan next year we will see if Sammy will indeed build an 8G as they reveal their capex plan. If not this thread will be silent for a while

The second link in your "long memory" is a guy saying: "Most people simply want to do other things with their living rooms than have it dominated by a monster TV." I fail to see how that is consistent with all of you repeating the claim that "people here kept saying there is no demand for 70" TVs". You found two people, one of whom doesn't really say that. The rest of actually have yet to be remotely disproved: We claimed the market was small and believe it still is. And, by the way, most of us are part of the small market.

I think a lot of my posts should have been fairly clear on this, but apparently they haven't: I have a lot of reason to doubt Samsung will build an 8G OLED fab to build TVs that are big but not big enough to compete with really inexpensive LCDs.

I fail to see any way my comments on LCDs and plasmas are not entirely relevant and on point to this thread. To wit: Does what's going in in OLED technology represent enough of a revolution to really matter? I spent like an hour on that last post comparing the specific attributes of picture quality. I get back this facile crap, "No, I think it is enough". So I concede every one of everyone's arguments. You are all right, OLED rules, everything else fails. You all win. Congratulations.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2669 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 10:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,243
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrox View Post

Rogo,

I think we discussed this before but I remember seeing a presentation years ago when flat panels (LCD/PDP) were taking over CRT on how the flat panel sales/growth were being driven by replacements (ie - consumers replacing old bulky CRTs for new amazing hang on the wall flat panels). I've always wondered if by the time OLED is available in HT sizes will the consumer be wowed enough to want to replace one flat panel with another nearly identical looking flat panel. The "perceived" leap in technology just isn't as wide as CRT to LCD/PDP was. Any thoughts?

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

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

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

And, quite frankly, as I've outlined in excruciating detail, today's LCDs and plasmas are not those of 2005. So between you and me -- and really I urge most of the rest of the people posting in this thread to just move on, you've won, I promise -- I find the most optimistic pronouncements or assumptions around OLED absurd. In fact, it's actually more complex than that because the very customers who would ostensibly be most intrigued by something better are on their 2nd or 3rd HDTVs already.

What you really have to consider is a thought experiment, I think, of taking the worst 40" flat panel on the market and comparing it to the last 32" standard definition CRT. It'd be the equivalent of introducing a horse-drawn carriage owner to an automobile. Sure, both can get you from point A to point B, but they don't otherwise share much in common. The car would be mind bogglingly awesome. Pretty much everyone would want to trade in their carriage for a car. And once the car came down in price to Model T levels, pretty much everyone did.

Now, compare that to a situation where a Toyota Camry owner is introduced to a Maybach. Sure, it's nicer. It's spiffier. It's faster. But, you know, it's a lot more expensive. And on a day-to-day basis, it doesn't do much that the Camry doesn't do in terms of getting you to and from the office, or the market, or your kid's soccer practice. While a lot of people would cover the Maybach, not everyone would commit to owning one (in fact, few people actually seem to want them). Now, we're talking Camry owners here, so they know from Lexus. Maybe that Maybach is Lexus priced (and performing) and everyone wants to trade up. But a lot of people don't value the difference enough to make the trade. Such, in fact, is the Lexus/Toyota relationship today. Toyota vastly outsells Lexus yet there is certainly a market for Lexus vehicles.

Well, what if Lexus cut all their prices down to -- or even below -- Toyota levels? Every comparable Toyota would probably disappear and Lexus models would replace them. I can't imagine why on earth Toyota would do this, but if they did, then yes, it would work. OLED, initially, is the Maybach here. It will quite literally cost a ratio to the cheapest 50-55" LCD or plasma that is Maybach:Camry. And honestly, I believe the performance feature-set differences will be more like Lexus:Totoya. (Again, if you are otherwise pre-disposed to this ridiculous pro-OLED construct espoused in this thread, please pass by this post and understand you are right. OLED will rule the universe, everyone will agree its 10x better than LCD, etc. etc. No doubt about it.)

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

If we are to believe that it's plausible for production of these sets to begin ramping in the 2nd half of 2012 -- assuming some fab gets greenlighted in the beginning of 2012 -- then you'll forgive me for not believing that real volume production will be established until sometime in 2013. Between now and then, competing products will again get better and again get cheaper. I think that further shrinks the perception of how good the new kid in town is when he finally shows up.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #2670 of 10951 Old 09-28-2011, 11:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I think if OLED comes out and it looks better than the LCDs and plasmas available at any given time, then there will be demand for OLED even if the difference in picture quality isn't very noticeable. Videophiles will notice (or think the notice). Regular people might not notice a difference, but they'll think they notice. If it gets into the mainstream that OLED is the new, superior technology, then people will want it.

I remember about seven years ago reading a TV buyer's guide on some news site which claimed that LCDs, being the newer technology, provided better colors and contrast than CRTs. If people think it's better, then they think it's better, whether it is nor not (or noticeable or not.) Well I knew better, and went on to buy a HD CRT.

Of course price matters greatly and OLEDs we may never see a day with affordable OLEDs. Even if they do become affordable then that would be far enough in the future that LCD or plasma may meet or beat OLED picture quality by that point. But if the argument is OLEDs won't sell because they won't look that much better than LCD or plasma, I don't buy it.
Airion is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off